Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Think America Campaign, Not Hate America!

April 24, 2019

Many have a problem differentiating hate from thought. To train those critters, with new criterions, emotional provocation is best. Here is an important concept, related to “fake news”. The LYING QUESTION. This is an example which was sent my way, found on Quora:

Why do the French fail to recognize the US help during WWII?

The question present as a fact, something that is a lie: the French recognize, ALL TOO MUCH, US help in World War Two (they should read me more, but they don’t understand English as much as they should). Entire avenues in France are named after US president Franklin Roosevelt with what is for me the gratefulness of the ignorant. A real picture of what really happened in WWII leaves with a completely different mood.  

If the USA wanted to avoid Auschwitz and the destruction of Europe in World War Two. all they had to do was to join the French Republic and declare war to Hitler, September 3, 1939. Instead the greedy, unprincipled, cowardly US leadership waited until Hitler declared war to the USA, December 11, 1941. 4 days after Japan did the same.

This massive and painful truth didn’t please the dumbfounded:

81 views 0 Upvotes

Typical Scene in May 1940: Nazi troops, on foot and with horse, pass next to a demolished French Char B1 Bis. Those monster heavy French tanks, couldn’t be defeated by Nazi tanks, they were among the 3,000+ tanks of the French army. They were destroyed from the air. A failure of air supremacy caused the French and British to lose the battle of France in 5 days, starting May 10 1940. That was entirely avoidable, had the Nazi army been detected in a timely manner.

Moreover Ohio Attorney Bryan Reo intervened

Have you considered the possibility of taking your “Hate America” propaganda on an international tour? You could burn an American flag in Cairo and then shout “DEATH TO AMERICA” in Beirut.

My answer to Mr. Reo: It’s rather a THINK AMERICA campaign. It starts by learning to distinguish between “Hate” and “Think”. I know it’s hard for simple beings… One has first to understand that one is not anti-American, nor “French”, just because one deplores once All-American activities, such as McCarthyism, segregation, Jim Crow, Civil War, slavery, genocide of the Natives by the invasive Europeans, etc Neither one is a Jihadist… I was banned by several US media for… Jihadism, a testimony of the lack of education of journalists, lawyers, etc. In their incapacity for deep thought, they couldn’t even tell that my views were rather the exact opposite of what they claimed they were. My view on basic Islam: VIOLENCE IN “HOLY QUR’AN”.

Right, thinking is necessary for hating. However, the two notions should not be confused. It’s not because one hates, that one thinks.

We think, therefore we distinguish. 
Patrice Ayme

Homo, Naturally Born Capitalist

April 19, 2019


Capitalism presided to the evolution of the genus Homo. First, apes are territorial. They have to be to survive: land and its resources do not reproduce at will, yet species do. But species can’t survive without land or resources. So, unfortunately, survivors exist, because they have defended successfully land and resources.

As a study by top experts put it in Nature: Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts.

Chimps On War Patrol. The species can’t survive without war. Or then, in a zoo!

The apparition of tools and weapons extended the notion of property crucial to survival to other capital. That coincided with a bigger brain and the rise of the genus Homo.

During those millions of years of human evolution, some limits to inequality were intrinsic, because the group could only survive if all worked for it, and that could only be done willingly. Force was not an option to ensure collaboration, because force was needed against outside threats and enemies.

Civilization threw these evolutionary conditions off, as the increasing powers it yielded enabled the apparition of a superior class capable of fighting enemies, foreign and domestic.

The monopolization of the means of production by these superior types included intellectual capital, which, in turn, brought superior weapons. However, intellectual capital grew the more, the more intellectuals, scientists and engineers were at work. Thus oligarchic regimes, by monopolizing those mental powers found themselves less militarily inventive than democracies, which unleashed those mental creative powers (hence developed better weapons).

Therefrom, the old struggle between  oligarchies and democracies.

How to create democracies? By outlawing runaway oligarchies. Thus the Roman Republic put an absolute limit on wealth. Enforcing equality is the fundamental reason for taxation.

Continually, the naive arise, and ask for an end to war and capital. When they get better organized, those plaintiffs succeed to hold ultimate power for a while. Spartacus, the Paris Commune, and Lenino-Stalinism are examples. However, that very organization, which put them on top, is itself from superior capital and war capability (however ephemeral). For example the Kaiser, and later Trotsky (head of the Red Army) took the military actions necessary for success.

