Archive for the ‘Republic’ Category

Why Absolute Power Corrupts Outrageously

October 31, 2016

The Clintons, their friends the plutocrats, and their greedy servants have behaved ever more outrageously, ever since they outrigged, out-performed and outreached Reagan himself. This is part of a general pattern: absolute power brings absolute outrage, and that’s the only way to get rid of it.

Why are all too powerful individuals inclined to outrageous acts? Caligula fed his horse gold flakes while visiting serious tortures on many. French king Louis XIV honored the mightiest in his kingdom by pooping while they watched.. Then, naturally enough, the self-described Sun King pooped on French civilization, by pooping on his grandfather foremost achievement (peace with Protestantism). The end result was a weakening of France, thus Europe, which persists, to this day.

Kaiser Wilhelm II, self-described greatest lover of Great Britain, launched a world war in July 1914, mostly because he could. It was certainly an outrageous, gratuitous act, from a man with absolute power. 

Huma Abedin, Clinton’s “Daughter” & Business Woman Extraordinaire Will Say, Or Do, Whatever To Cling To Power

Huma Abedin, Clinton’s “Daughter” & Business Woman Extraordinaire Will Say, Or Do, Whatever To Cling To Power

[While chief of staff at the State Department, Abedin was officially allowed to pile up other jobs outside, with her own consultancy, and, of course, the Clinton Foundation. Don’t worry: she is now 40 years old, and a multimillionaire. Brought up in Saudi Arabia and connected to Muslim Fundamentalists, Abedin looks like an agent of the Saudi government of sorts. Remember that Obama was just overruled by Congress and the Senate to enable the prosecution of Saudi Arabia for 9/11… The elites of Wahington-Wall Street have long been entangled with the monster they created, Saudi Arabia.]

Adolf Hitler went on a succession of quasi-suicidal, outrageous acts, starting in 1939. In 1939, Hitler allied himself with Stalin to invade Poland, facing a world war with France and Britain (a war which clearly Hitler could not win). Then Hitler went on, invading all sorts of countries, all the way to attacking the USSR and declaring war to the USA (hey, why not, since Hitler felt he had lost in 1939). The result of all these outrages was that Europe lost the leadership of the civilization it had created (which has passed to start-ups such as Russia and the USA).


Beyond The Will To Power, The Will To Outrage:

Clearly, from their own words, the behavior of many of the mighty, from Caesar to Napoleon, is explained by an obsessive “Will to Power”. Nietzsche explained much human behavior that way. However, what happens when people have already all the power? Well, folly happens.

Think about it. How does a human being demonstrate power over another human being?    

More recent examples? US government officials (like Rumsfeld, US Sec. of Defense) declaring the Geneva Convention “quaint”, and violating it, for the whole world to see, in all possible ways, while invading and devastating Iraq (at least the Nazis tried to hide the evil they were doing). Or Obama conducting “signature strikes” (using the US military for deadly strikes within countries the US is not at war with, just because some gathering had the ‘signature’ of possible gathering of whom some secret organization in the US as possible malefactors).

Outrage can be profitable: Clinton was told of debate questions in advance. As I listened carefully (recording and re-listening to the debates), it seems clear to me, at least for the first debate with Trump, that Clinton knew of the coming questions. The questions were so ridiculous, Trump was surprised, even baffled, but Clinton came up with slick, rehearsed answers. That’s how I know. Since then, Wikileaks has revealed that knowing the questions in advance, in excruciating detail, is how Clinton defeated Sanders. It’s not just because it was advantageous, but also because it was dangerous, outrageous. That made it exciting.

Why did Bill Clinton officiate at the Abedin-Weiner wedding? (He actually did not have any authority to do so.) Weiner, long a “Democratic” congressman, is an obsessive-compulsive serial adulterer and pedophile who loves to publish his feats on the Internet. Weiner called himself “Carlos Danger” on the Internet.

So Weiner married to Clinton’s “second daughter”. Speaking of daughter, Chelsea Clinton travels around the world with the best accommodations, thanks to the “Clinton Foundation”. Clinton, a presidential candidate, travelled free of personal charge, thanks to said Foundation. All this costs a lot to the Foundation. Right, Bill Gates does the same (using the private airline he owns with Buffet to do so; thus double-billing taxpayers).

The Foundation Law was passed within minutes, and to compensate for, the creation of Income Tax Law. So the wealthiest Americans, like the Clinton or Gates, give millions to a Foundation (the Clintons have actually two entangled Foundations). Then those millions are deduced from the taxes they have to pay. Then as officers of the Foundation they need “first class, or private jet travel because of security and other requirements” as the Clinton Foundation explains. In other words, they live like aristocrats.

According to Roman historians (Suetonius, Cassius Dio), Caligula intended to make his prefered stallion, Incitatus, Consul. That was too much, and the head of the Praetorian guard decided to plant his sword in Caligula’s groin, and other crucial places, bringing his demise.

How did Caligula’s mood grow? As the preceding commander-in-chief (“imperator”) Tiberius sank into melancholy and increasing depravity, his influence rubbed off on the young Caligula. (see the case of Sextus Marius who was charged with incest with his daughter on the pretext of seizing his Spanish gold mines even that could have been done in the name of the state). As Tacitus puts it: “It was it probable that, when Tiberius with his long experience of affairs was, under the influence of absolute power, wholly perverted and changed, Caius Caesar [nickname: Little Boots, Caligula], who had hardly completed his boyhood, was thoroughly ignorant and bred under the vilest training, would enter on a better course, with Macro for his guide.

As I hinted above, the Will to Power is not everything: those at the top have to feel themselves exerting it. In the case of baboons, the subordinate has to offer his, or her bottom for the superior to consider (doing whatever it please with). But what of the case of one of our baboon-leaders, in the age of the Internet? Or in the age of the Roman empire, for that matter? The superiors, those with absolute power have to feel the subjugation and submission, of their inferior subordinates. They feel it, when they commit obvious outrages, and the miserable subordinates can only deplore the outrages deep inside, and do nothing about them.

The Roman empire, at least until Diocletian (circa 300 CE) was, formally, a Republic, SPQR, The Senate and People of Rome. The (now so-called) “emperors” were just commander in chief (“imperators”) and “first”, or “principal” in the Senate (“Princeps” from which “Prince” was evolved). In practice, they had absolute power.

After Tiberius, the principle that the Republic would be led by a imperator-princeps was more accepted. Thus, for the individuals at the top to feel that power, to be rewarded by that feeling, to compensate the risks they took, outrages had to be performed. The mood of committing outrages started discreetly under Tiberius (who performed tortures in Capri, but, overall, ordered at most a handful of executions, arguably less than Obama (I explained this in the past: of the 36 or so executions under Tiberius most were ordered by the Senate, and fully justified, because of very serious lethal conspiracies, which killed his sons, without him knowing!)


The More Powerful One Is, The More One Seeks Outrage:

For years Hillary has been hanging around the outrageous Bill Clinton (bad enough! Clinton apparently used the power of the offices he held for various sexual favors with many women, and lied about it under oath, leading to his quasi-impeachment). Apparently unsatisfied by these puny scandals, Hillary pushed onto her apparent closest friend and collaborator, Huma Abedin, her “second daughter”, a sex maniac (initially Abedin resisted). Weiner the Wiener, a sex addicted Congressman, sent unlawful material to, or in the presence of children, from 4 to 15-year-old.

Thanks to his Clinton connection Weiner is not yet in prison. However, the FBI just came into possession of a device of containing 650,000 emails, some of them (probably) classified Clinton emails. (A crude approach to insurance, if you want my opinion.)

As Weiner’s monicker, “Carlos Danger”  indicates, people who already have power do not want just power, as they already have it, but danger. But what happens when they have had it for a very long time, and got away with it, and did all outrageous things they could dream of? Well, they get new dreams, even more outrageous that the preceding ones. For Clinton to flaunt her relationship with lovers of pedophiles qualifies.

So does considering Bill Gates, or Tim Cook, the Apple chief, as Hillary did, for Vice President. Many people around the world consider Bill Gates to be a criminal. No, not because of the way he founded Microsoft (mostly from appropriating others’ property, thank in part to his mother, an IBM director). But rather in the way he co-opted local government official to push for Genetically Modified Organisms made by Monsanto, a Gates investment vehicle and collaborator of its Gates Foundation. Monsanto GMOs turned out to be a disaster for African peasant who were ruined and devastated. Countries such as Burkina Fasso just made them unlawful.

Caligula wanted to make his horse a Consul, because he wanted to get away with outrage greater than any he had visited on We The People before. The equally endowed from birth Commodus would get away with even greater outrages than those Caligula wrought (who reigned only 4 years).

So it was with many Roman emperors: ever greater outrages. Diocletian proclaimed himself god, and his quasi-successor Constantine, proclaimed himself to be the Thirteenth Apostle…. Until the entire grotesque show became so dysfunctional, the semi-barbarian Germans, the Franks took over, and started the slow process of re-establishing civilization (starting around 400 CE), by reducing the power of the oligarchs and plutocrats.

The present leaders of the USA have been so powerful as to be arrogantly outrageous. They treated the state as their private property. That the same holds for Russia, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe, or Venezuela, is besides the point: the US is supposed to be a democracy. And so is the West (although, as the West is more united than it looks, the rest of the West has become as democratic as the US, by obeying Washington-Wall Street orders).

Time for a flood, to clean the mess.

