Archive for the ‘Republic’ Category

Macron Adresses “Republican Salute” to Marine Le Pen

May 7, 2017

Macron Says: Le Pen Neither President Nor A Fascist

Macron was elected in a landslide in France after an astounding worldwide tempest of lies and infamies. I say this, but I am not, not at all, National Front, quite the opposite. Macron celebrated Marine Le Pen, addressing to her a “Republican salute”, and basically saying her voters had good grounds to be worried..

There was a general mobilization of the Plutocratic Party (PP), worldwide, against Marine Le Pen. Let me hasten to point out that I am all globalist, anti-nationalist, anti-tribal. And I have long despised aspects of French nationalism. For example, I despise Joan of Arc, or, more exactly, the cult of Joan of Arc’s ideas. Joan was a fine, remarkably educated and smart young lady. However I condemn the will of hyper tribalism she incarnated and was an instrument of. Notice that this is a globalization issue: I was, still am, for the unification of France and Britain. The Queen Of the Four Kingdoms, Yollande of Aragon, and the party of southern plutocrats who financed, and used Joan of Arc as a device,  were a notorious sort. Their aim was power for themselves, at the price of war. Joan of Arc is the central symbol Jean Marie Le Pen erected for the National Front.

Latest elected presidential monarch of France, Emmanuel Macron. The French elected monarchy is 17 centuries old. Still, that question above has to be answered: why would We The People want to be led by a golden boy of the establishment, making more than the median annual income, every week? Just because he was in charge of inspecting taxes in government, before entering a private bank? All right, so it was with the Merovingian, 17 centuries ago: golden boys tended to end elected as kings. But is that enough of a reason? We need to ask this question, be it only to encourage President Emmanuel Macron to transmogrify into a world-saving form…

A Closer Look At Nationalism, Joan Of Arc (thus FN) Style:

At the time of the ephemeral apparition of Joan of Arc, plutocrats, then called “aristocrats”, that is, the best, were fighting each other dirty in France (and vassal England). An extravagantly libertine queen was strangled, in a distant castle, another married five days later. Yes, 5 days… Top monarchs and aristocrats  were poisoned, in very quick succession, before, during and after the (well-known) Joan of Arc trick: Louis X, Jean I, an infant, Philippe V (who supposed died from playing too much tennis… But obviously poisoned). Even the mighty empoisonner of kings, Mahaut, Comtesse d’Artois and de Bourgogne, was herself poisoned, followed by her own daughter, two months later.  

Of these terrible times, all that the French nationalists remember, is that Joan of Arc was great, for denying the legitimate king of FRANCE AND ENGLAND, then a very young child, his rightful succession. So Joan stole from a baby. Is that French nationalism relative to England! It is! Well, that’s very wrong.

So, no I am no rabid French nationalist, National Front style… The National Front is never criticized for its Joan of Arc cult. Instead, it is condemned for very dark, yet imaginary crimes (a condemnation in which Macron associated himself… But maybe that was not sincere and just disingenuous, thus, forgivable…)


Let’s Not Celebrate Division For Division’s Sake:

Now Macron wants to “recover the spirit of conquest“. Very good. But it has to be well-directed. Under Joan of Arc, and her sponsors, the spirit of conquest was oriented towards a useless split which caused a nearly 500 years long between France and England… Such splits happened before and since. The split between France and Germany lasted 1,000 years. The split between France and Algeria is an infant, relatively speaking. Such splits are useless… Except for the powers which profit from them.

We struggle, thus we are! This site is a struggle! Macron promises a struggle! Good! “For Good” is an elusive concept, and it’s not enough to see it, to believe it… For example, many think Joan of Arc was a force for good… I don’t, and I have excellent reasons for that, the exact same reasons which Macron brandishes (although he has more or less compared himself to Joan of Arc already, not to let the FN occupies all that terrain…) Yet Joan was no doubt personally good.

Joan may not have been executed, somebody else may have been: history is full of mysteries. For example the baby Jean I, mentioned, above may have survived. The child of his wet-nurse would have secretly substituted and poisoned in his place, when he was presented to the highest nobility; at least so confessed Marie de Cressay, the noble wet-nurse in question… on her death bed. At least so says Maurice Druon‘s historical novel series Les Rois maudits which dramatizes this theory. In La Loi des mâles. The reason to believe this is the profusion of unsavory behaviors and poisonings at that precise period in history which are thoroughly proven (just a small example: when Edward II, king of England, was painfully assassinated by the associates of his wife Isabelle, Louve de France, he could be heard screaming, a mile away, it was said… Not all deaths were discrete at the time.)

History is complex, and the minds it creates, even more so. The aura surroundings some of the main characters of history, are not just French, they are all too often importantly wrong (or right!) in ways twisting minds, to this day.


The Party Of Truth Is The Only One Worth Having:

The way to rule people is by ruling their minds. The way to exploit people is to exploit their minds, to the point that they exploit themselves for you.

To rule minds against themselves, one has to persuade them that lying is the new normal, and in their best interest.

Thus, reciprocally, if one is for progress, one should be for truth. This is why I denounce particularly outrageous lies. Wherever they come from. The architecture of lies is pretty much the architecture of power.

For example, there is no evidence from her mouth that Le Pen is a racist homophobe. Quite the opposite, she was very clear on this. So where does the need to express such lies come from? Don’t forget that humans are Machiavellian animals.


As Macron Recognized, in a very serious victory allocution , Those Who Voted For Le Pen had Very Serious Points:

Some of the policies advocated by Le Pen, such as national preference in government deal making have been US LAW for generations. Nobody calls the US names for that, and the EU, and France are fully open to US abuse in this respect. How much “left” is it to keep on ignoring US nationalist abuse of Europe? But that is exactly what the left has been doing for decades now.

French peasants are supposed to farm, hands tied in the back. They can’t use plenty of modern methods, by French “left” law, or European “law”, but then the French market is open to unfair competition. For example, GMO grains and beans are forbidden in France, yet, if produced overseas, they swamp the French market.

GE, with enormous help from Obama, bought Alstom, and Macron said alleluia. No wonder Obama who loves fat checks, loves Macron.

As far as accusing Le Pen of Vichy, those sort of hateful, racist accusations are grotesque. Jean Marie Le Pen (not a friend of mine!) tried to enroll in the FFI (Force Francaise de l’Interieur). However, Colonel Tanguy, the Communist head of the FFI, told him he was too young to do so. The FFI was killing Nazis.

Yet, ever since, he entered French presidential politics, Le Pen Senior was denounced as a Vichy collaborator… Especially by that real Vichy collaborator, French president Francois Mitterrand.

Another thing is that a casual look at what happened shows that the Vel d’Hiv round-up was ordered by GERMAN NAZIS, not by “Vichy”. Although I hate the junta in Vichy, the truth is Vichy did not give the top orders north of… Vichy. The round-up of the Jews in Paris, thanks to chief of Vichy police Bousquet (a collaborator who was also life long friend of Vichy Francois Mitterrand) was reduced to foreign refugees: 13,000 Jews instead of the 200,000 French Jews the Nazis initially wanted.

The self-declared “left” cannot get mileage from outrageous lies. The more of those, the greater the risk that people will realize they have been manipulated into the exact opposite of what they should be, and the more democracy will go Trump in the night.

Patrice Ayme’

Fight Burkinis With Monokinis

August 26, 2016

Burkini, Bikini,  Monokini, Naked Truth!

For at least 2,000 years, and contrary to “postmodernist” repute, France has been at the mental helm of civilization. Francia pretty much invented the legal system which “renovated” (as the Franks themselves proclaimed in 800 CE) the Greco-Roman globalization, under a more sustainable form (no more slavery, replace it with education, science and tech). This is why today’s basic world globalization is along French lines through and through (a vague feeling that it may well be so infuriates American neo-imperialists, who are partial to slavery, in their own time-honored tradition, and feel, rightly, that the French equalitarian approach is the natural enemy of their own oligarchic drive… thus explaining their friendliness to Islam).