Capitalism, war, democracy, oligarchy and plutocracy all belong to the same space. One can’t leave it. It, and only it, provides the human experience. Thus simplistic slogans have to be put to rest. It’s the correct analysis of subtlety which should rule, not this, or that idea, let alone person…

Patrice Ayme



From the Nature article about the killing of chimps by chimps in the wild:

“Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing… Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates1,2,3,4,5

…Several robust patterns emerge from these data. Killing was most common in eastern chimpanzees and least common among bonobos. Among chimpanzees, killings increased with more males and higher population density, whereas none of the three human impact variables had an obvious effect. Male chimpanzees killed more often than females, and killed mainly male victims; attackers most frequently killed unweaned infants; victims were mainly members of other communities (and thus unlikely to be close kin); and intercommunity killings typically occurred when attackers had an overwhelming numerical advantage. The most important predictors of violence were thus variables related to adaptive strategies: species; age–sex class of attackers and victims; community membership; numerical asymmetries; and demography. We conclude that patterns of lethal aggression in Pan show little correlation with human impacts, but are instead better explained by the adaptive hypothesis that killing is a means to eliminate rivals when the costs of killing are low.”


OPEN SOURCE LOBBYING Should Be The Only Legal Lobbying

April 13, 2019

Those afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome hoped that Mueller would describe the object of their hatred as an agent of Putin. This didn’t happen: Trump was explicitly exonerated from being a Russian agent. Instead, Mueller fingered out a number of super lobbyists, working with, or more exactly for, both ironically called “Republicans” and “Democrats” (in contrast to what, “Monarchists”?)… the US super lobbyists also worked for all dictators you can possibly imagine… And their targets were not just the powerful “leaders” in Western states, but public opinion (it’s managing public opinion which caused and enabled the Kaiser attack of 1914, and that was explicitly planned, in writing, as early as 1912; since then we enjoyed more of the same, the molding of public opinion to produce Maoism, Nazism, McCarthyism, Brexit, etc.).

The New York Times wrote an article on this: “Gregory Craig, Ex-Obama Aide, Is Indicted on Charges of Lying to Justice Dept.”

My reactionI claim that ONLY OPEN SOURCE LOBBYING Should Be LAWFUL.

Draining the swamp, one lobbyist at a time. Just to understand how hard it is going to be, going that route: there are 40,000 officially registered lobbyists at the European Parliament.

Why should lobbyists who receive compensation (financial or otherwise) for their work be tolerated, in a democracy? Why not, instead, outlaw lobbying pay to play entirely? It’s easy for lobbyists to implicitly offer plenty of indirect contributions in the future…t

The only lawful lobbying should be Open Source lobbying, where the lobbying effort would be posted on the Internet, and made completely transparent. Moreover, a government agency (related to the Justice Department)  should review the lobbying and explain its plausibility, veracity, impact, etc… Similarly to what is already done in California when propositions come to referendums (the voters’ official pamphlet comes with pros and cons, and a California government official analysis, for each single proposition… that, feeds, in turn, healthy debates in the public, and moves the voting intentions).  

Democracy, People Power, can’t happen when only a few men have all the power. In this case, these few men empowered a quasi-dictator in Ukraine determined to crush, even kill, the ex-PM, a woman. This is not just a question of money, not just a question the law, or politics, but of basic human rights.  

Patrice Ayme



Notes: 1) The question of Referendum Initiated by Citizens (RIC) is related, as I said in the comment above. In Switzerland, referendums can be contested judicially (and have been: 5 out of 10 last year, 2018!) The US State of Oregon is introducing a system according to which a state commission made of citizens selected by lot would overview the argumentation submitted to referendum. The same could be done for lobbying. Such a system of overviewing by lot was already used in democracies of Ancient Greece. 

2) Many European “leaders” have been in the employ of top plutocratic corporations. Here is a particular case of lobbying. 

Why do Pluto corporation legal “persons” enjoy greater rights than the average citizen? They exert special access of VIPs in secret (see Europe, below). We’ve clear indications of malfeasance, the “revolving door” between government & business… Just over two years! This is the official (real was probably much higher) intensity of a few US Obama-favored technological monopolies. Legally those are viewed as “persons” (the idea, and law originated in France, became US law recently).  Revolving door became blatant in 1920, when German assets were offered to US plutocrats by the US government (the building with the transactions conveniently burned in 1922, or so…)

3) The corrupting nature of lobbying is beyond understanding. Schroeder, once Chancellor of Germany, became the head of the Russian-German gas project, which insures the good fortune of Putin, Schroder, and the CO2 catastrophe. Ultimately pipes were built-in the Baltic Sea sea floor to bring Siberian gas to Germany.  Schroeder made millions… More are built. Merkel claimed she saved the world from big bad nuclear, while enriching the Russian petrostate dictatorship. No doubt she will be rewarded when she resigned the Chancellorship… Just as her corrupt predecessor.

4) Context from NYT: In an indictment that seized the attention of the capital’s K Street lobbying corridor, Gregory B. Craig, a White House counsel in the Obama administration, was charged on Thursday with lying to the Justice Department and concealing information about work he did in 2012 for the government of Ukraine.