Patrice Ayme’

Obama “Lack Of Supermajority” Lie

October 29, 2016

The simplest, and most efficient, way of thinking is by not lying. Lying consistently requires to know both some elements of reality and the lies one adorned them with. The democrats lied about why they did nothing in the early part of Obama’s reign. They claimed it was because of the Republicans, but they are Republicans in disguise, and they did not do anything for “We The People“, because they identify as “We The Plutocrats” (“WE”, as Hillary Clinton admitted to Goldman Sachs partners). And often they are.

Diane Feinstein, one of Hillary Clinton’s main support, was a pure politician her entire life. Feinstein claims to be worth around 50 million dollars. She will conveniently forget to tell you her husband is at least a billionaire. We are demoncrats, and the demon, the devil, Pluto, made us lie, so please forget it. (And how come, as a pure politician earning no more than $160,000, she made 50 million dollars?) These people rule the world, not just the USA: Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, was a major investor in China… while his wife prepared and reigned, over pertinent legislation.

Sometimes, of course, one should lie. Say, if a dying child is anxious, full care requires lying with no limits whatsoever. Just tell the child she better sleep and will be refreshed when she wakes up.

However, in a politico-social context, lying is never a good idea. If one is on the side of We The People. Reciprocally, lying is how plutocrats rule. And they go all the way, inventing religions to justify their horrors (the most famous cases being Christianism and Islam, both set-up by dictators, respectively Saint Constantine, Roman emperor, self-described “13th Apostle“, and Prophet Muhammad, self-described “Messenger of God“; the latter imitating the former).

Obama was the do-nothing president. OK, Obama did a lot for plutocrats, transferring trillions of federal debt to the richest people and corporations in the world. As I called it ironically, TARP, Transferin Assets To the Richest People. But Obama did nothing much for “We The People“, besides very effective lip service. To justify doing nothing, to his supporters, from day one, Obama accused the “Republicans”. He just could not convince them, Republicans, he said. That was true, but it was also a lie. A true lie. Obama did not need to convince any Republicans. Not a single one. He was in control. In total control. (But is a child in control? Of course not: a child does not know enough. A fortiori a puppet of Goldman Sachs, Gates, Apple, etc. )

Lying Has Helped Rulers For Millennia, But It Does Not Help Civilization

Lying Has Helped Rulers For Millennia, But It Does Not Help Civilization

The Nazis used, and advertised, the big lie technique because they believed they had achieved a superior understanding of the human condition, so it did not matter what ways they used to implement their rule. There were enormous lies implemented by self-described “democrats” in the last 24 years. Passing laws in the service of what turned out to be plutocrats who have names: Hillary Clinton considered major plutocrats (Gates, Cook, etc.) as potential Vice Presidential choices (before she realized that would compromise her chances too much) .

While Obama claimed he could not do anything without the Republicans, the democrats had a majority in the House of Representatives, and the democrats had a majority in the US Senate. So was Obama lying? (Silly question, sorry.)

No, say demoncrats. US Senate tradition (since 1993!) is that one can talk and talk and talk and talk in the Senate, and block any bill. Once Democratic Senator Byrd talked around 24 hours. Continuously.

However, filibusters can be overruled when one has 60 votes in the US Senate, a SUPERMAJORITY. Obama had such a supermajority, for many months perhaps six months. He could have also forced a 12 months bullet proof supermajority by forcing two ailing democratic  senators to resign

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independent senators who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to be at the Senate everyday. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59.

On June 30 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was sworn in, after a lengthy recount and legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were SOMETIMES unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled up Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60. At this point, the democrats were back with a SUPERMAJORITY. Senator Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate. A forceful president with a progressive agenda could have made him resign. But Obama had no progressive agenda whatsoever. Neither did his helpers and sycophants. The leading ones are all establishment, they are happy wioth the establishment.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk on January 19, 2010, bringing the Democratic caucus back down to 59 again.

In June 2010, Sen. Byrd died. Byrd’s replacement, a Democrat, Carte Goodwin, was sworn two weeks later. So the caucus stayed at 59.

Obama said, it’s all the fault of the Republicans, and here is this Obamacare, my “signature achievement“, plutocrats will take care of you, as long as I send them your tax dollars.

When FDR became president, he enforced a progressive agenda on his first day. In the first month, Obama did just one progressive thing: sign, with great fanfare, the evacuation of arbitrary detention at Guantanamo. Well, not really. Guantanamo is still in operation, eight years later, with people inside, arbitrarily detained. The Do-Nothing president really did nothing. His true signature achievement. (Except for arbitrary drone lethal strikes, for all to see, a new judicial precedent, and savagely hunting those who reveal some bad actions of the US government, some of them unlawful.)

A progressive president needs a supermajority only for a couple of hours. In the early twentieth century, one morning, in a couple of hours, two laws passed: one set-up the Income Tax Law, setting up the IRS. The other law passed within the hour was the Foundation Law.  

The reigning democrats are lying. They are Republicans in disguise. Republicans brought up on a Reagan psychological diet.

In the last debate Hillary Clinton attacked Trump, because Trump had attacked then reigning president Ronald Reagan in 1987… with exactly the same position Trump has today.

Need I say more?

Yes, I do. I pointed out the preceding, at the time, in 2009, as it happened. Much later, the “Tea Party” was created later. So I got to be called “Tea Party”. Last week, some people on the Internet, in public, called me a “liar, racist, xenophobe”, and added even more flattering qualifiers, for daring to say that Obama had a supermajority, for many months, in the beginning of his presidency. Some added that I reiterated “Republican talking points“. Whatever. (If politicians adopt my ideas, i am not going to complain.)

I follow the truth, an attempt to espouse reality. Politically I am somewhat on the left of Bernie Sanders, but also in the future, and that means, on the side of Mother Earth. I know Obama, and wish this will help him to stop lying. The truth is that Obama wanted more progress than he got, because most “Democrats” are rather “Demoncrats”: just ask how come some of them made hundreds of millions during their strictly political careers. Say ask the two top California democrats, Nancy Pelosi, who headed Congress for six years, and Diane Feinstein, the Senior Senator of California. Pelosi is the richest US representative. She is married to an investment banker, Paul Pelosi, the sort of people Obama helped, Clinton breathe with (Goldman Sachs). Obama will say he did a lot to crack down on bankers. Right. And another lie. Another true lie: the Obama administration cracked down on commercial banking, and on banking for “We The People”. (Worldwide, it turned out, as American jurisdiction is brandished that way.)  Meanwhile, investment banking was helped, thanks to the pernicious pretext that banking needed help (yes, commercial banking needed help as Quantitiative Easing made it unprofitable, while derivatives were allowed to run amok, same as before, profitting investment bankers…)

There are system of lies, just like there are systems of thought, and the least plutocracy can do, is to lie systematically. To lie, or not to be, that is the existential question which defines plutocracy.

Patrice Ayme’

Between Friends: Donald, Hillary, & Angry Plutocrats

October 23, 2016

Trump Hatred Originates With The Average Plutocrat, Not The Clintons:

The Clintons and Trumps have long been friends, their children are great friends, especially Chelsea and Ivanka, and it shows. So why all the hatred? Well, it’s manufactured, It is part of a distraction show, kabuki theater. And a genuine worry, among most plutocrats, that Trump is a traitor who plays apprentice sorcerer. The figure of the rogue plutocrat turning treacherously against plutocracy, his alma mater, his nourishing mother, is a familiar one in history

Roughly all Main Stream Media, worldwide, are owned, held, or otherwise controlled by plutocrats (yes, including the public NPR and PBS in the USA). Those plutocrats hate Trump, because Trump has dared to say, and has been saying as loudly as possible, since at least 1987 (when he attacked Reagan in writing) that globalization, as practiced, does not work for We The People. That has been proven aplenty, and now angry voters are discovering that Trump was right all along.

Amusingly, Sanders’ final success in 2016 was forged by Donald’s iconoclastic work, from way back when he fought Reagan with the exact same idea he rolls out today again (whereas the ever more popular Obama lauds Reagan; that, and not racism, is the source of the antipathy between Trump and Obama: Obama was born half white and educated by 100% whites). When crafty Bill Clinton called Obamacare the “craziest thing in the world“, he was craftily following Donald Trump too (and thus neutralizing the Donald: no need to vote for Trump to put Obamacare out of its misery, Bill will do it for you…)


The Ill Informed Sing The Praises Of The Clintons, but the Clintons are followers of Goldman Sachs, establishers of  the financial plutocracy. One, of course, has to be educated enough, and curious enough, to understand the following graph. As rabidly pro-Clinton minorities are in general not graced with as much discernment, they are rather obdurate: they suffer you know. Thus it is that the victim elect their torturers, a generalization of the Stockholm Syndrome (the feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim towards captors). It is a case of capture-bonding. 

The Clinton Destroyed FDR’s Banking Act and Re-established The Vicious Financial System Of 1929, On Steroids

The Clinton System Destroyed FDR’s Banking Act of 1933 and Re-established The Vicious Financial System Of 1929, On Steroids

 Since the Clinton economy affected income, median GDP per capita has lost 40% relative to the GDP of the USA. How come? The 40% went to the top, and mostly the .1%. 


We Are Friends, And Long Have Been:

Trump and Clinton roasted  each other in a funny way at the annual roast and Catholic fundraiser. Trump said he was delighted that Hillary was nominating him ambassador to Iraq or Afghanistan, and he got to choose which one. Hillary said Donald said she did not have stamina, but she had spent 4.5 hours with him, debating, and that was longer than any of his campaign managers ever did (an allusion to the fact Donald’s managers keep on resigning, or being resigned).