The term “bikini” and the two piece garment named accordingly, was the invention of a French engineer, and (concurrently!) a French fashion designer. “Bikini” was an allusion to the new, explosive world made manifest at the Bikini atoll (where nuclear fission bombs were tested). It used, craftily, the prefix “bi”, for “two”, as the bikini was indeed in two pieces.

The bikini was not really new: bikini representations are around 8,000 years old (the mother goddess, Cybele, appeared that way, sometimes). The bikini was a natural technology to invent. 

Roman Bikini Babes Frolicking In Gym, Centuries Before the Famous Rophet Married a Six Year Old

Roman Bikini Babes Frolicking In Gym, Centuries Before the Famous Sexist, Murderous Rophet Married a Six Year Old, Breeding With Her, When She Was Nine!

13 centuries ago, though, the fanatical, anti-civilizational ideology known as Islam, having been irrigated by Persia and the Greco-Romans, brutally arose in the desert. A key to its sudden military success against Greeks, Romans and Persians, was to treat women as breeders, rabidly, one should say, rabbitly, breeding immense hordes of fanaticized warriors, to make Arab armies large, numerous and completely relentless. To breed a fanaticized warrior, it helps that his mother knows little, and aspire only to obey… religiously. So the future warrior will not know enough to second guess his superiors when they order him to die for the “faith”.  

To keep women subjugated, those breeding machines have to learn to enjoy obeying absurd orders, and the more absurd, and the more gleefully obedient those culture deprived morons are, the better. Naturally, breeding machines will transmit the same love for absurd orders, and lack of critical culture, to their children. Don’t laugh: this is how Islam became the world’s top war ideology (this is so obvious that even Adolf Hitler understood this, and basically said it). In one generation, Arabia was overflowing with single-minded warriors, ready to take on the world (until they met terminally with Grecian fire and Frankish steel).

Thus, many Islamist sub-ideologies (or sects, as one should call them), decided that the bodies of women should be fully covered, all the time. The absurdity was irresistible, precisely because it was so absurd.

The “burkini” (contraction of burka-bikini) was created 12 years ago, by a Lebanese Australian who had watched her niece bathing in a burka. The burkini covers the entire (presumably) shameful body of the Muslim woman, except for her feet and face, sparing beach goers of this (presumably) awful exhibition. Thirty French communes forbade the burkinis, on the ground that it broke the principle of equality of genders. Islamists were delighted. Unsurprisingly, the French State Counsel (“Conseil d’ Etat”), the highest administrative court and legal adviser of the state, found those interdictions unlawful. Today, 8/26.16.

The New York Times, of course, was delighted to jump into the fray, and it concocted an anti-French, pro-Islamist piece written by an alleged pre-college teen (actually it sounds exactly like the sort of article written by the usual committee at the new York Times). The way the USA looks at Europe, for a century, is that the more divided, and confused, the better. I sent the following comment, it was immediately censored:

There is no “modesty” in the burkini. Quite the opposite: it’s insolence to believe one can improve on god’s perfection, by putting a garment over a body, especially when it makes no sense, as it imprisons a body in straps, ligatures, smothering adhesion, and dripping water.

Moreover, the psychological imposition of the burkini is a desire to impose on women the feeling that their bodies are horrible, so incredibly horrible, that one should absolutely hide them. Is not that a form of psychological abuse? And as this psycho abuse is imposed only on women, assuredly, it is blatantly sexist. How can one expect women so abused to think and feel straight?

No wonder the propagandist feels insecure while writing her anti-French piece. She has been made insecure by Islamist propaganda, which insists a female body is one of the world’s great horrors, to be hidden at all and any cost.’

My position on the burkini is subtle: the garment itself is ludicrous, as the piece in the New York Times itself illustrates. But being covered up in the sun is not. 

I am in a weird position: as a young child in Africa, I covered up most of the time (against sun, heat, mosquitoes, tse-tse flies…). That was from observation, and was criticized, even ridiculed, by quite a number of adults. Of course, I was right. So I am a friend of getting dressed in the sun, and view reddening Germanoid lobsters self-cooking on the beach, with undisguised contempt.

Still I consider hard-core Salafist Islam as a plutocratic ideology friendly to military dictators, an enemy of (most) progress. And I hate gender inequality, whenever not forced by genetics (in other words, I hate sexism, be it only because it makes humanity stupid).  

So what’s the way out?

The monokini. To start with.

Yes. Don’t fight fire with fire. Fight fire with water. If wherever burkinis are found, so are naked female chests, interest for burkinis will fade away. Burkinis don’t jiggle the right way.

Amusing? Not just that. You see, Islam and its Judeo-Christian inspiration are unnatural superstition (whereas a republic is as natural as possible). A burkini, on the face of it, is as unnatural as possible. To embrace the burkini is rather a contradiction for a religion which let beards grow, and refuses to depict reality, such as painting human beings or animals, on the ground that both are perfect works of god, that one cannot improve upon!

Whereas a monokini is much closer to god. Indeed, a bikini is much more natural, much closer to god’s perfection. A burkini is an ungodly artefact, Botticelli’s Venus, a better representation of reality, as god intended it to be.

One may want to go even further, and fight the unnatural ideology of Islam with full nudity. The Islamist emperor may be clothed, but it has no brains. Fight him with the naked truth. That’s what he fears most.

Patrice Ayme’

Euroskepticism’s Awakens Not

January 17, 2016

I have said it many times before, I will say it many times again: the Europe Union was set-up to avoid war. This is what Euroskeptics who claim to love Europe should be reminded of. Especially the British.

Of course there won’t be war, or even disagreements, between the French republic, and Britain. There is not the problem. The problem is in Eastern Europe.

A popular Polish magazine published a cover portraying five leading EU politicians – led by the German chancellor, Frau Angela Merkel – in Nazi uniforms beneath the headline “These People Want to Control Poland Again”.

Nice Uniforms. Poland & Hitler Became Allies In 1934. Poland Turned to France ONLY in 1939, After Spain Fell, and So Did Britain Agree to Follow France Against Hitler, After Poland Did, In 1939. Too Late.

Nice Uniforms. Poland & Hitler Became Allies In 1934. Poland Turned to France ONLY in 1939, After Spain Fell, and So Did Britain Agree to Follow France Against Hitler, After Poland Did, In 1939. Too Late.

The image on the front of the weekly Wprost showed Merkel, the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, (Socialist, SPD) European parliament president Martin Schulz, EU commissioner Günther Oettinger, and Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian prime minister, leaning over a map, from a wartime photograph of Adolf Hitler and his generals. (By now there should be more pictures of Merkel in Nazi uniform than of Kanzler Adolf Hitler himself!)

Germany is paying vast amounts of money to support the sustained and astounding expansion of the Polish economy since 2008. Some Germans of influence are starting to grumble (and they should).

Verhofstadt, who leads the liberal Alde group in the European Parliament, called the image  “outrageous”, adding that the EU was a “community of values” and that it was “the duty of all of us – commissioners, chancellors or not, to raise our voice when a government is endangering these principles and attacking democratic institutions”.

The Germans Schulz and Oettinger, have been critical of the conservative, severely Catholic Law and Justice (PiS) party, in power since October. It strengthened government control over the constitutional court, civil service and Polish public radio and television. Other Europeans are not amused. This problem arose with Austria’s flirting with the extreme right and Hungary’s Orban before. Both became non-sequiturs (Orban took measures many other European states adopted since, so Orban is not that bad).

The Francophone Martin Schulz described the Polish government’s actions as a “dangerous Putinisation of European politics”, while Oettinger proposed that Poland should be put under rule of law supervision, a (new) legislation designed to deal with “systemic threats” to EU values.

Meanwhile the war against Islam goes on (yes, because that’s what it is, sorry to break the news…). The Islamists attacked in Istanbul, Djakarta, Ouagadougou. There, in the Burkina Fasso capital, two famous Swiss humanitarians were killed by the local subsidiary of Al Qaeda (the USA announced in the past, erroneously it turns out, that they had killed its leader, who had made an attack on an Algerian refinery… Among other things).