The indictment of Mr. Craig, 74, stemmed from an investigation initiated by the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

The charges represented a continuation — and an expansion — of a new focus on a long-neglected law governing foreign influence operations in the United States, which the Justice Department has begun prioritizing in part because of scrutiny related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation…

By Thursday afternoon, the indictment and its implications were a hot topic for Washington’s lucrative lobbying and communications consulting industry.

The charges will prompt even more diligent review of possible compliance obligations by consultants who represent foreign clients, said Thomas J. Spulak, a partner at the King & Spalding law firm who advises on lobbying compliance.

“It’s pretty significant,” he said. “It’s not just trying to influence the government; it’s trying to influence the American public.” He added, of Mr. Craig’s case, “If they can establish the facts, then I think it’s a pretty serious violation.”

Mr. Craig’s indictment also attracted notice because he is the first person who made his name in Democratic Party politics to be charged in a case linked to the special counsel’s investigation. An Ivy League-educated lawyer, Mr. Craig held prominent positions in the administrations of President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama.

The indictment said Mr. Craig “did not want to register as an agent for the government of Ukraine” partly because he believed doing so would make it less likely that he and others at his firm at the time, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, would be appointed to federal government posts. Mr. Obama had put rules in place restricting the work that former lobbyists could do in his administration.

The indictment said Mr. Craig also wanted to hide the identity of the Ukrainian oligarch who paid $4 million to fund the overwhelming majority of the fees received by Skadden Arps for the Ukraine work.

Mr. Craig identified the oligarch as Viktor Pinchuk, a steel magnate who has portrayed himself as pro-Western, and who has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation…

The work was done on behalf of the government of Viktor F. Yanukovych, then the president of Ukraine, and consisted primarily of producing a report on the prosecution and jailing by Mr. Yanukovych’s government of one of his rivals, the former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko. The Skadden Arps team also agreed to train Ukrainian prosecutors handling matters related to the case.

The work was steered to Mr. Craig and his firm by Paul Manafort, who at the time was a political consultant earning tens of millions of dollars for his representation of Mr. Yanukovych. Mr. Manafort intended to use the report to quell Western criticism of Mr. Yanukovych.


When a concept is born, the concept should have a name, that’s how neurobiology works. The concept becomes a philosophical person, so to speak. I am proud to have originated “Trump Derangement Syndrome“, let’s hope “Open Source Lobbying” will be similarly graced… I have talked in the past of the “Absolute Wealth Limit”… A concept actually invented and practiced in the Roman Republic. However, the Roman didn’t give it a name as such. Notice that the “Absolute Wealth Limit” was a particular case of another Roman Republican practice which deserves a name, the “Absolute Power Limit“. According to which persons (even Consuls in the case of Rome, or presidents in contemporary states) shouldn’t have more than a given power limit. Open Source Lobbying is a particular case.


Disclosure: Skadden is one of the premium law firms in the world. Fundamental to the plutocratic order. My spouse worked at Skadden for a few years… And I have socialized with Skadden partners… Thus I am no virgin to the subject…



Philosophy Censorship; About Socrates The Basic Truth Shall Not Be Told, Pluto Enforced By “Aeon”, A Magazine Promoting Philosophical Fascism

April 3, 2019

Owners of the pseudo-philosophical magazine “Aeon” enforce a particularly strict vision of Socrates. Straying out of it “violates their community guidelines”. This is pure censorship in the domain of the most esoteric ideas (demonstrating those are crucial to the Pluto. order!)

The gist of my comment was that the trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are pro-plutocratic philosophers, and that’s why their thoughts were so well preserved. This is intolerable to… plutocrats. And guess who is financing “Aeon”? Same as all over the world media: plutocrats!

For Aeon’s abuse, see the note. Here is my censored comment, with a picture added.



Socrates should not be considered to be the founding figure of Western philosophy:

that Socrates is the greatest philosopher is a widely held opinion that is indeed deeply flawed, considering the gigantic heritage of thought and thus philosophy, which preceded the Athenian Age of Pericles.

General on the left, great philosopher, his spouse, on the right. Aspasia (right) invented the so-called “Socrates” method (“inductio”) and the Open Society, and all great things Pericles said. All the bad policies of Pericles were his own, he admitted, begging forgiveness.

Actually, let’s hammer it again, Pericles’ second wife, Aspasia of Miletus, was arguably a better thinker than Socrates: she invented the concept of the Open Society, which K. Popper parroted recently; the Open Society is more important a notion than anything Socrates allegedly did. 

Consider the many pharaohs who were women, and discoveries such as “Pythagoras” theorem, one of many discoveries which the Greeks themselves said came from Egypt (with steam power).  Truth was revered in Ancient Egypt, and the ideal feminine, when not actual women, propelled it.