The host, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, said the candidates had “nice things” to say offstage.

“I was very moved by the obvious attempt on behalf of both Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump to kind of be courteous, to get along, to say nice things privately to one another,” Dolan said on NBC’s “Today.” “I was very moved by that. That was pleasant.”

Dolan, who sat between Trump and Clinton at the dinner, acknowledged the two were, like President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012, “kind of awkward together.”

“But the purpose of the evening is to break some of that ice, and thanks be to God, it works. The Al Smith Dinner by its nature literally tries to — I’m sitting there between the two — and literally,I’m supposed to be kind of a bridge to bring these two people together. And I try my best, and there were some very touching moments.”

The three of them prayed together. “And after the little prayer, Mr. Trump turned to Secretary Clinton and said, ‘You know, you are one tough and talented woman…This has been a good experience in this whole campaign, as tough as it’s been” She replied “And Donald, whatever happens, we need to work together afterwards.”  

Trump: Sometimes Vulgar In Below The Belt Considerations. Clinton: All Too Often An Awfully Vulgar Laughter Which Looks Like Something A Donkey Would Do. Made For Each Other

Trump: Sometimes Vulgar Below The Belt. Clinton: All Too Often An Awfully Vulgar Laughter Which Looks Like Something A Donkey Would Do. Made For Each Other

So much love! Not like the “arrogant” Dylan who, members of the Nobel committee loudly whine, has refused to acknowledge their glorious, yet most generous existence. Well, what do they think? It is embarrassing, that Nobel is embarrassing and Dylan knows it. (At least he did not get it just because he received power and brown skin!) If I were me, i would accept the Nobel, if i were Dylan, I would refuse it. The Nobel should be used to reward what, and, or, whom, deserves to be discovered, not one of the planet super stars. (Salman Rushdie was supposed to be a runner-up for the literature Nobel, Rushdie is a martyr of the struggle against fanatical, lethal theology, yet how come I get bored to death reading a few pages of his books? At least Dylan, I appreciate, and not just the music.)

So who hates Trump, if not the Clintons? Well, in the last presidential debate, Hillary accused Donald to be a “puppet” and he angrily retorted:”No, you are the puppet“. She meant he was a caricature, he meant she was something whose strings were pulled by multi billionaires (Soros, Buffet, the Gates, etc…) They both knew that they were right, and in which different ways. (Clinton may have enough of a temper to break a few strings, though…)


Hatred Against Trump Is Self Interested Among the Mighty:

Typical is the hatred of the (light weight, yet courageous) billionaire-intellectual-charming corruptocrat,  Bernard-Henri Lévy who nebulously accuses Trump of “possible infidelity to America itself. The party of Eisenhower and Reagan has been commandeered by a corrupt demagogue…”

To put Eisenhower and Reagan in the same category is embarrassingly ignorant: Eisenhower launched FDR New Deal style massive programs (for example the construction of a continental size FREE freeway system, all the way to Hawaii! Or several massive defense programs reminiscent of FDR again). To pay for them, Eisenhower brought up the tax on the wealthiest up to 93%. Free, highest quality public university system went up in the USA, for example the University of California. In shocking contrast, Reagan, an enemy of cognition, established a tuition at the PUBLIC University of California, starting the great movement of making it so that only the wealthiest are fully human (Thatcher would pursue it much later) 

By comparison, in 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.

The result was pandemonium (see the second graph in that’s when the rich started to get ever richer, and the poor, poorer). Reagan was the anti-Eisenhower (but Reagan’s followers were even worse! All those who laud Reagan in any way are just ignorant, Neoconservatives, or worse, clueless clowns. And most probably, all the preceding. Logically enough, as Trump blasted Reagan during his presidency, Trump hatred and Reagan loving are two sides of the same coin (many of Trump partisans, or their parents actually believed in Reagan, before realizing later that they had been had… hence their indignation).


Plutocracy strikes aging societies. Just like metastatic cancer strikes older individuals, and for similar reasons: the corruption of entrenched nefarious mutations. When a society is struck by plutocracy, it needs a revolution. That is why France, the core of the European civilization, went through so many revolutions: precisely to rejuvenate itself, from revolution to revolution (and France implemented a revolution machine in England, which worked for many centuries; even Brexit is a form of revolution, however flawed and misguided…)

Trump, by lashing back against plutocratic globalization, is refreshing. He is also sincere: his mood against some aspect of globalization can be found in a campaign he made against Reagan. Trump’s campaign against the “Politically Correct”dates from the early 1970s. It is not clear what Hillary will do against corrupting globalization, as she did a 180 degrees on the Trans Pacific Partnership (she said the details changed, she didn’t). The Democratic platform adopted several of Sanders’ propositions.

In any case, the differences between Hillary and the Donald are less great than feared by the young and naive. The difference of either of them with Obama, will be more marked: the impulsive Donald and the Hilarious One have lots of experience with the system, and do not really need said system, to become somebody: they are already superstars, and they think highly of themselves. But progressives have to understand they have to exert continual pressure if they want progress, be it Donald, or Hillary. Just making a blind Hillary cult after 8 years of blind Obama worship will mean ever more plutocratization, same as what we have been going through.

And keep in mind that the grotesque racist campaign against Trump is an example of how much manipulation is going out there. After a visit with John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, the Ecuadorean president, Correa, cut Wikileaks’ Assange his Internet access. Assange had been revealing various Clinton manipulations all over. The strident accusations of the US administration against Russia in the US electoral process, mean, precisely, that it takes one to known one. 

Hillary is a monster: a good sign. Devils know best how to fight evil. Maybe she will gobble Bill and his financial puppet masters too.

Patrice Ayme’

No Force, No Republic

February 27, 2015

Humanity is force. This is what vegetarians, often, want to forget. It is no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a fanatical vegetarian, at the cost of his health (too much pea soup, I am not kidding). Hitler was out to project a sensitive image of himself. Thus the Nazis passed laws against cruelty to animals, and instituted a policy of strict protection of nature.

When the Public goes together to form a republic, a Public Thing, force is what that thing is made around, just as in a baboon troop.

Forgetting force is forgetting the Republic. Marcus Aurelius, chosen future emperor when he was just 17, outright taught stoic philosophy (some thought it was conduct unbecoming an emperor).

However, Marcus Aurelius went over the Dark Side when he forgot that’s;

Stoicism without force is only ruin of the Republic.

This has always been true, and is truer now than ever before, because, now, it’s not just a matter of nations, religions and civilizations going down in flames. It’s a matter of the biosphere going down.

It will take some getting used to: the drought in California in 2014 was the greatest in at least 1,200 years. The latest modelling is much worse.

Eradication, Final Solution to Abomination

Eradication, Final Solution to Abomination

Israel used force to prevent the construction of nuclear reactors: in 1981, a raid by eight F16s and eight F15s, dropped 16 tons of high explosives on Osirak, a French made reactor (the site was flattened again by the Americans, ten years later). Israel repeated the performance in 2007, annihilating the Syrian nuclear reactor.

If Israel does not use force, Israel will die. Rome was so strong that it could afford to go catatonic on fascism, theocracy and terminal plutocracy… And still not die. (Rome is very much not dead, as all historians who have paid attention will tell you).

The Roman Republic grew, for five centuries not so much because it was greedy, but because it had to react to exterior aggression (I basically do not know a case where Rome really instigated the aggression, the war… Except for the Third Punic war, the Carthago Delenda Est war… But, when the Roman Republic went to war, it won’t let go.)

Marcus Aurelius poisoned the empire, because he did not use force where it mattered, close and personal.

True, Marcus Aurelius spent eight year on the battlefield, trying to prevent the Marcomanni and other German savages to cu the Roman empire in two.

However Marcus Aurelius was weak in more important respects.

He forgot that emperor Hadrian, the predecessor of his predecessor, decided to choose him and Antonius Pius as future emperors, while passing over his own two sons.

Instead, Marcus Aurelius would heap all possible honors, including Consul and Emperor on his own son, before he reached the age of 16.

Instead, Marcus Aurelius would have not enough money to pay for the army, and decisively defeat the savages. Why? Because the plutocrats, heavily taxed under the great emperor (an ex-general) Trajan, were not taxed enough under Marcus.

First the Republic has to be strong.

At this point if one is on the danger list of Israel, France, or the USA, one gets disposed of.

That does not rile up my democratic instinct. Our leaders should be elected mostly to execute the “basses besognes” (= )

In the past, determined assassins and the like could only kill a few, although, as most societies wee organized according to the fascist model, there was such a thing as striking the head, and changing it.

In Switzerland, with a rotating presidency of seven (soon to nine), there is no great change to be expected by killing one (but for augmenting an ambiance of terror).

The Islamic State does more by destroying antiquities which prove that their religion is junk.

So the only justification for so much power in so few hands in the leading democracies is that they do what is necessary.

One thing they did not do was to change the financial system. There is certainty (in the case of Obama) and a high probability (in the case of Hollande) that the gentlemen will be out of power in two years. So they need them, and all their cohorts of camp followers, to make sure that they ingratiated themselves with the powers that be.

Obama was again in San Francisco, begging for money and making deals, a week ago. Some of the most influential locals (such as Brown, an African American long mayor of San Francisco) are begging him not to come anymore (the ambiance of corruption is not improved by the traffic jams Obama causes).

Obama should stick to assassination, like Hollande, or Netanyahu.

Meanwhile, the Greeks won an important victory. Although it was more symbolic than anything else, as France (still protecting her giant banks) had been forced to win the battle for the Greeks, earlier.