This shows, once again, that humanitarianism, while not being exactly nothing, is clearly minor relative to militarism: humanitarianism is possible only when an empire has been set-up. Humanitarianism is possible only when a modicum of law already rules.

The Islamist State lost 20% of its territory in Syria in a year. The Islamist State is losing ground to Kurdish forces. However the Islamist State still controls 60% of Syrian oil production.

The price of a woman on the slave market of the Islamist State was 150 Euros. Holy Islamist script sanctifies slavery, alleluia. Meanwhile, the price of oil is the lowest in 12 years.

If we want humanitarianism in Europe, we need an empire first. A republican, democratic empire. Extreme, aggressive localization, fragmentation, nationalism, closing of the borders, competitive devaluations a la Friedman-Krugman, can only lead to war.

The latest Star War movie, episode VII, “The Force Awakens” does not hit on that idea. Instead it represents a “New Order” rising to destroy “The Republic”. This was indeed the situation between the “New Order” of the Nazis and the Italian fascists, against the FRENCH REPUBLIC, in the 1930s. But, at the time, the fascists had the help of a deus ex machine, the Anglo-Saxon plutocracy. It’s only the latter, and the influence it exerted on the British and American governments, making their behaviors at best ambiguous (Britain, Belgium), if not downright treacherous (USA).

Many Euroskeptics affect to present the meek and weak and inchoating European Union Federal structures as a “New Order” full of strength and evil. But the exact opposite is true.

When the Huns in the Fourth Century and the Mongols, a millennium later, bore onto Europe, it is the division, confusion, multiplicity and weakness of the European political structures which made their assaults possible.

Earlier the German invasions into the Roman empire (fascist, but peaceful and rich inside) had also be made possible by confusion and weakness. Especially military weakness. The latter was made possible by a lack of means consecutive to plutocratization (the hyper rich refused to pay taxes, hoping that, somehow, weaker official armies would still be able to weaken the enemy enough to make their own private armies able to control the situation…).

We are in a similar situation: a raid with a 15,000 men armored thrust by the French, and, or the Americans, would get rid of the Islamist State capital of Raqqa.

But, of course, the real problem is Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Why should the West tolerate those outrageous deviants? Because we are led by deviants ourselves. Lesser deviants, maybe, but still deviant.

So what of this Star Wars’ The Force Awakens’? Well, I did not fall asleep, thanks to the special effects, which are better than ever (as they should). But, contrarily to the rave reviews I read, the story was boring, an already swallowed, now regurgitated food, we had been served before. Contrarily to the (much decried) “prequels” it did not break any philosophical new ground. The Islamist State writes much better, much more innovative scripts, which dig much deeper in the human condition.

What should France and Germany do? Keep on unifying with each other, and forget the noise of those out to distract them from the imperial task at hand…

Patrice Ayme’



How Civilizations Go Down. Why There Is Hope

January 2, 2016

Gloom and doom go only that far. A number of commenters, or authors such as Machiavelli, entertained pretty abysmal considerations on humanity and its future.

In the case of Machiavelli, pessimism was understandable: he rode two horses condemned to decline and fall, namely the Republic of Florence (which was turning into a plutocracy), and Caesare Borgia, Cardinal at 18 years of age, who later resigned his church position in an attempt to seize power in Italy, a place where Spain had invaded the south (freed centuries prior, by the Franks, from the Muslims), France was trying to hold onto Naples (but lost because the Spanish general in command was too good). Most of the peninsula was covered by forts and domains which had feuded for centuries.

Nowadays, we have grounds to be optimistic. I will explain why below. However with a caveat: history is now flowing extremely fast, as we are approaching a technological and computational, thus theoretical singularity.

We Already Have A Better Understanding Of What Brought Rome Down The First Time, We Can No Doubt Avoid It, The Second Time, With Even More Understanding

We Already Have A Better Understanding Of What Brought Rome Down The First Time, We Can No Doubt Avoid It, The Second Time, With Even More Understanding

There are three reasons why civilizations collapse: invasion, ecological collapse, plutocracy.

I use all the time analogies with Rome’s Decline and Fall, yet on a much grander scale than Edward Gibbon. I root firmly the Decline and Fall as starting in 200 BCE, with the rise of plutocracy. There are a lot of deep analogies between what happened then, and what is happening now.

Yet we also enjoy major differences with Rome. To avoid Rome’s fate, we have to cultivate these differences. (And our gaze turns towards the European Union.)

Rome was a quarter of humanity, and Roma was ALL the civilized, and Republican influence zone. Yes, China, India, Persia, and well before Egypt, were civilized. But only the only drowned and expired Sumerian cities could pretend to have a high Republican index: Sumer invented the bicameral system still in use today. Persia did not, China did not, and, as far as I know, neither did India.

But Rome, like the top Greek cities, was a Republic. However, most Greek cities crashed and burned within a century or so. Rome built a huge empire, and lasted so long, it’s not clear it ever stopped. Although it declined, and fell, it got up again, as the Franks engineered and observed. Thus Rome founded the present political system

Persia was advanced enough to seriously bother Greeks and Romans, it was only or equal civilizational level for a fleeting moment under Darius, and in the late Sixth Century (thus, 1,000 year later). (This is my own observation/theory, sure to rile up some out there!)

All the neighborhood of Rome was vastly inferior. Although the Celts were superior in ocean going ships and metallurgy, and even captured Rome in the Fourth Century BCE, their abominable religion was quite a drag.  Actually, it was such a drag, the Celts embraced Greco-Roman civilization even before Julius Caesar showed up with his ten legions.

The Persian religion, Zoroastrianism was very advanced, arguably more so than Christianism (which copied many of its elements, in particular the obsession with truth and the logos, thanks god). The Middle East got tied down by the instauration of “hydraulic dictatorships” all over. The Persian/Iranian/Mesopotamian ensemble was a vast military mess which never recovered imperially, thus politically, from the People of the Seas invasions.

Now the situation is quite different.

First, the USA is a EUROPEAN COLONY.Rome was not a colony; it was initially occupied by Etruscans, themselves one of the People of the Sea. But, at the same time, the Etruscans civilized Rome. Rome also got civilized by the “Magna Grecia”, the Great Greece of Southern Italy, stating in Nea Polis (Naples).

Second, the mother ship, Europe, gave birth to a gigantic empire. It’s not just that European colonies control the Americas and Australia. France, the USA and Britain Exclusive Economic Zones, EEZs, covers much of the world’s exploitable oceanic depths.

Although weakened by its own crazies (Prussia/Germany/Nazis, Mussolini, Franco, Lenin/Stalin and their subordinates), plus major American plutocratic maneuvering, and in a bad state presently, Europe not quite done yet. After all the good guys (French Republic and British pseudo-monarchy) won. Now the French Republican systems, and monarchies to the same effect, cover Europe. Germany is sister republic to France, in particular.

Third, the Roman Republican system spread way beyond Europe and her colonies. China and India, and most of the rest of the UN have actually adopted (and adapted) many of WESTERN civilization’s better sides. However, China is still a dictatorship, and (partly) India a mess.

Another difference with Rome starts with a similarity: Rome got in a huge ecological crisis, starting around 100 CE. The Romans could not understand what was happening. They said:”The world is getting old”. Well, what was happening is that Romans had exhausted the soils, and the mines. However we know what they did not: tremendous technological progress can enable to change exploitation regimes.

Thus, the fourth difference with Rome; a huge CO2, GHG, Climate Crisis is incoming, but everybody knows about it, and fixes are in sight. A crisis is an opportunity as the Chinese would say.

Hope? People have to learn from history, and that means, the real history. Hyper maneuvering by USA plutocracy happened in much of the Twentieth Century, and is still ongoing right now. People can’t understand that, as long as they don’t realize that, without American plutocracy, Hitler just won’t have happened. At least, not happened as catastrophically as he did.