Suspicion wants to ask why, among all great thinkers of Greece only the trio of Socrates Plato and Aristotle was viewed as worth preserving so extensively? Was it because their thinking was so compatible with, and useful to, the 2,000 years of dictatorship and plutocracy which followed them? And which Aristotle personally contributed so much to install? Indeed! It’s no coincidence that Roman Catholicism was made compatible with the “Neo-Platonism” which dominated the empire (and not reciprocally).

Contemplate the many colossal thinkers of Classical Greece, such as the inventors of NON Euclidean geometry (Yes, non-Euclidean), and the engineers of mechanical computers, algebra, and of the all important atomic theory, complete with vacuum and perpetual (“Brownian”) motion. Presocratic philosopher Democritus, his teacher Leucippus, and Epicurus, over two centuries, wrote more than 100 books, mostly on the atomic theory, science, and a rational approach to the entire universe. Why were all their work deliberately destroyed?

Because Roman Catholic fascism was not compatible with rational explanations.

Whereas, of course, Socrates, with his voices in his head, Joan of Arc style, Plato, in love with tyrants of Syracuse, and Aristotle being all things to the Macedonian gangsters, were compatible with Catholicism, to the point they promoted many of its themes, five centuries before Roman emperors adopted them, that is, adopted the intellectual fascism Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were oozing with.

Athenian democracy knew so much about its incompatibility with Socrates and Aristotle, it wanted to execute both (Aristotle fled).

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were deeply entangled, in the most intimate ways, with some of the most famous and bloodiest dictators in history. It is telling that most philosophers have not noticed that horrendous, yet very loquacious, fact. So no wonder the dictators, tyrants and so-called monarchs of the next two millennia esteemed that philosophical trio from thinking hell, so much. But should we? Socrates hated real democracy, and Aristotle was, literally, the father of “Hellenistic” dictatorships which  buried free thinking and inspired Roman plutocracy to take over the Republic, and then the world.

Socrates had means, a stock inheritance from his father, which he admitted to have dilapidated, and a busy wife. In any case, he could afford the expensive equipment of a upper class hoplite, and he kept the most intimate company with Athens’ topmost golden youth. That made him tight with the dictators who ruled Athens, when they did.    

That Socrates was married early in his life with an aristocrat called Myrto explains readily why he was hanging around the uppermost echelon of Athenian society, insisted to attack democracy, and why the democratic authorities viewed him with such hostility. That Plato hid that from view is explained by Plato’s general adoration of dictators, and those who love them.

Diotima of Mantinea is presented in Plato’s Symposium as a philosopher of love, teacher of a youthful Socrates, who defer to her expertise, and she is the inventor of the concept of Platonic love.  

Thus one can see that some of the most prominent durable notions of the infernal Socrates-Plato-Aristotle trio were actually elaborated by women… So why all the reverence to the guys? Is that another case of delirious sexism?

Some British philosopher claimed that Western philosophy, the way he knew it, was just “footnotes to Plato”. Indeed: sitting in the middle of his glorious British empire, he only knew Western fascist philosophy of the plutocratic type.

To get out of this inequality trance, one needs to realize the truth: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were just theoreticians and advocates of the exploitation of We The People by the principle of oligarchy. Socrates hated democracy, Plato lauded tyrants, and Aristotle put in place Antipater, the bloody tyrant, executor of Aristotle’s will, who made Athens, after defeating her twice in naval battles, into an official plutocracy.

No philosophical education should be complete without realizing that this infernal trio are fathers to plutocratic philosophy. And, in particular, Roman Catholicism.


Conclusion (not part of my comment, which was above): Is Aeon is a magazine promoting philosophical fascism? You judge!

The sort of censorship I was subjected to reminds me of The Inquisition. Actually, it is exactly this sort of censorship which brought plutocratic rule, when the non-Roman Catholic literature was systematically destroyed by the “Men In Black” (monks).

This sort of censorship prevents people to realize that Socratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophies have been the backbone of plutocracy, for 24 centuries… and that so-called Christianism (and thus then its child, Islamism).

Interesting too, the no-good Socrates stole women. And who are women except nobody? The Socratic method is Aspasia’s. Aspasia understood what made civilization strong, the Open Society, exactly what Socrates detested (in the guise of detesting Direct Democracy). Socrates (Plato admits) got his (“Platonic”) philosophy of love from another woman philosopher:    

This is another indication that sexism and plutocracy are deeply entangled. I am honored to be censored for this insight.

But this is a warning: the techno fascist who rule the world now are, in some ways worse than the Inquisition. Facebook censors for obscenity works of art ordered by popes during the Middle Ages. We have sunk low, and are sinking lower.