When he ran for his presidency, Hollande, the present French president declared that “Mon enemi, c’est la finance” (My enemy is High finance). People elected him on this basis, instead of voting for the other one, whose obvious friend was High Finance.

However, Hollande behaved just the opposite, deciding, after all, not to tax the hyper rich, and finally choosing a hyper wealthy young 30 something investment banker as finance minister.

Hollande went down ever more in the polls, while the French economy kept on diving from being, to nothingness. Hollande’s polls approval reached 11%, the lowest ever for a French president.

Finally France reversed course.

The mighty French Republic finally decided to declare in advance that it would run a deficit fifty percent higher than the limit imposed by the law instituting the Euro, and this for two years in a row.

This had a number of consequences: bringing the Euro down, and also solving the Greek problem: if France was going to run a 4.5% deficit, why would Greece have to run a 4.5% SURPLUS?

(The greater demand imposed by France can be qualitatively evaluated, considering the relative sizes of economies and deficits: it is as if France was going to run (15)x(1.5) above the limit, when Greece was looking only for 2x(1.5) relief. So the French violation is much greater… and was agreed to… a day or so after the Greeks won).

Paul Krugman agrees that the Greeks won. In “What Greece Won”.

As Krugman explains:

Well, if you were to believe many of the news reports and opinion pieces of the past few days, you’d think that it was a disaster — that it was a “surrender” on the part of Syriza, the new ruling coalition in Athens. Some factions within Syriza apparently think so, too. But it wasn’t. On the contrary, Greece came out of the negotiations pretty well, although the big fights are still to come. And by doing O.K., Greece has done the rest of Europe a favor.

To make sense of what happened, you need to understand that the main issue of contention involves just one number: the size of the Greek primary surplus, the difference between government revenues and government expenditures not counting interest on the debt. The primary surplus measures the resources that Greece is actually transferring to its creditors… If you are angry that the negotiations didn’t make room for a full reversal of austerity, a turn toward Keynesian fiscal stimulus, you weren’t paying attention.

The question instead was whether Greece would be forced to impose still more austerity. The previous Greek government had agreed to a program under which the primary surplus would triple over the next few years, at immense cost to the nation’s economy and people.

Why would any government agree to such a thing? Fear. Essentially, successive leaders in Greece and other debtor nations haven’t dared to challenge extreme creditor demands, for fear that they would be punished…“

Let’s not forget greed, either…

Plutocrats are those who use power, generally through the money they command, to achieve satanic aims. Generally self–aggrandizement by commanding more is a primary obsession.

Central to this strategy is the tactic of making money ever more expensive, and reserved to the hyper wealthy. The less money We The People have, the richer plutocrats have.

Instead, to operate an economy effectively, one needs enough money to conduct all and any transaction that benefits the society at large. That’s a necessity.

Rome failed in that respect in the Third Century, because it ran out of precious metals, and also of enough internal force to impose a FIAT currency. The Franks remedied both problems.

The Franks  got the precious metals in Eastern Europe (a place the Romans had not conquered, per order from Augustus, and lack of oomph from not taxing plutocrats enough, thus having too small an army).

The Franks mixed the silver they mined with less valuable metals. and enforced the value of money: faux-monaieurs, the counterfeiters, were boiled. Alive.

Who are today’s counterfeiters? Who else but the money changers? The banksters.

All this because those who have power abuse it. And not using it is also abusing it. So when the inheritance of humanity is destroyed by Islamists, and nothing is done to stop it, not enough violence is used. Obviously.

So surrendering to the austerity is not just a weakness and a madness, it is a system of thought to submit societies ever more to the plutocratic madness, a much worse prospect.

Patrice Ayme’

State Religion Unavoidable. Now Republican Secularism. Or Die

December 2, 2014

Give Me A State, I Will Show You A Religion:

Any state needs a way to tie up its citizens together again, after whatever trials and divisions they have been through. Trials and divisions there always are.

Said otherwise: having a state means having a religion. As the regime changes, so will the religion.

A clear example is Rome. In the five centuries of continual regime change, from the collapse of the Republic, to the establishment of the Frankish Empire in 507 (defeat of the Goths), Rome continually changed religions. There was the Imperial Cult, and later the cult around “Sol Invictus”. The Nicene Faith of Constantine (325 CE) was not the “Christian Republic” of the Franks (although both were outwardly “Catholic”).

Real Revolutions Need, And Are, New Religions.

Real Revolutions Need, And Are, New Religions.

[Demachy, Fete de L’Etre Supreme.]

In the USA, the de facto religion has been a mix of secularism and obsequious reverence to “Jesus Christ”, a guy supposed to say good things, whom one is supposed to love, to prove one is so good, one can go shoot the Indian heathens in full good conscience, and religious justification. Amen.

Thus, not believing in “god”, or Jesus-love, in the USA, tends to show one is not looking for justification to dispose of Indians and the like (Saddam Hussein), and thus one is treacherous to the nation.

The necessity of a state to have a religion is why, after a revolution, or serious change of regime, any really new state that fought a previous state (of things) dominated by a previous religion, establish a new religion.

An example is Henry VIII, establishing the Anglican Church, or what happened throughout German speaking lands after Luther appeared, and many local lords opted to play a game with the new religion, Reform, to further their own power. Even the French Revolution introduced the “Culte de l’Être suprême “.

This is why all significantly new regime, such as the “Socialist/Communist” regimes establish “Personality Cults”, which are religions by another name.

The vanishing of the old religions in Europe is directly related to the progressive political changes there: the Nazis hid behind “Gott”: “Gott Mit Uns” (God with us) was the motto of the SS. All other old regimes were tied to Christianism. As the regimes lost power, because of the rise of the European Union, if not outright apocalypse (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italian monarchy, and countless smaller empires… in the “imperare” sense), the old religion lost its reason for being.

It has been replaced by a mild version of the Republican religion, which was very strong in France, ever since 1789.

The Republican religion was actually strong before that, throughout the centuries, simmering below the surface. Thus, even during the Middle Ages, republics were allowed within the Renovated (Roman) Empire. Venice was the most famous, and Charlemagne let it be (although Venice had a gigantic fleet, and the Franks very little).

This underground Republicanism is why King Louis the XVI decided to create the American republic. Yes, create: without massive French support the pathetically weak American Revolution would have failed. Louis was told by his advisers, his cabinet members, and his own brother, that he was creating a Republic, and that he would be next. He was explicitly told that he had lost his head, and that this decapitation would be made public all too soon. His brother kindly hanged the famous painting of the decapitation of the English monarch, upon Parliamentary vote (the exact same mechanism that would cost Louis his head). Louis shrugged.

Why? Louis, a deeply religious man, deep down inside himself, having tried everything else, had clearly deduced, subconsciously, that it was time for a new religion. A new way to tie the People together again. So Louis convoked the “General Estates”. The “Third Estate” (namely not the aristocracy and the Catholic Church) promptly proclaimed itself to be a Constituent Assembly (similar to the one then sieging in the USA).

Louis indeed lost his head. But he went to death very calmly, in full respect, in full faith, of the new Republic that he had contributed to create. Louis was a sort of real Jesus Christ, dying from his own mechanism.

A lot of the trouble of the European Union have to do with not having enough of a common Republic, to have faith in it. Let’s have enough faith in the Republic, for the European Union to become a new religion. Otherwise, it will fail.

And this true, worldwide.

Secularism, living in one’s age, is not new: it has been around for millions of years, for the most successful, precisely our ancestors: others died off. Secularism, living in one’s age, is part of human ethology. Fighting secularism is fighting the essence of what it means to be human.

Secularism is another word for accepting science and technology. Those have never changed faster. States which don’t adopt and create them swiftly will be left behind: China has understood this very well.

Yet, to create significantly new science and technology one needs intelligence, thus enough democracy to be called a Republic. Absent the preceding, states who are not Secular and Republican enough, will have a higher probability to lose the next big war (when push comes to shove, and the seas rise big time).

We are in the age of Republican Secularism. This is all the religion we need. But we need it bad.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: To broach a subject I generally avoid: does the preceding mean Israel will die, as the Crusader States did? Well, any regime comparison is relative to its environment. But it sure means that “Orthodox Judaism” is a deadly danger for Israel. It certainly means the EU will die, lest it accelerates progress and democracy enough to look better than the alternative.

TEA: Ending Complicit Naivety.

February 15, 2014

Let’s start with an example of crafty duplicity. Krugman in “Monoposony Begets Monopoly, And Vice Versa.

“Nothing to see here, folks, says Comcast. The cable giant’s defenders insist that its already awesome market power won’t be increased if it acquires Time Warner… we see clear evidence that this is nonsense. Comcast’s size gives it monopsony as well as monopoly power — it is able to extract far more favorable deals from content providers than smaller rivals. And if it’s allowed to acquire Time Warner, it will be even more advantaged… should Comcast succeed in acquiring Time Warner Cable, it will use its enlarged scale to its advantage, potentially negotiating to pay lower fees to cable and broadcast networks.

This would, in turn, make it even harder for potential competitors to enter markets served by ComcastTimeWarner, strengthening its monopoly position.” Astoundingly, Krugman naively concludes with:

“What possible justification could there be for approving this scheme?”

Is Paul Krugman deliberately stupid? Is he really that dumb, or just playing one on TV? To try to enlighten him I sent, with my characteristic generosity, the following comment:

Your question at the end is rhetorical: why media manipulation? For the same reason that makes the New York Times practices censorship. Although I have had a full subscription at The Times for more than 30 years, at the same address, I get very heavily censored.