But there is hope that people, thanks to the Internet, realize that they have been manipulated in both what they know, and what they can hope to achieve. In particular, Direct Democracy is in the best position to succeed ever. The Athenian Republic found difficult to achieve Direct Democracy, because it did not have the Internet. The average Athenian voter was one day’s travel away from the voting booth. Nowadays, the average voter has her, or his hand on the voting device, namely the smartphone. No more excuses.

Objections can be raised. The preceding was a partial answer to several commenters on this site, John, Aaron, GlouconX, Eugen… The latter jumped on Machiavelli to object to Direct Democracy; however, Machiavelli was not just an author and philosopher. Like Plato, and especially Aristotle, he was a vested ACTOR of the disasters he described, and thus deeply biased, all the way to the greatest depths of the human soul. People who have interest to be stupid, will be stupid. Be it only to forget the fools leading us by the nose. Direct democracy is the answer to stupidity.

However, there is snow outside and further comments will be delayed until enough snow will have been mastered by the imperialistic author of these lines. Hey, it may be the last snow ever, let’s enjoy a cold El Nino, while it lasts! Non-Linearity is ready to ambush us. Let’s build memories while we can, be it just to be melancholic later… being of many minds is what intelligence is about.

Patrice Ayme’  

President “Finally” On His “Own”?

May 19, 2015

So the President Of The U.S. (“POTUS”) claims. Hope we can believe in.

Barack Obama just got his own Twitter account. Just like millions of teenagers out there! He is coming out on his “own”! Let me reproduce the exchange:

President Obama ‏@POTUS May 18

“Hello, Twitter! It’s Barack. Really! Six years in, they’re finally giving me my own account.”

Patrice Ayme ‏@Tyranosopher

@POTUS Welcome! A question: who is “they”? What else are “they” “finally giving”? In any case, nice to see you on your “own”.

Barack Obama committed a Freudian slip, on steroids. This time, and not for the first time, he admitted he is not on his own. Barack Obama, president of the USA, is even more grounded that the average American teenager.

Some will say that this is understandable: a president, like other top politicians, has to have “handlers”, people in the shadows, telling him what to do, what to say, where to go, writing his speeches, etc.

A president, some will say, has to “preside”, represent everybody, the nation itself, he, or she, cannot be just an individual, but a function, an institution.

However, who does he talk to?

When one visits Barack Obama, and pays attention to the surroundings, what is striking is the military deployment. Hundreds of superb professionals, trained to kill with heavy weapons are all around, hidden from public view. It has to be hidden, because it were not, the USA would start to look like a military dictatorship. We don’t want to feel that way, do we?

So who goes through this (peregrinating) military fortress? The best and the brightest. Access is denied to common folks. Serious scholarly studies have show that, in the matter of legislation, only the preoccupations of the elite go through.

(Since this is known, that only the elite legislates, the very knowledge of this anti-democratic horror may have change the behavior of the “Democratic Party” rank and file. Thus, I feel incline to believe, the resistance to the Trans Pacific Partnership, the TPP. That other scholarly studies, just published have shown that such “free trade” treaties are reduced quality employment in the USA, did not improve matters.)

Who is the best and brightest? The most powerful and wealthiest. Those who will feed and comfort all the critters of the present Obama administration, once that vaporizes in two years.

In other words, the president, and his collaborators, talk to the powers that be. The wealth, that is.

Barack Obama was explicitly told, before he became President, that he had to leave his friends behind. “They only cause problems.” So he was told by a plutocrat who used to be Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles.

Those are the ones who control Barack Obama as if he were an unruly teenager. After six years of good behavior, those worthies are happy to let little boy Barack get his own Twitter account. Little Barack is now a big boy. A boy who served the big white masters very well. They are grateful, and impressed.

So what we see is that, having just one, or a few people in charge, cannot work: unavoidably, they will come under the spell of the pre-existing class of owners.

That was a well-known problem. So Robespierre, Saint-Just and company decided to exterminate the pre-existing owners and controllers (the famous “Terreur” of the French Revolution). Earlier in England, Cromwell, the “Lord Protector” had instituted a similar system which dissipated quickly after his death (which happened within 5 years). The Terreur lasted roughly a year, before its perpetrators got cut down to size.

However Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Khmers Rouges were more successful: they eradicated the pre-existing class, ruthlessly. In retrospect, everybody agrees that was a mistake (and the present “Princelings” in command in China’s “People Republic” will be the first to tell you so, thus they reconstituted an elite composed mostly of themselves!)

The solution?

Get out of the class problem entirely. How? Make an increasing number of drastic decisions subject to the vote of the People.

For example, our newly liberated boy Barack wants to get “trade authority” to negotiate the TPP (and a similar Transatlantic Treaty). Then he will talk to the adults, the very wealthy and powerful adults who control his Twitter accounts and all what he is supposed to feel and think about, and how.

Why not to submit the TPP to a referendum?

Because most of the individuals negotiating the TPP right now are employees of giant corporations? Whereas government representatives are few; the TPP will give corporations right they don’t have now, such as modifying laws, and suing states. Although that was hidden below thick layers of lies.

That the boy who could only get his Twitter account after six years wants to represent, all by his little self, nearly a billion people in the West, is surrealistic.

We used to have representatives and officials and ministers, out of necessity. In countries such as France, or, a fortiori, the USA, it would take weeks to travel across. In the Middle-Ages, only the cardinals living around Rome, no more than 20 of them, would elect the Popes. A cardinal in England, or Spain, or Germany, would not take part in these elections.

But now we have the Internet.

The root of the word “minister”, as in “Prime Minister”, is the Latin ministrare “to serve, attend, wait upon”. In the Middle-Ages, it was closely related to servitude (or ministrels, the musicians who attended to courts). We don’t need those servants anymore: they have other masters, they do not obey us anymore.

Thanks to the Internet, we can give our own opinions, and debate them. Switzerland is increasingly using these “votations”. The system works splendidly. Most controversial measures lead to fierce debates, and public opinion varies accordingly.

Debates do not have to replace democratic institutions (army, police, justice, the orders of MDs, etc.). These institutions, which are meritocratic, are the answer to Socrates’ objection to electing generals and the like (as was done in Athens).

However Socrates did not object to Athens National Assembly, which often necessitated a quorum of 6,000. That meant that farmers of Attica, if they wanted to vote, had to leave their farms for many days. Nowadays, with the Internet, they could vote while having breakfast.

Debates allow good ideas to exterminate bad ideas. That’s what we need.

We don’t need to be led by people who need six years of good behavior to be authorized to have their own account.

Patrice Ayme’

Multibrain: Republic, Democracy

July 29, 2014

Some brainiacs such as the philosopher Michel Serres (of “France decapitated”), make a big deal that France is a “Republic”, and the USA a “Democracy”. It’s the sort of mock sophisticated distinction that those who want to look intellectual embrace. Serres has taught in plutocratic universities of the USA, he should know better. Or, maybe, he knows better how to serve his masters than yours truly. The distinction is without merit.

First it blows up the differences between France and the USA. In truth, both Republics are much more similar to each other than they are, to any other regime in the world (including the United Kingdom).

Differently from Rome and Athens, the USA and France were born as entangled republics. Both Republics have recent imitators, namely dozens of modern states.

Second, the main difference between “Republic” and “Democracy”, as it happened 25 centuries ago, was just a matter of language and esthetics. The beauty of how the concept sounded in Greek did not translate in Latin (‘Populus-Imperium” has six syllables).

Athens called itself a “demokratia”, because demokratia was a Greek word. Greek spoke Greek, Romans spoke Latin.

Too Big For Debate Killed Respublica

Too Big For Debate Killed Respublica

But democracy was not exclusively a Greek concept. It was as strong, if not stronger, in Rome.

Indeed, the “rule of the People” is how human societies have always worked best (except during war): distributed intelligence, creating the super-brain effect, from the many brains debating. TheMultibrain effect. Whereas, indeed, I do not believe in the “Multiverse”, the human brain, and, even better, any human society, is a multiverse onto itself.

Democracy allows to tap in this multiverse of the multibrain. Democracy is a multiverse. For real.