Patrice Ayme



Note: Plato or Pluto? Is there a difference? My comment was using not one word of foul language, or slang, and couldn’t be considered abusive to anyone alive since the dictator Antipater became the executor of the will of Aristotle. My comment was polite, and highly informed at a much higher level than the author of the article (who I didn’t criticize, neither directly, nor implicitly; I actually went further in his general direction, bringing new elements).

Aeon send me this message:

Aeon Magazine

Dear Patrice Ayme,

Your comment to the article ‘Was the real Socrates more worldly and amorous than we knew?’ has been deleted because it contravened our community guidelines.

Users who repeatedly violate our community guidelines will have their membership deleted.

Unfortunately we cannot give individual feedback on moderation. Please consult our community guidelines.

Aeon calls itself a “world of ideas…Aeon is a magazine of ideas and culture. We publish in-depth essays, incisive articles…” The article I commented up was by a Oxford professor (who, let it be said in passing didn’t know much about Socrates; apparently he didn’t know how Socrates learned of the theory of love… although it’s extensively described in Plato…)



UK philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica with B. Russell,  wrote in his Process and Reality (Free Press, 1979, p. 39): “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.

A Lying “Left” Is No Left: the Case of Venezuela, In Historical Context

April 1, 2019

Maybe alerted by the grave Trump Derangement Syndrome about the collusion-delusion claiming that Trump was an agent of Putin, the New York Times is suddenly sensitive to the “Hands Off” campaign about Venezuela from the likes of Chomsky. In “What My Fellow Liberals Don’t Get About Venezuela, Stop sanitizing a tyrannical dictator. My country deserves change,”

in the New York Times, April 1, 2019, and not a joke, Joanna Hausmann, a Venezuelan-American writer and comedian observes a few basic truths:.

“From Noam Chomsky to Ilhan Omar, there is a growing movement on the American left known as “Hands Off Venezuela,” protesting America’s backing of the opposition leader Juan Guaido. Some of them even chant, “Maduro, friend, the people are with you.” In this video Op-Ed, a Venezuelan-American comic argues that these people are living on another planet and ignoring a dire humanitarian crisis.”

My comment (published!):

The European Union, allied to most Latin America, also wants to get rid of the Venezuelan dictator Maduro. It’s not just Trump. The EU has long understood that the safest bulwark against war is democracy. Right now more than 10% of Venezuela’s population has fled.

That tyranny helps We The People is a delusion which profits only the oligarchic system that this idea pretends to criticize. And this is what the plutocratic system the pro-dictatorial (pseudo-)left pretends to criticize promotes

The “left’ has long been adorned with clowns who pretend to defend We the People by pushing tyranny (as a way for We the People to impose itself). The notion dates back to Aristotle who thought monarchy was the best political system. Marx, furious that his wealthy family’s Rhine vineyards had been made less valuable by price competition with more productive vineyards from southern Germany, elaborated a theory that dictatorship was best, as long as it was made by individuals like him. After an alliance with the Kaiser, Lenin, a century later, did just that, ruining Russia and Ukraine in the process, and killing dozens of millions in the Gulag (according to Stalin himself).

Enormous Anti-Maduro Crowd, one of many….

Many self-declared intellectuals in Europe, when they didn’t follow Hitler, embraced Adolf’s ally, Stalin (until June 23, 1941). Later Mao, Castro and their ilk enabled said pseudo-intellectuals to express their resentment to the full.

This sort of “leftism” only help the wealthiest capitalists. As I said, that’s why it keeps on being promoted by the likes of the Kaiser.

Progress doesn’t come that way, but by compromising with capitalism, and indicating better ways. French MP Proudhon and Lasalle did just this, and Marx hated them (while stealing their ideas). In long conversations, Lasalle persuaded Bismarck to institute universal health care in Germany.


For an Australian perspective (spiced at the end with ill-informed TDS, but never mind…):

I invented, and named, the notion of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome (even Trump uses it). It is part of Moral Displacement Syndrome (a vast generalization of Scapegoat Theory, Girard, a French Stanford professor became famous from), itself a particular case of Cognitive Displacement Syndrome.

In other words people think and feel what’s more convenient to them. Once one has determined Trump invented evil, one is led to believe the Venezuelan electric grid fails because of Trump… And thus one can proceed in one’s own bad ways, without any culpability.

Granted, believing what’s convenient does happen to everybody, but one should try to put limits to it. It was pretty clear that Trump was saying, in the 1980s, the exact same things he says now, although, then, it was directed against Reagan… establishment’s democrats best friend (said Obama himself). Trump, a decade older than Putin and world-famous already when Putin was an obscure, low-level KGB agent in Germany, never took any lessons from Russia (it’s rather the exact opposite: Putin is a Russian Trumpist…)

Maduro is clearly a dictator. Allende, not a dictator, was thrown out by US maneuvers and various interventions, including military. Actually, since 1900 CE, the USA intervened many times to serve itself in Central and South America. But present day Venezuela is not one of them.