The rise of giant media monopolies is all about controlling the minds of We The People so that the plutocracy can be served in the appropriate frame of mind, ever more. However the arrangement is unstable, and We The People are getting irritated. Thus, the molding of the minds, with ever more censorship and disinformation, has to get ever stronger.

I sent the preceding comment to Krugman, and, of course, he censored it. The New York Times has censored ALL my comments for weeks, including some in the supposedly philosophical section. Apparently I am philosophically dangerous.

The New York Times is (mostly) owned and controlled by the same family of plutocrats since the Nineteenth Century. The company’s chairman is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., whose family has controlled the paper since 1896. The plutocratic order is articulated around vast, very old families, discreetly controlling the essence of the system, thanks to tax free foundations.

There are the new men, the likes of Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men, flamboyant and outrageous. But that’s new money. To some extent, they are decoys: if one accuses Ellison or Jobs, or Brin, or the Facebook guy to be rich, plutophiles reply that they are job creators, and product creators. The same cannot be said of families who paid no tax for centuries, and control everything, behind the scenes.

Clearly someone up high at the New York Times decided my theories about plutocracy were impolite, a form of political pornography, and that, even if I talk about purely philosophical issues, I should be unpublished. (High level employees of the New York Times I talked to denied this, but, of course, they lied. When a person’s salary depends upon telling lies, generally, they will. Same for Krugman.)

Above the new technologies creators, there are the intermediate men, such the Gates, rich and influential, even before Bill was old enough to attend a few months at Harvard. (Founders of locally dominant law firms, such as Gates Senior, used to be rich and influential, although, since the Clinton financial deregulation, they are nothing relative to financial types.)

And then there is the old money, dispersed all over in vast families, foundations, and political organizations, attending the Ivy League and other plutocratic universities.

That plutocratic network is colossally influential: they hold the fort. Run in the Grand Tetons National Park and, in one of the most scenic locales, wedged between the Grand Teton ski resort and the soaring national park, fall on the giant walled estate of the Rockefellers. It goes mountain to mountain, complete with lake. Contemplate that immensity and you will get a feeling for how immense USA based plutocracy is.

Especially if the experience is renewed again and again throughout the USA: go to wild places, and stumble on the barbed wire of plutocratic estates, horizon to horizon (Senator Baucus, leader of Obamacare in the Senate owns such a property). Europeans would never stand for it.

That immense, mostly invisible network of power controls the CEO class (and, in particular, the boards of corporations). Just like the aristocracy of the Middle Ages, they pay less tax, and are racially different from the plebs, being taller.

That old, ingrained aristocracy explains much of the timidity of president Obama. He was awed when he became someone important for the masters of the plutocratic estate. At the same time, he felt cautious: the fate of JFK is clear of all to see, an unexplained, and unexplainable death.

In general, when in a society an order entangled with the Dark Side arises, fake naivety helps those who want to partake in it, without feeling culprit. It’s a form of lying, and, as all good lying, it works better if one really believes in it.

This is how Germans who viewed themselves as morally upright learned to tolerate and, finally, appreciate Nazism.

Nazism came to an unhappy end because the French Republic next door declared war, and attacked. The case of plutocracy in its present state is different. It’s truly a continuation of the old one that produced Nazism, among other things. However, it thoroughly infects for all to see, not just the USA but the planetary order, as it extends all the way to China and Moscow.

Chinese plutocrats are part of the Republic Of Offshore, so are the Russian ones, and, as one can see in Ukraine, the American masters have been cooperating with the Russian masters (an echo of Yalta!)  to deny We The People full control of its destiny.

Hence what we are facing now cannot be confronted with straightforward military force. It’s a metastatic cancer.

That’s why I propose having TEA instead. That Transatlantic Economic Area ought to be irresistible to the greedy. But, like a Trojan Horse, it will allow the Reconquista by administrative law of the economic sphere.

I say Reconquista, because the USA used to be very heavily regulated, until Nixon-Reagan-Clinton corroded and perverted the regulatory machinery. When the USA was heavily regulated, the economy worked very well. (That was the real difference between Hoover and FDR; Hoover was also into public works; Roosevelt cracked down on finance with an astounding ferocity: nobody now, even on the extreme left, even proposes such correct measures.)

The EU has an enormous administration which is much less corrupt than the beleaguered one in the USA. The former can help the latter, especially if the change is fast paced (the plutocratically gangrenous Congress will not be able to intervene nefariously).

Most of the law applied every day is regulatory law. In the USA, the rise of plutocracy has been mostly effected by short-circuiting and outpacing regulatory law (thanks to the succession of the corrupt executive administrations). A TEA (Transatlantic Economic Area) would reestablish the dominance of law, and the right wing could be bought as I said, by the prospect of greater wealth.

How will it do that? Because the Europeans protest more readily, both the plebs and the educated professionals. As it is, the plutocratic process has progressed in Europe, but, mostly, under cover. For example the European Commission is right wing plutophile (Olli Rehn, the commissar of economic policy being the best representative of this quasi fascist policy, which, for instance, has cost Portugal about 10% of its population in 5 years). But this is not widely known. Things are coming overboard after the European elections, in a few months.

(The population of the USA is much more subdued, because, in part, universal, republican education was all too much displaced by the cult of “god”, and the anxiety of “peer pressure” (that is to be politically correct in all ways).)

More regulations will allow the wealth to be shared more than it presently is. Indeed, in the global system we have the place with the lowest regulations imposes its deregulation on everybody else. Right now, that place is the USA, and it imposes its system on Europe. By making its imposition clear and obvious for all to see, TEA negotiations will augment effective regulations in Europe.

A TEA Party in reverse…

Patrice Aymé

Peace From War

August 25, 2013


Synopsis: Non violence against infamy is infamy.

By not striking down someone who kills children with gas, the Republic becomes an accomplice. By not destroying a little contemporary Hitler, the Republic encourages  the propagation of a mood of contempt for the Public, and Human Rights. We have seen enough. It’s time to take out Assad, and strike terror in those who think they can trample the Republic under foot.

Indeed, no need to repeat the experiment of the 1930s. On this small planet, only regimes compatible with the Republic can exist. After Libya, and Mali, the time to illustrate that principle anew has come again. The Syrian Red Line is crossed.

That Dozens Of Children Were Simultaneously Killed By Gas, There Is No Doubt

That Dozens Of Children Were Simultaneously Killed By Gas, There Is No Doubt

The French Republic has threatened a unilateral military strike, overriding the United Nations (that has happened many times before). PM Cameron, two days later, moved by the pictures of dozens of gazed little corpses, spoke about addressing an ultimatum to Assad. The USA needs to join France and Britain. (Yes, I know, the People of the USA is against it; it was also against hurting Hitler in 1939.)

With nuclear weapons around, it’s time for the Republic to show resolve for tackling hard cases.



The West was taken flat-footed by the events in Egypt. Perfidious Western leaders had naively self hypnotized with the theory of “Islamophobia”. According to this grotesque, illogical, insulting, racist and viciously manipulative theory, it’s racist not to respect Wahhabist Islam.

Well, I don’t respect religious cannibalism, either, so let them call me racist twice. I will call them inferior twice.

Wahhabist Islam said that Sharia, the Islamist so-called “law” ought to apply.

Women ought to be kept inside, wear tents, not travel unaccompanied by an adult male from their family (a provision the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to legislate in Egypt).

Individuals once called “Muslim” and who are deemed behaving in a non-Muslim way are to be put to death (that’s why Syria is such a massacre), etc. Depending upon the place, the local Sharia forces various degrees of sexual mutilations (mandatory on males).

This sort of arbitrary terror has never been tolerated much in the West. But the West wanted to impose it on the Middle-East, in the name of Islamophilia.

As general George Washington said when he was president:“The USA has nothing to do with Christianity”. It should have nothing to do with Islam, either. Washington would have certainly supported the Egyptian generals, as far as cracking down on Islamists.

Now the Egyptian generals, supported by Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia’s wise king Abdullah, have constituted the “Axis of Reason” as a high level Israeli official with an excellent sense of macabre humor, put it.



How can the erratic Western leaders beg for forgiveness?

Give an ultimatum to the mass murderous plutocrat Assad. The West has nothing to do with Christianity, or Islam, but the West has everything to do with Human Rights. The West was founded when the secular Salic Law of the Franks put an end to Christianism’s violation of Human Rights, and when it outlawed slavery.

Indeed, the way Western leadership by plutocracy was set-up, it helped the mass murdering Assad.

The Egyptian generals treated the Western leaders as they deserved, as vulgar allies of Al Qaeda.

Visualize this: Assad laughing, while Western leaders parroted Al Qaeda’s Zawahiri. Everybody got distracted by the revelation of the sordid instrumentalization of Islam of the Western leadership. Assad obviously thought it was a perfect time to use the neurotoxic gas Sarin massively in the suburbs of Damascus. 355 were killed by neurotoxins according to Doctors Without Borders (MSF). 3655 showed symptoms. This, in only three hospitals MSF collaborates with.

Meanwhile, Erdogan, the Islamist Sultan of Egypt, had dozens of top academics, including ex-university heads, condemned to prison, under charges of high treason. Yes, he can! Change the Sultan can believe in! Erdogan has also been riding the Western leadership’s affected love of Salafism.



It’s one of these times, as in the 1930s, when democracies get no respect, Human Rights get trampled underfoot. The danger is that that disrespect gets completely out of control.