So the Romans spoke Latin. They had two words for “power” in the sense of “rule”. “Potestas” for lower magistrates, Imperium” for higher magistrates (Consuls, Proconsuls, Praetors; “Censors”, although higher magistrates, did not have the “Imperium”).

It would have been all too long, thus awkward to make a single word with “populus”, “potestas”, and “imperium”. Thus the romans instead used the Thing Public (Res Publica). Later the Demos-Kratos of the Greeks, Latinized into “democracia”, was used.

But that does not mean the Romans did not practice democracy. They did. Real democracy, that is, direct democracy. In practice, there was little difference between direct democracy as practiced in Athens, and that practiced in Rome.

(But for the fact that Athenian democracy lasted two centuries, and the Roman one, around five. Also, even under the Principate founded by Augustus, many Republican functions kept on going, and it was not clear that the Republic had stopped, as the weird transition between Augustus and Tiberius amply demonstrated.)

The various Roman “Magistrates” were masters of diverse functions, and represented those functions. They implemented People Power, they did not displace it. They did not represent people, just functions.

Rome, or at least the Roman Republic, which lasted five centuries, ignored that oxymoron, “Representative Democracy”. SPQR, the Senate and People of Rome, lasted so long, precisely because the Romans refused to be represented in some theater, by professional liars. (For those who don’t know, oxymoron is Greek for “sharply stupid”.)

Athens’ democracy failed, because, as Demosthenes pointed out, the Greek city-states refused to make the tremendous war that was required to get rid of the fascist plutocrats from Macedonia. In the end the war came to them, and Antipater, one of Philippe’s senior generals, took Greece over thanks to enough torture and execution to terrorize the Greeks into submission (130 years later, the Roman Republic freed Greece, and the legions were then withdrawn).

If it was so good, why did Rome quit Direct Democracy?

I have argued that it was because of the rise of plutocracy. That’s entirely correct, but then the question occurs of what allowed this rise.

I have written detailed essays pointing the finger at the Second Punic War, the rise of the war profiteers, the death, or dilution of the really noble Patrician families’ spirit (whose ancestors had conducted the Roman Revolution in the Sixth Century BCE). I also pointed out to the fact that the Roman Republic became, thanks to that war, around 200 BCE, a global power.

All too many rich, powerful families were then able to do what is now called “inversion”. Namely rule from abroad (where Roman Law did not apply). So they escaped confiscating taxation that was meant, precisely, to decapitate the plutocratic effect.

But there was another pernicious effect of the vastness of the Roman Imperium.

Athens had met it already. In the Athenian Assembly (of the People), important decisions needed a high quorum. That meant distant farmers had to travel to Athens for a few days. That was expensive, so the Athenian Republic paid for distant farmers to come to vote.

The situation was much worse in Rome.

The Athenian City-States ruled Attica, which is about 100 kilometers long. The Athenian Imperium extended at some point to the Black Sea (to insure the wehat supply). Moreover, all Athenain dependencies could be quickly reached by boat.

Not so with Rome. Cities such as Numance (Numentia) sat in the middle of Northern Spain, weeks of travel from the sea.

Rome was physically incapable of maintaining communications fast enough to maintain direct democracy (in any case the old democratic set-up in Rome depended of the detailed status of citizens within “tribes”, and would have had to be severely modified just to extend to Italia).

Very slow communications was the deep down root killer of Roman direct democracy.

We don’t have this excuse. Not anymore.

Quite the opposite. Whereas Rome experienced a loss of opportunity as the empire extended, modern technology, the Internet, offers us the ability to do as the Romans did under the Republic: vote all the time, about anything.

We don’t need no stinking representatives. Freedom is a mouse click away.

Patrice Ayme’

Reverse Yalta, Free Ukraine

February 21, 2014

What’s the proximal genesis of the system of thought that made Ukraine a subject of Moscow? Yalta. The present events in Ukraine are echoes of a momentous, and horrendous, event, Washington’s division of the world with Stalin, in 1945.

Ukraine is a vivid demonstration that plutocracy is not just about stealing from the People. It never was. Plutocracy, in full, is a mass murdering frame of mind. Or should I say, greed of mind? In Ukraine the (“democratically” elected) plutocrats in power unleashed special forces to fire war weapons such as sniper rifles and Kalashnikovs into demonstrators. We The People had to submit, or fire back with hunting rifles. Casualties are in the hundreds.

The exploitative mentality starts with lauding greed, it ends up with extermination. It does not just exterminate nations, it can displace them. This is Roosevelt’s work:

Poland & Ukraine: Displaced West By Dying Roosevelt & Mass Murderer Stalin

Poland & Ukraine: Displaced West By Dying Roosevelt & Mass Murderer Stalin

With the help of (satanic?) Anglo-Saxon leaders, Stalin did to Eastern Europe what Jefferson and Jackson did to the Indians. Mass deportation to cause extermination. Or, at least the tearing off roots. No wonder the president of the USA collaborated.

All right. Everybody knows that Stalin started his career as a Christian fanatic, before turning to robbing banks. However, FDR and Churchill are often viewed as saints. Yet, the map above is their work. Large parts of Poland and Austro-Hungary became part of Stalin’s dominion. Lviv, second city of Ukraine, population 2 million, liberated a few days ago, was long part of Poland and, or the (Holly German) Roman empire. It was thrown to Stalin, like a piece of meat to a bear.

The tearing into pieces of Europe was agreed to in what Churchill called the “Naughty Document”. It’s also known by the euphemism of “Percentage Agreement”. Here is the proof of the plot between American, English, and Soviet plutocrats:

Dividing Europe As If It Were A Pie

Dividing Europe As If It Were A Pie

Ukraine is a nation of 46 million. Ukraine is older than Russia. It has its own language, Ukrainian. Ukraine founded Russia, but was abused by its creation. Yalta is a place in Crimea where a conspiracy between a moribund plutocrat, an exhausted statesman, and a mass murdering, ursine gangster sealed the fate of the world for the next 69 years.

The usage of the word “plutocrat” is fully justified in Ukraine. Killing people is the plutocrats’ highest calling. The leaders of Ukraine are not just satanic, although that would justify calling them plutocrats. They are also filthy rich… the  28 nations of the European Union have frozen their assets, blocked their visas (that followed sanctions against Switzerland for discriminating against EU’s Croatia). The EU explicitly accused Ukrainian leaders to be drenched in blood.

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland were sent to Kiev to negotiate with the Ukrainian dictator/president on behalf of the EU. Shots could be heard as the foreign ministers went here and there.

Eastern Ukraine was long part of the Russian empire, where Ukrainian was outlawed, so that only Moscow’s language would rule. Western and Central Ukraine speaks Ukrainian. It was long more or less part of Poland. Ukrainian is closer to Polish (70% in common) than to Russian (62%).

Systems of thoughts and moods are highly persistent, they have a life of their own.

Russia’s childhood was tortured in the fire and monstrosity of the Mongol conquest and tyrannical three centuries long occupation. However, yesterday’s traumas can’t live on in tomorrow’s world.


Yalta was a conference in Crimea organized by Stalin in February 1945. The “Soviet” dictator had refused to travel outside of the USSR for organizing the post- World War Two world. Three men, none of them a continental Western European, divided Western Europe, as if it were a prey. Which it was.

Unbelievably, the dying Roosevelt travelled all the way to Yalta, so that he could surrender half of Europe to Stalin. Including, of course, Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic republics. That horrendous betrayal was rendered possible by excluding France’s combative general and president Charles De Gaulle from the conference.

The war against Nazism started in 1939 when Poland, backed up by France, refused to surrender its territory to Hitler. Hitler was backed up by Stalin, American plutocrats (and, to its shame, until excuses are finally proffered, Washington).

For the perverse, it made sense that neither Poland nor France were invited at Yalta. After all, it was French and Polish resistance to Nazism had caused World War Two. At least, so the subconscious of Stalin, part of British higher society, American racists, and Washington had it. The French and the Poles had spoiled a good thing.