Instead of saying stupid stuff about Venezuela, US progressives should ask the European Union to take the lead: the EU succeeded to resolve many conflicts, through patient diplomacy (as I just suggested it should use with Great Britain, by the way). Trump has enough on his plate with North Korea and Pakistan (both nuclear states), it should let the EU lead.

Real progress is always founded on truth. And posing, or fake progress, doesn’t foster truth.

Patrice Ayme



Note: As I have explained in the past, if this backing of tyranny by the (pseudo) left advantages the ruling oligarchy, why do they do it? Precisely because it’s their job, in the oligarchic order! Double agents are not a new notion. All the more as, in this case, being deeply delusional, they are sincere… So they don’t even know they serve the oligarchy. Not anymore than busy bees know they are serving the apiculturist….

European Union Should Extent Brexit (Article 50) Two Years. Without UK European Parliament Privileges!

March 29, 2019

Indeed, as I will explain more below, the European Parliament doesn’t create laws, just approve them. Great Britain is already out ot the European Council (which launches laws).

The House of Commons, the UK Parliament, rejected the UK government’s “Withdrawal Agreement from the European Union“, for the third time. According to the EU’s ultimatum to Great Britain, the UK will be thrown out of the EU on April 12, in 14 days. This expulsion is unwise, and no civilized way to proceed. I will thereafter suggest a different course: extending massively Article 50, putting Brexit on the European backburner, a slow simmer in the background, leaving time for Great Britain to figure out its existential issues, its Brexistential issues… Shile Europe is allowed to reconsider the future, the planet, civilization, progress, democracy, and other things which have disappeared from the Brexit debate…

The interminable Brexit process is paralyzing Europe (both UK and EU). The temptation is to expedite it, in the hope of being done with it. That will not work: instead, it will make the situation way worse. If Brexit happened on April 12, 2019, in two weeks, ten years of divisive negotiations would ensue. How to avoid that? Forget about it! Forget about Brexit, send it to the purgatory of the House of Commons, under the good care of its weaker, the excellent right honorable gentleman, Speaker John Bercow.

Another new NO, the ninth, was added on Friday. The Third No on the withdrawal agreement.


How And Why LEGALLY EXCLUDE the UK From The EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (Until the UK Decides to Revoke Article 50, & Remain In the EU):

Europeans have to let the British Parliament find a solution and have it ratified by the British People, in a referendum. That will take at least a year. Meanwhile, the rest of the European Union has to protect itself from the pathology known as Brexit. That means that Great Britain should be EXCLUDED from taking part in the next European Parliament.

I don’t care what the legalistically minded come up with, mumbling that EU member nations have to be represented in Parliament, that we can’t have a precedent, bla bla bla. Right, the EU is very legally minded, a French characteristic, now permeating the EU. However, sticking to the law causes rigidities which, in turn can only be removed by those periodic revolutions shaking France.

The spirit of the law always beats the letter of the law. The letter of the law has already been broken: Article 50 extended only until tomorrow, March 29, 2019, the appartenunce of the UK in the EU.  Hence the letter of the law (24 months!) has been broken. Yet the spirit survives.

So, in a way, the UK is (sort of) out: the European Council, after one meeting with UK PM Cameron, four days after the fateful Brexit, never met as 28 members again: the UK got excluded. So the new spirit of the law is that the UK is partly out of the EU. The European Council is really the government of the EU (the European Commission just implements what the EC wants).

The European Council is more important than the European Parliament (European Parliament vote laws, but doesn’t suggest them). So, no EU Parliament for the UK. Instead UK in an indefinite Article 50: all rights and duties of membership, except for voting. In many democracies, convicts don’t vote for a while. Hey, Britain self-convicted.

The solution above, extending Article 50 by two years, but no Parliament for the UK, will free the EU from Brexit. The EU will be free to progress, pass laws mitigating plutocracy, climate change, foster research, education, etc. In particular financing of UK science and advanced tech by EU budgets will proceed. Also Eurosceptics will be informed that leaving the EU, and activating Article 50, has a democratic cost, and gives a forerun of what it means to be out of the EU: no more European legislating possible.  


And what will happen to Great Britain? Polls show the UK would vote for Remain at this point. Within two years, the British People will come to its senses, in spite of the shrill shrieking propaganda of its plutocratic media (the EU should pass laws to limit plutocratic propaganda). So We the British People will vote to stay in the EU. Then a special EU Parliament UK election can be held.