It’s like the “Rim Fire” west of Yosemite: to make economies, no VLA (Very Large Aircraft) were sent in the first three days. When the jumbo jets were finally sent, dumping swimming pools on the fire, they were very efficient. But, by then, the fire was already gigantic.

The obvious analogy is with what happened in the 1930s. Then only the French Republic was deadly opposed to the Hitlerian dictatorship. The most senior German generals wanted to make a coup against the Nazis, but, with the United kingdom and the USA apparently to Hitler’s side, they were nervous to make a coup, as if they were France’s allies.

I am not making these things up. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935, was viewed by the Germans as an anti-French Anglo-Nazi alliance. And the support of American plutocrats for Hitler was decisive, not just in creating Nazism, but in making its early military victories possible.

The story of the 1930s was the complicity of much of the Anglo-Saxon plutocracy, and a Non-Violence-Is-The-Only-Way approach to evil, with the ultimate rule of Pluto.

We want to avoid the same mistakes. Chop it down as soon as it shows its ugly muzzle.

How to re-establish respect for Human Rights and the Republic? Respect was re-established the hard way in the 1940s, and the work was only partial (as Hitler’s accomplice, Stalin, was given half of Europe).

France, Britain and the USA should simply give an ultimatum to Assad, and get ready to attack. For real. Enough talk.

Some will lift an eyebrow and wonder how the republic could find itself allied to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Erdogan? don’t I usually rage against them? Well, yes and no. The 89 year old king of Saudi Arabia is an excellent man, not corrupt at all (an anomaly among Saudi princes).

Well, that’s basic Machiavellism. We want to co-opt Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The best way to co-opt is to instill respect. The best way to instill respect is to make an inspiring show of unstoppable force. Roman style.



The Roman Republic, as it grew, and was then very democratic, did not hesitate to make unsavory allies, with the idea of changing their minds towards the Republic. Most ended siding up with the Republic, in depth.

The annihilation of the capital of Bosnia, Sarajevo went on, until French guns applied radar guided counter artillery fire, knocking off Serbian artillery. Although the French military loved the Serbs since WWI, they had enough. At some point, “qui aime bien, chatie bien.”(“who loves well, chastens well”.)

The Kosovo bombing campaign was decided unilaterally by NATO, over Moscow’s vociferous objections. It was thorough, ferocious. At some point USA’s B52s surprised gathering Serbian troops in the open, killing thousands in seconds. The air war worked splendidly.

Now a chastened Serbia is thinking of better things, like being a republic, and applying to European Union membership. Kosovo is also learning the same.

The French republic, ever since attacking unilaterally Adolf Hitler’s garden of the beasts in September 1939, knows very well that, confronted with unspeakable evil, attack is the only way. And the earlier, the better.

So give an ultimatum to Assad. First, to allow international inspector to go anywhere in Syria and inspect immediately all and any apparent chemical attack (Assad pretended the “terrorists” brought the chemicals). If he refuses, or it’s confirmed he used neurotoxins, he should be ordered to leave power, and to surrender to the International Court of Justice.

And if Assad accepts continual, open monitoring? Well, then he would have submitted to the rule of the Republic. A lesson for all.

A lesson, not just for the generals in Burma, but also for the plutocrats all over: force can be, and ought to have been used already, against them too. It turns out the financial plutocrats (Summers, Geithner, etc.)  were engaged in more than a conspiracy, but a worldwide plot to take over the world (thanks to Jennet for informing me of this!) Maybe banksters don’t use gas, directly, just like Mafia bosses don’t go around directly shooting people. They use soldiers to do that.

And, indeed, the Assad family was part of the global plutocratic network. The mood of violence against the Public is global, and self encouraging. Regretfully, only the usage of force by the Republic will subdue it, and break the cycle.

The Romans used to say: “Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.” (If you want peace, prepare for war.) Yes. However, in the most dreadful cases, war is the only way to peace.


Patrice Ayme


Note: Let me repeat, the aim is behavior modification. Technically, a little bombing raid on Assad’s palace may do wonders. French Rafales with American cruise missiles could do it, Lybian style. Guernica in reverse: public saved, fascists bombed.

Some military men will say it’s too late to intervene in Syria. But it’s not a question of invading Syria, but just punish Assad (be it only by degrading his military capability; for example by imposing an embargo with no fly-no ship zone).

I am all for cracking down on the Salafists Assad opposes, but he is greatly the one who created them (in the style of Western support for the Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda). He actually release thousands of Islamists, a bit like hunters release phaesants. What is intolerable is that he would keep on using Weapons of Mass Destruction, although he had warned not to do so.

Why No English R?

July 27, 2013

A notion I advocate is abstracted by two neologisms, plutophilia and plutophiles. Plutophiles have an exaggerated respect for Pluto-inspired activities and proclivities.

It is important to realize that the conventional definition of plutocracy and its plutocrats, all about money, reflect only a small facet of those cruel and sinister occupations, and, certainly, the most benign one.

I will show in this essay that plutocracy embraces the most ridicule notions. Why? Because when one has embraced ridicule, when one has found solace in pride and prejudice, one is ready to embrace plutocracy itself, that grotesque outrage against humanity.

And so it was that the sound “R” itself was sacrificed as a vulgar Carthaginian first born child. Here is an early Briton, who died in York in 211 CE:

Septimius Severus Pronounced R

Septimius Severus Pronounced R

Under Septimius Severus’s son Caracalla, the Roman Senate passed a famous law, the Constitutio AntoninianaThat Constitution made all free habitants of the empire citizens, independently of nationality, origin, or religion. From Scotland to Mesopotamia, and Morocco to Armenia, Ukraine to Egypt.

The Romans were not savages (Want names for today’s savages? Well, say, today’s Saudis, a family that captured a gigantic country, even more roughly than Hafez El Assad in Syria).

Savagery is not just despicable, it’s a lethal danger to those who hold it dear.

Remember Carthage, indeed. Carthage: an immensely advanced civilization, with a modern alphabet, the best scientific agriculture, the very best ships, that allowed it to trade from Britain to Black Africa, for centuries. Carthage, that dominated all west of Syracuse, but for Marseilles’ Greek empire.

Yet Carthage had also an overwhelming satanic side.

Carthage burned children alive (it’s not just hearsay; a child-burning machine was found, complete with human remains, as the texts said!).

This was not an isolated case of Carthaginian cruelty and devotion to the Dark Side. Carthage was, for five centuries, a plutocracy in the full and darkest sense of the term. That abysmal cruelty goes a long way to explain Rome and Marseilles’ hatred against Punic civilization, and, ultimately, and regretfully, its eradication.

Carthage was an acute case of plutocracy and its attending plutophilia (I will not go in the details, but the general Punic plutocracy was excused, sort of, by nominally burning the first born of the best of… So the human sacrifices were tightly related to whom had power and money; that atrocious system thrived for centuries, in spite of being at war with the two western republics, Marseilles, and then Rome).

Carthage’s last minute embrace of serious democracy did not save her. (By then Rome’s mind was made up.)

Plutophilia is meant to sound related to zoophilia; but it’s less innocuous! Plutophilia is how plutocracies stay in place. Watch for example how Obama’s White House is trying to make Larry Summers, who did more for the present financial plutocracy than any other person, head of the USA Central Bank (“Fed”).

The “Royal Baby” show in England was troubling. Does Europe need these monarchies, those symbols of plutocracy? Can the Republic afford them? Is Britain a republic, or really what it is parodying, a plutocracy with funny hats?

The defense of European democracy depends directly upon only two countries, and one of them is a parody of plutocracy, complete with a queen nearly as old as the last empress of China, and a baby called “George” millions are drooling about.

Sumerian cities invented, 5,000 years ago, representative democracy based on a two chamber system, one a national assembly, in charge of legislating, the other an upper chamber, made to be more conservative, to exert a moderating influence, and, or, allow greater plutocratic control.

That system was adopted informally by the Roman Republic. However, the Roman Constitution was not written down, and, until the Second Punic war, the People’s Assembly (Populus Romanorum) acquired overwhelming powers, with the institution of “Tribunes With Consular Powers”. 

The near termination of the Republic at the hands of the vengeful military genius Hannibal, heading a Carthaginian-Celtic coalition, changed everything; too many of the best Romans died in combat, the worst rose to power by exploiting survivors, breaking the back of the glorious Republican mood.

Athens functioned with a “primacy of Parliament” system officially, but not really. This is the system installed in England since 1688 CE. The Athenian system failed miserably (first by betraying the spirit of the Delian league, and then during the Peloponnesian war, by giving hysterical holocausting orders).

The Roman Republic thrived for five centuries, before being laminated by the plutocratic phenomenon.  The Senate was the origin of that ruin. Even after two centuries of “Principate”, emperor Septimus Severus, dying in England, warned his sons that the Senate was the cause of all the troubles of Rome.

Election to the Senate was reserved to Patricians, the Roman aristocrats.

Similarly in Britain, the Chamber of Lords is reserved to… Lords. Britain is assuredly not a republic.

A friend of mine, Nathan Curry, called my attention to the following article:

Why Do Americans and Brits Have Different Accents? By Natalie Wolchover, January 09, 2012:

“In 1776, whether you were declaring America independent from the crown or swearing your loyalty to King George III, your pronunciation would have been much the same. At that time, American and British accents hadn’t yet diverged. What’s surprising, though, is that Hollywood costume dramas get it all wrong: The Patriots and the Redcoats spoke with accents that were much closer to the contemporary American accent than to the Queen’s English.