De Gaulle was both a politician, a minister of war and a combat general during desperate 1940. His niece, who resisted Nazism, was sent to the Ravensbrück extermination camp. De Gaulle would not have surrendered to Stalin; at the time France had an expert one million man army that had played a crucial “Spitze”, point, role on the Western front in 1944. One of the main ideas of De Gaulle as president of France in 1958-1969 was that “Yalta” was one of the main trauma of the world. (Although I have solid personal reasons to hate De Gaulle,  I recognize that he was very right on some points, including that one.)

Yalta displaced entire countries to the west, to make more room for the Kremlin’s subjects. Poland was displaced to extinguish German provinces such as Pomerania and Silesia. But then, so that Poland could not become a problem, it was amputated of much of its territory. The eastern half of Poland was made “Ukrainian”. (Right now the largest city there, in ex-Poland, has been “freed”, after arresting the government police.)

What is the meaning of all this?

Simple. Yalta, by cutting the world in two, established the American Century and the, even shorter, Soviet Century. Now the USA and the USSR Russia are back to their old trick, fossil combustibles. The USSR (aka Russia) blackmails Europe with its energy supply. Yet Czar Vladimir I is terrified by other people’s minds, and thus cracks down on the highest added value, brain work. Hence Vladimir’s petrostate becomes ever more so every year.

Meanwhile the USA is busy making a fortune from the building greenhouse (by methane leaking fracking, and selling the coal to German anti-nuclear fanatics). The USA has a much more diversified economy, and more than twice the population. The USA also enjoy a much more sophisticated oligarchic propaganda. The USA does not crack down on computer usage, which is central to the 21C economy. Instead it has made it an integral part of the surveillance state.

What’s the progressive thing to do? Obviously support the anti-plutocratic revolution in Ukraine. The same day that more than 60 people were killed by gunfire in Ukraine, Libyans were voting for a Constituent Assembly (the USA took 13 years between Independence in 1776 and a Constitutional Assembly in 1789).

The story of Ukraine is about correcting some wrongs that developed in the last millennium. In Libya it’s more like correcting wrongs that developed in the last two millennia (thanks to horrors visited mostly by rabid Christianity and its Islamist poodle; earlier Libya had given the Severian dynasty to Rome, so non Christianized Romans were not too nasty to Libya ).

I have my eye on Venezuela too, where a famous beauty queen taking part in an anti-government demonstration was shot to death this week. Venezuela is another petrostate (with colossal reserves).

The anti-plutocratic revolution has to spread around the planet until we change from a short-termist, murderously exploitative model to a gentler, more sustainable, more democratic, and that means more intelligent, model.

If Ukraine becomes as good as, say, the present France or the USA, the latter two will be encouraged to morph into the more advanced forms we need. This is what happened in Switzerland, where direct democracy has blossomed out only in the last two decades, and brought enormous riches (spiritual and economic).

Patrice Aymé

Obama’s Dog Wishes

December 24, 2013

Once I was talking to a MD, a very young cancer specialist. He is making millions, in the very exploitative health care system of the USA. He told me Obama was really smart. I asked him why. He said: ”He taught Constitutional Law, was a Senator, and now he is president. What other proof do you need?” I pointed at Obamacare. He chuckled, no doubt contemplating decades of happy returns of multi-million dollar income, in the guise of helping the underclass.

Right, Obama is very smart. Yet, one can be smart in many ways. This is Obama’s wishes, 24 December, 2013. I am cutting and pasting Obama’s exact tweet:

“From this family to yours, have a peaceful Christmas Eve.” This is the picture:

Obama: I Stick My Tongue Out To You

Obama: I Stick My Tongue Out To You

A given thing can always be looked at in many ways. A way to look at Obama sending a pic of his panting dog is that Obama is acknowledging the truth.

In words: When you are a dog, it is natural to stick your tongue at We The People. Obama cares for your health: he is ready to lick you.

Countless leaders rose through obscurity, throughout the ages, and were viewed, by their millions of followers, as the smartest men who ever lived.

Some will say, this is different, the USA is a democracy. But of course not: including the so called “representatives”, less than 1,000 people pull the string in the USA, population 320 million. In Athens, thousands of people pulled the strings. A quorum of 6,000 citizens existed for the less controversial decisions. It’s as if, in today’s USA, a minimum of twenty million individuals had to explicitly vote for decisions.

Republican Rome was also much more of a democracy than we have nowadays: a Consul had full judicial and executive powers just for one month at a time, and that just for a year, and had to share power with the Tribunes of the People, who were sacrosanct, and kept the legislative power.

As I explained, in “Representation Is No Democracy”, Switzerland is legislatively democratic: the People decides the laws. But not so in the other Western so called “democracies”. Athens was legislatively and executively democratic.

So Obama became president. He and a critical mass of his supporters had a party until they lost most power in their carnival cruise ship. Then they accuse the Republicans to have taken over the helm. They had just forgotten to use their full power to serve We The People, when they had it.

Most of Obama’s “reforms”, and change of directions had to do with pursuing what G.W. Bush had started. So we are in G.W. Bush’s Fourth Term.

G W Bush, son, and grandson of one of history’s worst plutocrat, naturally had decided to make tax payers rescue American banking, and American industry, even before Obama became president.

The only thing Obama really did is to decide to have the American Middle Class pay some more to the health care plutocracy, by duplicating the “reform” Republican plutocratic governor Romney had imposed in Massachusetts. Interestingly, Obama, a Freudian dream boy, calls Obamacare his “signature achievement”, the exact same term, signature, that he uses when he kills civilian gatherings with drones.

Most of Obama’s supporters can’t see deeper than Obama’s bronze color, and, to this day, sing his praises. I personally gave two years, much writing and action behind the scene, influencing the influential, and spent a fortune getting Obama elected, just to see him follow exactly the “advice” he got from all and any the plutocrat he met, whom he all celebrated as “friends”.

Thus one can safely say that most of Obama’s supporters are not very smart. Yet, that’s smart: not only they do not suffer more than mussels beatifically beaten by the waves, but they please their masters. Plutocrats don’t want them any other way than dumb, and self congratulatory.

And what of Obama? Is he smart? There are many ways to be smart. One can be smart as a dog, smart as a human, or street smart. There is no doubt that Obama is street smart. Wall Street smart.

However, history judges the presidents of the USA according to higher standards. What does Obama think of it himself? Well the picture says it all. It’s what’s called a Freudian slip. Obama views himself a s a dog. He is not just basically powerless, but he has been Wall Street’s lapdog. Now he wishes you Happy Holidays.

History will just point at Obama’s abysmal lack of accomplishment, or when the Financial Times philosophy came to power. Even G.W. Bush’s Medicare Part D (Seniors don’t pay for drugs) can point at a higher achievement to serve We The People. And, by the way, all the most dreadful policies of Bush (torture and arbitrary detention officialized, defended, and globalized; invasion of Iraq) , were inverted by Bush himself, not Obama. Obama’s presidency sat on Bush’s Shoulder.

Bush: See How Easy It Was, To Roll Them Up? Obama: Well, You Decided All, I'm Just In Love.

Bush: See How Easy It Was, To Roll Them Up? Obama: Well, You Decided All, I’m Just In Love.

Obama introduced his own satanic policy: arbitrary execution by drones of gatherings, so called “signature strikes“. Something still going-on, the latest being an attack on a wedding in Yemen, a few days ago: spirit of Christmas, Nixon style. The worst about this, is that, differently from Auschwitz, which was secret, this is all public, and thus the horror is endorsed by the People of the USA…. Very publicly.

Obama realizing, however unwittingly and subconsciously, that he is just a dog, commander in chief, presumably, of a pack of many dogs, and a lap dog of Wall Street, is a sad gift to make us. But we will accept this gift. Finally he came with the truth. As the world totters on the edge of many abysses,  truth is the greatest, and first, gift.

The Ancient Greeks already cut and decorated fir trees for the winter solstices, and the Roman Saturnials were such an extravaganza, complete with gift exchanges, that many laws were passed to reduce their duration below four weeks. Sometimes, honoring tradition is the best thing.