The non-participation of the UK in the EU Parliament will prevent Parliamentary sabotage, which would otherwise paralyze Europe some more. However, if legal minds of the stupid kind insist on having that… the fact is that Article 50 should be extended 2 years, while Speaker Bercow and the House of Commons figure Brexit out.

Why? No bad feelings, looking forward… In the end no Brexit.


Enough, children, who go by the self-glorifying name of “leaders”! Learn from history!

The British Parliament voted No No No No No No No No, No, on all the possibilities of Brexit, a wide spectrum selected by the very interesting Speaker Bercow. A European ultimatum expires April 12. On that date, Great Britain is supposed to have decided to leave, and how. (If if with a deal then the effective day will be in May.)

You may not know this, you children who are called leaders, because you studied just what was Politically Correct, but war is a serious thing, and a seriously sneaky thing. Apparently innocuous indifference and turning-away can turn into alienation, and war. The personal history of my family has helped me know these emotional truths. I was graced by a family which harbred resistance fighters, more than 100 Jews, which was chased by the Gestapo, while my dad arrived in France in combat, fighting Nazis… In my lifetime, I have known what it feels like to be bombed by fascist racists, and to have a young uncle who was an elder brother to me, killed by Islamist  terrorists (crucially helped by a double dealing French government).

Also I spent decades studying history, in particular of the European kind. It is not as simplistic as usually depicted. The first battle of Fontenoy (around 50,000 killed by arrows, lances, swords, and axes, in a few hours of hand to hand combat) was an enormous butchery, Franks against Franks. There was a second, even more famous battle, in the same place of Fontenoy, 1,000 years, a millennium, later, this time English against French. As one can see, French military history is rich, unparalleled… These two battles of Fontenoy were pretty much brothers against brothers, not civilization against savagery, and should never have happened.

Yes, Europe had plenty of civilization against savagery battles. France was involved in all of them (the Mongols gave up their conquest of Europe, when the top Mongol generals argued that the heavy losses they had suffered in Hungary were a foretaste of suffering again the same fate as their ancestors the Huns in France). In the Eight Century, the Franks repelled three invasions of Europe by the savage Arab Islamists, over a period of thirty years. Of course, Islam would never have happened if Catholic fascism had been defeated at the Battle of the Cold River, three centuries before Muhammad’s birth.  At the Cold River, the Western Emperor, Eugenius, a secular professor promoted by the head of the Occidental Roman army, Arbogast, confronted the catholic bigot, Oriental emperor Theodosius (originally a Spaniard). Arbogast, a Frank, controlled, for many years, a Roman army full of Romanized Franks. Theodosius was allied with the Goths. Theodosius and his goons had invented the notion of “heresy”, and laws, decrees, making “heresy” punishable at the pleasure of the government.

There is a direct line between this, and the government of Brunei establishing the death penalty for homosexuality in 2019, according to Sharia. Indeed, at the Cold River, the Frigidus river, unexpectedly, Arbogast was defeated and those who wanted heresy to be punishable by death, and Catholicism to pursue its reign of terror, won. Not only that, but, left without an army, the Occidental Roman empire promptly fell to the invading barbarian hordes, 14 years later (406 CE).

The millennium of European wars started when the French of West Francia turned their backs on the rest of the “Roman” empire (actually the west of present France, the most occidental third of the “Francia” of the Franks from 500 CE to 950 CE, including Paris had very good reasons to reject the empire… which had failed to protect them against the Viking; instead the count of Paris, soon to be duke, did the work, battling back from the ramparts, with 200 men, 10,000 bloody Vikings… while the Roman/Carolingian emperors prefered negotiations with the Viking). That turning of all French backs was, to some extent, justified. However it caused alienation between Europeans. By 1200, all of Europe was united against the French-Paris monarchy (and lost the battle and war against the “French” king Philippe Auguste, at Bouvines).


Treat The British Well, They Don’t Have To Be Too Punished, This Is Not Versailles:

The interminable Brexit is paralyzing Europe. The temptation is to expedite it. That would be a mistake for the British: once they inspect the situation in all details, they will come to the conclusion, except for a few vested interests, like plutocrats and media moguls, and the odd deluded fisher, that staying in the EU is the less bad of all bad possibilities.

I am of the opinion that Germany was treated very well by the Versailles Treaty (contrarily to common opinion). That’s because I studied the situation in details, and I didn’t buy the Nazi opinion about Versailles. However, there is definitively a risk of mistreating a deluded Britain about Brexit. OK, the British have the wrong mentality about the European Union. This is a particular bad case of “fake news”. Just like Islamophilia is a particularly bad case of “fake news”.

So yes, there is “fake news” problem. But does that mean that British or Muslims should be mistreated? As individuals? No. The problem is that Brexit would hurt most british and European citizens, So the rest of the European Union has to be patient.