It is the standard British accent that has drastically changed in the past two centuries, while the typical American accent has changed only subtly.

Traditional English, whether spoken in the British Isles or the American colonies, was largely “rhotic.” Rhotic speakers pronounce the “R” sound in such words as “hard” and “winter,” while non-rhotic speakers do not. Today, however, non-rhotic speech is common throughout most of Britain. For example, most modern Brits would tell you it’s been a “hahd wintuh.”

It was around the time of the American Revolution that non-rhotic speech came into use among the upper-class in southern England, in and around London.

According to John Algeo in “The Cambridge History of the English Language” (Cambridge University Press, 2001), this shift occurred because people of low birth rank who had become wealthy during the Industrial Revolution were seeking ways to distinguish themselves from other commoners; they cultivated the prestigious non-rhotic pronunciation in order to demonstrate their new upper-class status.

Maybe they also wanted to distinguish themselves from the French. Certainly, at the time, the English establishment, heavily penetrated by the idea that Christian god held their plutocracy together, hated the French evolutionary theorists (Buffon, Cuvier, Lamarck, Latreille, Blainville, etc.). Actually go ask an Anglo-Saxon who discovered evolution, and they will answer Charles Darwin (who was born when evolution was taught in Paris)….

Wolchover concludes:

“London pronunciation became the prerogative of a new breed of specialists — orthoepists and teachers of elocution. The orthoepists decided upon correct pronunciations, compiled pronouncing dictionaries and, in private and expensive tutoring sessions, drilled enterprising citizens in fashionable articulation,” Algeo wrote.

The lofty manner of speech developed by these specialists gradually became standardized — it is officially called “Received Pronunciation” — and it spread across Britain. However, people in the north of England, Scotland and Ireland have largely maintained their traditional rhotic accents.

Most American accents have also remained rhotic, with some exceptions: New York and Boston accents have become non-rhotic. According to Algeo, after the Revolutionary War, these cities were “under the strongest influence by the British elite.”

So here you have it. Plutophilia can get, not just to one’s head, but to one’s speech centers, making oneself bereft of full human pronunciation… No wonder upper-class Chinese ladies could not walk. If one hurts one’s own, in the name of one’s great conceptions, one assuredly trains to hurt others.


Patrice Ayme

Nuclear Fusion Or Civilization Fission

June 2, 2013

 Obama diverted billions of dollars of taxpayer money towards private companies, such as battery makers (bankrupt “A123”), solar makers (bankrupt “Solyandra”, cost to The People, half a billion), or luxury car makers (Tesla; bankrupt Fisker). Result? NASA can find only $600,000 for research on propulsive nuclear fusion. Why? NASA was forced to give billions to companies such as “Space X” (owned by a South African billionaire). Never mind there is no market for “Space X”.

 Instead, government ought to finance only technological research that cannot bring immediate profit, from sales. Government ought to never, ever, finance for profit companies. Public money has to be saved for financing what no private company would ever finance. That Obama did not understand this is astounding. Governments should fund, and only fund, instead, big, expensive science:

Provence 2013: 20 Billion+ Fusion Reactor Rising.

Provence 2013: 20 Billion+ Fusion Reactor Rising.

 ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is the most valuable international science project. Ever. (The International Space Station, a good thing, pales relatively speaking, as it requires little science; there are rumors it found something unexpected recently, though… CERN is not really a project, as it’s an organization dating from the early fifties.)

 Such a machine is, literally, priceless. Its real cost will be well above 20 billion, as the participating governments have to feed their research establishments to produce the required new science. In particular a whole new science of materials capable of confronting directly temperatures and pressures only found inside the sun. Just as with propulsive fusion, or maglevs, or contact free bearings, the production, control and efficiency of magnetic fields, an electronic and mathematical problem, has also to be considerably improved.

 ITER will bring near infinite profits. Saving civilization may be one of them.  Be it only from ITER’s diplomatic aspects ITER should be financed. All nations worth anything are funding, and collaborating in ITER, each bringing new science! This has never happened before, except at CERN, not coincidentally also on French territory. Learn, silly and offensive Senator Dianne Feinstein, learn. If your hubris allows you to!

 In the preceding essay, Philosophy Feeds Engineering, I deplored that thermonuclear propulsion studies were not financed more.  Some readers asked me to justify myself a bit more, here it is.

 The rationale for wishing for fusion propulsion, is that, since we use, now, much more of the Earth than the Earth can provide, we have to expand in the solar System. Now.

 It’s a pressing problem, a very practical solution should one want to avoid a holocaust: human population augments at the rate of 100 million a year, at this point. Thus as much as the entire Earth can support with pre-1900 technology, about 500 millions, is added every five years (500 million humans on the whole planet was passed around 1550 CE).

 Some will sneer that they don’t see what’s out there in space that we can use. Sure, as we have not been out there. Clearly, with energy at will, Mars could be colonized right away. And even the Moon, as there is water there, in the rocks, so oxygen could be obtained. Again, if we had a plentiful energy source.

 We can’t expand through the solar system with chemistry (that is, by burning stuff), as the energy production of that prehistoric method is barely enough to send robots to planet. And even then: a successor to the Curiosity Rover won’t happen before 2020, because, although the demand is great, it’s too expensive, and we have run out of Plutonium generators, so we simply do not have the energy source for a new rover! (I hope the rabid anti-nuclear lobby is satisfied!)

 However, there is the energy of the sun, thermonuclear fusion, and we know how it works. Much of the science is here. Can the engineering follow?

 Old Geezer Pilot, a faithful commenter on this site, loves the photovoltaic effect and he reminds us that: “Fusion is just 20 years away. And it always has been.”

 That’s an old joke, always good to hear. However, it’s getting a bit too long in the tooth. Indeed, two points:

 a) the photovoltaic effect was discovered by an obscure Frenchman,  Alexandre Edmond Becquerel in1839. It took about 150 years to make the PV effect able to produce electricity economically.

 b) the Joint European Torus, the JET, in the UK, achieved, with its Tokamak design, not just thermonuclear ignition, but break-even (or so), producing nearly  as much energy through fusion as was put in to confine the plasma and heat it up. That was in the 1990s. (Tokamak is from the Russian for toroidal kamera aksial; the great Andrei Sakharov got the idea of the toroidal chamber with an axial magnetic field.) Since then tremendous progress has been made.

 ITER is supposed to produce ten times the energy put in.

 Tokamak designs aim to put the sun in a box. A tall order. Have the sun turn around in a torus, as a magnetically controlled plasma, never touching the walls. It’s ambitious. Maybe too ambitious.

 The first problem is to confine magnetically the 100 million degrees Celsius plasma, so that it does not touch the walls. Initially, plasma could be confined for only a fraction of a second. But, in the last decade, a Tokamak in France at Cadarache, where ITER is built, achieved around ten minutes of confinement. After some subtle computations by a woman mathematician uncovered new tricks for stabilizing a plasma.

 Plasma are the fourth state of matter, beyond gas, liquid and solid. Stars are made of plasmas. It’s not like we don’t need to know about plasmas. Sometimes, stars blow up. The French Corot satellite found that most stars are much more unstable than the sun. (This discovery could lead to very practical applications, say in the search for extraterrestrial life, or just Sol surveillance.)

 Other designs for thermonuclear fusion than the tokamak, are imaginable, or have been achieved. No, this is not a joke about “cold fusion”.

 Electrostatic thermonuclear fusion machines do exist and are for sale. In them a beam of particles is shot into a thermonuclear fuel target, fusion is achieved. They generate copious amounts of neutrons (that’s why people buy them).

 The lack of success of the presently governmentally financed fusion efforts has been caused from their very ambition, in particular the necessity to avoid contact with plasma and to handle waste… something that is irrelevant in space.

 A few years back, the confinement of the Tokamak at Princeton failed catastrophically for a second, or so. The plasma touched the wall, or something. The machine is 10,000 metric tons (heavier than the Eifel Tower). It jerked up by a foot.

 10,000 tons, jumping. Fusion is mighty.

 The scheme for fusion as propulsion is a variant of a system long proposed to achieve energy production. The idea was to use some material to crush fusion fuel (Deuterium and, maybe, also Tritium), to the point temperatures and pressures similar to those of the sun would be achieved.

 This is how a so called thermonuclear bomb works. In such a bomb, the enormous pressure of the electromagnetic blast from a fission bomb is used to compress a so called tamper that surrounds a mantle made of thermonuclear fuel with a plutonium fission core. The tamper gathers heat and kinetic energy, and, in turn, compresses its interior to sun like conditions.

 In a nuclear bomb, the tamper participates to energy generation: if made out of U238, it fissions. That, however, generates nasty radioactive waste.

 Thus, the main problem of controlled thermonuclear fusion has been, what do you do with the crushing mechanism, once it has become some sort of obnoxious plasma?

 In a so called fusion bomb, the crushing mechanism, which is crucial, can either be made of lead (to reduce yield), or U238 (to augment yield, by supplementary fission).

 Then how come the usage of lasers to ignite a pellet has, so far, failed to achieve ignition? (Differently from the tokamaks which do this routinely.) Because, precisely, in this NIF, the National Ignition Facility, there is not much of a crushing mechanism. Instead light is asked, directly, to crush. But light is made of bosons, particles that like to pile up at the same place, they don’t crush very well.

 In the rocket engine, the crushing mechanism becomes ejected fuel. Presto, no more waste. So I think it should work.