From one who holds the truth dear, following a 28 centuries old tradition, Happy Holidays! And, next time, let’s all try to find a dog who, at least, can bark.

Patrice Ayme

Lies Tie Tribes Together Well

December 7, 2013

SHARED ERRORS BIND BETTER THAN TRUTH (Or how faith feeds intellectual fascism of the tribal type).

Aside from loving those who loved me, my life has been centered on a search for the ultimate nature of reality. That included history, to find out the errors one makes, and psychology, to find where those errors came from. I found out about Quantum theory. It entangled what is going on in the small with new, mysterious notions.

I expected thorough dedication to truth among serious thinkers. And who could be more detached than physicists? Yet, I became disturbed by the great gap between how certain some scientists were that their theories were right, and the evidence they had. Sometimes it felt as if they had no evidence, or even the opposite, and as if error united men better than truth. How could that be? How come the tribal arose from the illogical, or even, from error? Was error a mean to tribalism?

That puts the tribal in conflict with the Republic. The Republic is united by justice, and justice is truth, force:

Roman Fascism: People Bound By The Axe of Justice

Roman Fascism: People Bound By The Axe of Justice

[One of the two man-sized bronze fasces flanking the Speaker’s Rostrum, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington. Just as with the French Republic, fasces are all over the symbols of the Republic of the USA .]

Verily, fasces were the fundamental symbol of the Roman republic, and from there on, the Franks and the French and American republics.

(Call that fascism at its best; suggestion: add fasces to the United Nations Security Council! After all, United Nations without force is no union of justice… the UNSC just voted unanimously to unleash the French army to reestablish justice in the Central African Republic.)

Fascism is how weak social animals bind themselves together to make an irresistible mass. Fascism is how social animals drink and dine, without becoming dinner. It’s an old method, honed by hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Or why social animals exist.

( The earliest public latrines, 240 million years old, were just discovered.)

The power of fascism, like the axe surrounded by the fasces, can be used for good or for bad.

In this essay, we will explore a related phenomenon, the POWER OF ERROR, and how intellectual fascism binds a tribe around an error rather than a truth, by making special brains.

Instead of finding an example in politics or history, or the usual suspects (Jihadists!)I will exhibit an example from what ought to be the most intellectually rigorous subject.

In the fundamental treaty on Quantum Mechanics by the great physicist Paul Dirac, a claim was made about the nature of reality that was not just poorly supported theoretically, but experimentally contradicted.

Dirac had said that “photons interfere only with themselves”. Anybody with 2 lasers could check that was wrong. Yet, to this day, strong belief that this error does not matter persists. Why? I claim it stays a convenient cement that unites many mangy physicists.

It’s not just because the photons-interfere-only-with-themselves makes for cheap thinking. It’s also because it provides with tribal, even mystical, and certainly neurological identification, precisely because it’s obviously false.

Of course, for someone such as me, who puts the search for reality above tribal considerations, it’s most important to know if photons do, or do not, interfere with themselves. And as they do, it’s most important to find out how they do it.

(Photon to photon “non linear optics” happens in QED, through matter-antimatter virtual processes, a completely different effect.)

Quantum theory is subjacent to Elementary Particle Physics. The latter was uncovered by “high energy” experiments, in which particles collided into each other. Weirdly, though, all the obvious experiments to uncover Quantum theory had not been made! Somehow, particle theorists had persuaded themselves that Quantum theory was fully known and consistent.

Yet, evidence that Quantum theory was not as understood as possible were abundant (the list was long of fundamental experiments that had not even been tried: Bohm-Aharanov, 1958; one photon-at a time 2-slit, independent lasers 2-slits; numerous EPR style, interaction-at-a-distance experiments, Popper experiment… tried for the first time in 1999, 65 years after it was proposed; etc.).

Fundamental physicists were in denial of this lack of thoroughness on their part. It was a major epistemological, even ethical breach.

An obvious explanation was that governments were more interested to fund high energy physics than really fundamental search for reality. Clearly, high energy physics could lead to death rays, Star Wars, etc. And it did. U.S. Navy ships using combat lasers are being deployed on the battle field.

Present proposed high energy accelerators are of obvious military interest (as they would muster tremendously energetic particle beams over very short distances).

Physicists, after all, are primates, and they find interesting what gives them bananas.

Yet, there was strong evidence that these supposedly arcane minds behaved more like tribal monkeys than inquiring minds. Could it be possible that error united them?

As I would find later in life, nothing is more conducive to building an exploitative community of minds than an error, also known as a faith. A faith that those erroneous minds share. And the more outrageous the faith, the better.


Recent studies have shown that it takes longer to lie than to tell the truth. The brain has to work harder. Although, well trained liars learn to reduce that delay.

I believe that ideas correspond to brain structures. This idea about ideas has far ranging consequences, from the duplication of thinking by computers, to ethics, to imagination.

Mental structures determined by truth and reality are going to be common to everybody (that’s what is called “common sense”). For the tribally minded, that presents a major drawback: if one shares the same mental structures with everybody, one cannot distinguish the group one wants to belong to.

The only way to distinguish a group is by teaching brains all the same, but differently from all other brains. This way one creates a common architecture of the mind, not found in any other group. The best way to do this is by teaching an error.

The principle of deliberately committing errors, so that people can be tribally, religiously, hatefully, or oligarchically, bound together, with their special brains, rules… That’s why racism is so popular!

It rules, because it has not been recognized. If it comes on the radar of the Enlightenment, that will change.

Don’t ask the tribal minded what errors they made, because therein their identity. They will become aggressive, as you start to poke around their brains. Instead reject errors from all and any part. That will hinder the formation of hateful or exploitative groups.


Patrice Ayme

Plot Against France 1912-2013

November 11, 2013

Krugman just wrote an editorial “The Plot Against France”. The plutocrats and their servants hate the democracy France represents. They would rather dismantle the welfare state, the way it’s done in the USA. Instead, contrarily to what many articles in the New York Times have asserted, instead of “hacking away” at the French welfare state, French taxes on the rich are increased stiffly. Such is Krugman’s latest message, the same one I had for decades.

Equality, Welfare: A Chicken In Every Pot, Said Henri IV

Equality, Welfare: A Chicken In Every Pot, Said Henri IV

I agreed, and went a tiny little bit further: the New York Times immediately censored me, in spite of my very explicit protests. These days the New York Times go carefully through my comments and censor at least 90% of them.

The same family of plutocrats has owned the New York Times since the nineteenth century, they don’t like me at all (they even published insults against me personally). Is my subscription financing predatory vice?

I show below that American plutocrats have played a fundamental role in the Plot Against France from the beginning, a century ago. The New York Times hates me as an anti-plutocrat. I welcome their hatred (to quote FDR).

(Paradoxically I never had one single comment censored by The Economist or the Wall Street Journal. The NYT has censored more than 1,000 of my comments; it now censors me at a level comparable to when it made propaganda for invading Iraq.)

The owners of the Times are fully onto the plot I denounce below, although they are careful to not know the details, to give themselves good conscience.

The centennial of the plot against France is now.

December 1912. Berlin imperial palace. Lord Chancellor Richard Haldane had told German ambassador Prince Karl Max von Lichnowsky that Britain would not remain passive if Austro–Hungary attacked Serbia, nor would Britain tolerate an aggression of Germany against France upon such an occasion.

A furious Kaiser Wilhelm II read Linchowsky’s report early Sunday, December 8. Wilhelm grandly declared that in the ‘Germanic struggle for existence‘ the British, blinded by envy and their feelings of inferiority, had joined the Slavs (Russia) and their Romanic accessories (France). (Notice the similarity with Hitler’s language and obsessions.) The Kaiser summoned the ‘war council‘ for 11 am. Same day.

Here is the report from Admiral Georg Alexander von Müller (the chief of naval operations):

“His Majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II said: …if we attack France, England will come to France’s aid, for England cannot tolerate a disturbance in the European balance of power. His Majesty welcomed this message as providing the desired clarification for all those who have been lulled into a false sense of security by the recently friendly English press.