 Why having fusion obsession as a moral order? We don’t want to do like the Romans, and wake up some day, out of energy to do what needs to be done. Going to Mars. Among other things.

 Just like the Romans had to go to Eastern Europe, to find the metals they needed. But they never made it there, because, the one and only time, the entire Roman army was ready, capable and determined to make it there, its imperator was assassinated.

 His name was Julius Caesar.

 Never again would a Roman army be capable of that mission. Eastern Europe would turn into Rome’s Achilles Heel. In several ways. Those romanized Germans, the Franks, were fully aware that progress of law, order and civilization had to cover all of Europe, so, as soon as 407 CE, they fought as the old republican Romans used to, and conquered Eastern Europe by the 8C.

 After this not so accidental happenstance of history, the assassination of the transgender Caesar, the hostile attitude of emperors to any sort of new adventures, especially in all aspects of the mind (hence technology) insured debilitating degeneracy.  That’s why the initiative of plutophile senator Feinstein (Demoncrat, California) to defund the modest USA contribution to ITER should be seen for what it is. Rage against the progress of understanding. Rage against progress: an attempt to spoil our only chance.

 Either we will master fusion, and will go beyond prehistory, or civilization, just as unable to hold together as a nucleus with too many nucleons, will fission.


Patrice Ayme


 P/S: Some will say that we can just do with PhotoVoltaics. Not true. However the fusion propulsion project will use PV to create the electrical power it needs. So, as fusion products don’t fission (having too few nucleons), fusion propulsion will be very clean, allowing to use it even in low orbit. Add this to the space elevator, and we have our access to space, cheap, easy and safe.

Preventing Fascism: WWII & Now

May 14, 2013

Rage against fascism is a good thing. It has to be integrated into moral codes, and institutions. The question arises of how the outbreak of fascism could have been indigenously avoided in the 1930s. After all, we are evolving into a similar situation: an ever deepening socio-economic crisis. Crises call for fascism, always.

Paradoxically, I will argue that, for a republic to be sustainable, anti-fascism has to be imprinted directly and explictly in an intrinsically fascist institution, the military.

Military men have to be imprinted with the notion that all and any order contradicting Republican law ought to be refused (except perhaps for a reason involving a combat situation directly, to be followed by an inquest; drone presidents don’t qualify as combat directly).

Fascism, as the Romans, who conceptualized it, defined it, was the socio-political principle that gave the Republic strength: tie together the weak rods of the individuals around an axe to get immense power of enforcement (justice) and destruction (war). In modern times, the French Republic, explicitly, and the USA  (watch the American eagle clutching a fasces of arrows!) proudly exhibit the notion, which is central to all and any Republic.

Fascism allows weak primates to cling together, act as a super organism. being able to form armies, they conquered the wastes (even Bonobos act this way, and form troops up to 200 individuals, no doubt keeping leopards away).

Thus fascist is an enabling instinct. Fascism is the difference between monkeys as squirrels, and monkeys as world conquerors. Fascists go to the stars, individualists stay in the trees and bushes.

The formation of any troop or army is an application of the fascist principle. Thus the importance of fascism for Rome: for its first four centuries, the Roman republic was continually involved in wars upon which its on-going existence depended, and became the ancient world’s ultimate war machine.

Yet, the fascist instinct can be misused: watch young people going hysterical about the local sport team. That looks innocuous, but countless dictators, in the past, used that madness of young, ignorant, enraged crowds to evil ends.

The three most significant fascisms involved in WWII were the Soviet, Nazi and Imperial Japanese. They had much in common, as proven by the fact that, by 1939, they were military allies (and even earlier, officially, as the “Axis“; or secretly with the USSR).

Of the three the most hopeless, because the most engrained, was Soviet fascism. In the 1930s, Stalin was busy killing most of his army’s upper echelons, after deporting the Tartars from Crimea and dispossessing millions of farmers. He put to work ten million slaves, digging impressive canals.

Stalin’s main opponent had been Trotsky, ex-head of the Red Army. Trotsky was in an awkward position to resist his ex-colleague’s red terror, as he had, himself, been its enforcer in chief previously. besides, the founder, and theoretician of the whole thing, Lenin himself, had made the apology of fascism with his “dictatorship of the proletariat“. By 1939, the USSR had made mass murderous fascism into its fundamental organizational scheme (differently from the Tsarist plutocracy, which had been paying more than lip service to democracy!).

In comparison, Japan and Germany were new to that game.

Thus, if there was a hope to avoid WWII, it had to be with Japan and Germany. Both regimes were, superficially, militaristic. However, both they nearly imploded. Why? Because, in both cases, military men saw the light of truth, and tried to act accordingly.

World War One had been launched by the top half dozen ‘Prussian’ military men, in an on and off conspiracy with the Kaiser. The four top “Prussian General Staff” generals plotted, in 1912, to launch a war against France and Russia, because they thought they could still win it (but not so in the future; they enlisted the reluctant admirals). The result was a giant failure of Germany and civilization. Although the military generation commanding and launching WWI never saw the light, and, indeed, supported Nazism, it was not so for the commanders who followed (and had seen the war from the trenches).

Meanwhile the fascist imperial Japanese military had gone from success to success for more than a generation, defeating the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans. Its leadership became an oligarchy drunk on victory, a typical case of hubris gone completely crazy.

Young officers of lesser rank felt this. They attempted a coup in 1937. It was drowned in blood, and the military dictatorship became worse than ever.

In Germany, it was the exact opposite: the Nazis had hypnotized, and imprinted youth. Yet, the entire upper reaches of the German military had done some serious studies, and drawn their own lessons from WWI. Top german military men were lethally opposed to Hitler. They plotted loud and clear, to overthrow him. They even invited American embassy personnel, just below ambassador rank, to be witness to their reunions. However, they were anxious to justify themselves, relative to the population.

Field Marshalls, and the successive chiefs of the entire armed forces, generals Beck and Halder made the mistake to reach out to the perfidious Anglo-Saxons. The German military wanted them to declare publicly that the Anglo-Saxons would stand with the French Republic against Hitler. The upper military would have then arrested, or killed Hitler and all the top Nazis, and justify themselves to the German nation by saying the Nazis were going to destroy Germany. Because there was no way Germany would win against the exact same coalition of Allies as in World War One.

Instead, of course, the Anglo-Saxons leaders… revealed to the Chancellor-President of Germany, Adolf his name, what was planned. So strong were the plotters, though, that all what Hitler could do was to fire general Beck from his top job. Beck was replaced by Halder, himself respectful of Beck. However the anti-Hitler plotting abated, as the USA seemed determined to support the Third Reich (de facto) and Britain and France let Hitler have his successes. Hitler was condemned to work, for years, conducting a world war, collaborating with his own would-assassin, Halder.

There were many plots against Hitler. All failed, mostly due to happenstance, or too much striving for perfection. Meanwhile the Nazi state grew ever stronger: the SS grew to nearly one million. When finally a full coup was engaged in July 1944, Hitler survived a bomb, and a handful of generals, trying to cover their participation in the coup, went the wrong way at the wrong moment.

The repression was ferocious: Colonel Count Von Stauffenberg had planted the bomb, he was executed the same day. His elder brother, revived many times, was tortured to death. Officially an unbelievable 4,980 were executed (yes, not a typo, nearly five thousands, most of them German army personnel).

Nowadays, the German military venerates the anti-Hitler plotters. It has in its military code that Innere Führung”  (inner guidance) which pledges to defend the Republic and the People.

The best way to fight tyrannical fascism is for the army to thoroughly understand that its own intrinsic fascism has meaning only, and only as, guardian of the Republic, not as a devotee to particular individuals or classes. (Indeed the Roman republic went down when the army’s role went from protecting the republic to personality cult.)

So, to prevent political fascism, one has to incorporate the republican constitution in the military code.

This is no utopia. German military history demonstrates it. The German Military Code (or law) in World War Two said that military men and police could not be ordered to massacre civilians (as had happened in the first few days of World War One). Still, massacres were ordered. However, in about 150 cases, orders were disobeyed, on the ground that the Code forbid it.

None of the cases was prosecuted. The Nazis were terrified that military judges would support those who had disobeyed unlawful orders. and that a lawful disobedience, by then well advertized, would spread through the army.

Better: by 1944, an ex-fanatical Nazi such as Feld Marshall Rommel, was actively prosecuting those who had ordered massacres of civilians in France.

So, of course, if the German republic and German Volk had been included in the military pledge (as it is now!), Nazism would simply never have happened. (Instead Hitler, in degenerate Roman general style, had instituted a pledge to himself!)

One crucial juncture in the ascent of Nazism: when Doctor H. Schacht, head of the central bank, engineered German hyper inflation in 1923, so as not to replace the telegraph poles that had been destroyed all over France by the retreating German army.  Later Schacht, an agent of the top USA banker JP Morgan, became finance and economy minister in the so called Weimar republic, and pushed to bring Hitler to power.

Interestingly, recently, in 2013, the head of the German central bank used lies by Harvard professors to justify the ferocious starving of the European economy, instituted by shutting down necessary government spending (all the money having gone to bankers). Do them German central bankers ever learn?

The Harvard professors mercenaries were, and are, paid by billionaires such as Pete Peterson, and the “foundations” they finance. The modern equivalent of JP Morgan.

Is history repeating itself? Will the Bundeswehr have to realize that, when the head of the German central bank, 90 years later, holds exactly, once again, the discourse ordered by plutocrats from across the Atlantic, the security of the German Volk is compromised?


Patrice Ayme