His Majesty painted the following picture:

‘Austria must deal firmly with the Slavs living outside its borders (the Serbs) if it does not want to lose control over the Slavs under the Austrian monarchy. If Russia were to support the Serbs, which she is apparently already doing…war would be inevitable for us. But there is hope that Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania—and perhaps even Turkey—will take our side. Bulgaria has already offered Turkey an alliance. We really went to great lengths to persuade the Turks.’

Recently, His Majesty also tried to convince the crown prince of Romania, who stopped here on his way to Brussels, to come to an agreement with Bulgaria. If these powers ally themselves with Austria, it will free us up to throw our full weight behind a war against France. According to His Majesty, the fleet will naturally have to prepare for war against England. After Haldane’s statement, the possibility of a war against Russia alone—as discussed by the chief of the Admiralty in his last talk—will not be considered. So, immediate submarine warfare against English troop transports on the Schelde River or near Dunkirk, mine warfare up to the Thames.

To Tirpitz: rapid construction of additional submarines, etc. A conference is recommended for all interested naval offices.

General von Moltke: “I consider a war inevitable—the sooner, the better. But we should do a better job of gaining popular support for a war against Russia, in line with the Kaiser’s remarks.” His Majesty confirmed this and asked the secretary of state to use the press to work toward this end. T. called attention to the fact that the navy would gladly see a major war delayed by one and a half years. Moltke said that even then the navy would not be ready, and the army’s situation would continue to worsen, since due to our limited financial resources our opponents are able to arm themselves more rapidly

The chief of the general staff says: the sooner war comes, the better; however, he hasn’t concluded from this that we should give Russia or France, or even both, an ultimatum that would trigger a war for which they would carry the blame.

I wrote to the chancellor in the afternoon about influencing the press.”

Enter American plutocrats.

“Colonel” House, was the closest adviser of USA president Wilson. He was the son of a gun runner who made a fortune in the Civil War, and an investor in banks (among other things). On June 1, 1914, House met with the Kaiser, grandson of Queen Victoria, and dictator of Germany. House, on behalf of Wilson, proposed to the Kaiser an alliance between the USA, Great Britain and the Kaiserreich (fascist Germany, Wilhelm’s toy).

House recorded in his diary, that he and the Kaiser discussed “the European situation as it affected the Anglo-Saxon race.” The Kaiser thought that Britain, Germany and the U.S.— the best representatives of Christian civilization—were natural allies against the “semi-barbarous Latin and Slavic nations” (including France and Russia), but that all should defend civilization “against the Oriental races.”

The alliance was to exclude what was defined as the racially inferior French. In exchange, the Kaiser would limit the growth of his fleet.

In later years, House would try his best to shed his evil persona (that made him unpopular with fellow plutocrats). By 1917, House enticed Wilson against “autarcy” (Germany, Austria) and for democracy (France, Britain).

However, the fact remains that, in June 1914, House egged on the Kaiser, who could only feel encouraged that the USA would extend what would be, de facto, a vital military alliance of the USA with the Kaiserreich. And it’s exactly what happened. The Kaiserreich’ explosive, food and energy production would have collapsed, but for the USA’s vital trade.

In August 1914, by complete surprise, the Kaiserreich unleashed an invasion of France, after declaring war to Russia. Great Britain, considering the atrocities committed the Kaiserreich had already committed, quickly declared war in turn. The Kaiserreich was defeated at the battle of the Marne, 5 weeks later, and took defensive positions in trenches. A blockade ought to have finished Wilhem’s mass murdering dictatorship quickly.

However the USA made a fortune by bringing to the Reich all it needed to pursue the war, including coal and crucial material for explosives. The more the war went on, the richer the USA got.

Thus the USA became very rich. American plutocrats repeated the same exact performance with a small caporal they had found, Adolf Hitler.

Henri Ford, the most famous American, was Hitler’s main financing source, when Hitler was still totally unknown, before 1923. The association with top American plutocrats did not just provide Hitler with money, power and a network, but also with a great prestige.

The entanglement of USA plutocrats and Nazism led to striking contradictions: American GIs found themselves fighting Germans equipped by… American companies.

On September 3, 1939, the Republic declared war to the racist, murderous mad dictatorship next door. The offensive did not penetrate Germany very far; however, in 1944, with total air supremacy, the Allies, after three months of hard fighting, had not penetrated Germany more than 22 miles.

USA plutocrats, especially the Ethyl Corporation of America, made it possible for the Nazi Air Force, the Luftwaffe, to keep on flying, and made the war much more difficult for France. Ten months later, a desperate Nazi armored thrust got incredibly lucky, and encircled the main French armies and the British force.

Yet, the French Republic did not break, and now Germany has become a sister republic to France.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité, is the national motto of France. Notice the word “equality”. The plutocrats hate equality. Thus, logically enough, they hate France. The mood in the USA is that, if you make a lot of money, it’s not just a right, but a recognition of genius. The truth, of course, is that it’s generally the result of sordid plots (Goldman Sachs for example created Facebook, with the aid of the NSA; The censoring New York Times is entering a third century under the democratic control of the same family, and Ford is still controlled by Fords (I even drive a Ford, showing how far the plot extends).

France is introducing a 75% tax on salaries above a million euros, and has been clamoring for a crackdown against tax havens. Part of the propaganda of the plutocrats in the USA is to call the French ‘frogs’ whose culture reduces to “wine and cheese”. An important aspect is to deny that France is of any importance. It extends all the way to attributing to Newton two laws that French thinkers had discovered (the law of inertia, Buridan, circa 1320; and the law of gravitation, which Newton himself recognized was suggested and demonstrated by Bullialdus, who had become a member of the Royal Society in 1667).

Yet, the facts say otherwise: the French Republic just obtained a treaty that break Switzerland as a tax haven, as far as France is concerned. Not just that, but the Swiss who live in France will not escape heavy French taxes on health or inheritance. Make no mistake; other powers, such as Germany, the USA, Italy, even Britain will argue in future years, along French lines to the Swiss, and, hopefully, to other tax heavens.

The Anglo-Saxons talk about Keynes all the time, another way to steal the attribution of very old ideas that came from, you guessed it, France. Just as in Rome, or even before that, Athens, in France the government is known to be the core of the economy. One can call that governmentalism“.

In France Keynes-like activities are known as “Colbertism”. Although the measures of the economy and finance minister Colbert went much further than anything Keynes advocated. Colbert promoted the importation of skilled workers and the creation of the highest tech companies (some are still around, and worldwide dominant). Colbert himself was following an older doctrine, implemented earlier by Henri IV and Marshall Sully, 420 years ago.

Henri IV put it this way: “…je ferai qu’il n’y aura point de laboureur en mon Royaume qui n’ait moyen d’avoir une poule dans son pot. (“I will make it so that there will be no worker in my kingdom who will not have the means to put a chicken in his pot”.) That striking idea was related to the future Louis XIV, his grandson, the one who hired Colbert later (Colbert also had a military background, although obviously less glorious than the one of Sully).

One could go further back. Equalitarianism was a characteristic of the ancient Germans, thus the Franks. When the French army led by Guillaume (= William = Wilhelm) conquered England in 1066, the slaves, 20% of the population were immediately freed, and the new king set a sort of direct democracy from the local assemblies.

So how did the rise of USA style plutocracy occur? It started with the “West Country Men“, under Elizabeth I. After training their ferocity in Ireland, they are the ones, who, under terrible conditions, and with huge human losses, founded the English colony in America, during the Barbarous Years (a book I own and recommend).

Now a conscious frontal collision between the philosophy of equality, and the barbarous philosophy of exploitation is in order. The preceding century, 1912-2013, was just a warm-up.

France, weighted by 15 centuries of an anti-plutocratic tradition, is a clear and present danger for plutocrats, they act accordingly. Same story in 1912-1914 all the way to 2013.


Patrice Ayme


Note: The Berlin imperial palace, siege of the initial plot against the Republic in 1912, burned out completely under Allied aerial bombing in 1945. Rebuilding was started in 2013.