Not having the UK NOT sit in the EU Parliament will have the advantage that a lot of laws of the pro-plutocratic, anti-federal, and unequal laws, in particular the monstrous British rebate, and the even more monstrous Swiss rebate, can be legislated out.

Yes, president Macron is understandably viewing this Brexit tragicomedy as something to flush down the toilet, ASAP. However, apparently innocuous and inconsequential acts in history have resulted in immense tragedies.

Don’t forget the present system in Britain was mostly created by a succession of French adventurers, warriors, magnates and plutocrats, with a few queens and duchesses in the mix (William of Normandy, the barons of Magna Carta, Eleanor d’Aquitaine, Yolande of Aragon, Isabelle de France, Edouard III/Edward III, Lancaster/Lancastre, de Montfort come to mind; the House of Normandy was succeeded by the House of Anjou). The estrangement between England and France was the fruit of personalities more than anything else. A striking example is Yolande of Aragon, who financed Joan of Arc’s army and the illegal kinglet (the “Dolphin”) connected to them, who got the “100 Years War” relaunched all by themselves. (Yes, now there is a lamentable cult of Joan of Arc amplifying that idiotic nationalism and bigotry.)

Small things can have big consequences: models supposedly show weather systems can be created by a butterfly flapping its wings, three weeks earlier.

Macron, the French president, doesn’t want to become that butterfly of doom, flapping Europe into division and thus oblivion. Macron doesn’t want to flap all wrong. Let Macron beat on French Yellow Jackets, if that’s his won, he does that well, the French love to be beaten up, so they can beat back. Revolutions make French law progress. But Macron shouldn’t beat on the British. That could lead to war.  

The European Union will be optimal if it acts as an empire of the highest aspirations. That includes, first of all, bending over backwards not to mistreat European Peoples or nations. Europe should focus its energy on thermonuclear fusion and the space race now engaged between the USA, China, India, maybe Russia to be first (back) on the Moon. (The European thermonuclear reactor JET is based in the UK, it’s crucial to ITER, and its financing has been compromised by Brexit.)

Oh, by the way, Boris Johnson, ex-mayor of London and co-leader of the Leave (the EU) campaign, voted for the EU Withdrawal Agreement of May, today (his colleague had adopted the same position a week ago). Why? Because for the UK to leave the EU without a deal is an unfathomable catastrophe.

So, question, if the Leave campaign leaders can be that reasonable, surely the European leaders should be? Or are the leaders of the European Council truly that childish that they risk European strategic disaster, medium term? Jut on the basis of legalistically justified resentment? 

Taking away Parliament from a EU country which has left the European Council, which originates European laws, only makes sense. Beating the Brits when they are down doesn’t. Give Great Britain time to rethink Europe. Two years. No Parliament.

Patrice Ayme



The opinion of the British on Brexit has already changed a bit. It will change some more. Hey, even the New York Times is realizing it had Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here is a New York Times editorial on Trump today:, operating a U-turn on its opinion of Trump:


“Maybe the president brilliantly played the media. Or maybe we just played ourselves.

By Bret Stephens,  Opinion Columnist

“Maybe we’ve had this all wrong.

Maybe Donald Trump isn’t just some two-bit con artist who lucked his way into the White House thanks to an overconfident opponent. Or a second-rate demagogue with a rat-like instinct for arousing his base’s baser emotions and his enemies’ knee-jerk reactions. Or a dimwit mistaken for an oracle, like some malignant version of Chauncey Gardiner from “Being There.”

Thanks to Robert Mueller, we know he isn’t Russia’s man inside, awaiting coded instruction from his handler in the Kremlin.

Maybe, in fact, Trump is the genius he claims to be, possessed — as he likes to boast — of a “very good brain.”


Here is the full statement from the European commissionfollowing the vote in the Commons.

The commission regrets the negative vote in the House of Commons today. As per the European council (article 50) decision on 22 March, the period provided for in article 50(3) is extended to 12 April. It will be for the UK to indicate the way forward before that date, for consideration by the European council.

A “no-deal” scenario on 12 April is now a likely scenario. The EU has been preparing for this since December 2017 and is now fully prepared for a “no-deal” scenario at midnight on 12 April. The EU will remain united. The benefits of the withdrawal agreement, including a transition period, will in no circumstances be replicated in a “no-deal” scenario. Sectoral mini-deals are not an option.

The final two sentences refer to a claim often made by Brexiters at Westminster that, in the event of a no-deal departure, the UK and the EU would in practice negotiate a series of mini-agreements to mitigate the worst consequences. This is sometimes referred to as a managed no deal.

Islamic Pakistan Declares Our Work “Extremely Blasphemous… Electronic Crime”. WordPress Censors It.

March 13, 2019

A Pakistan authority has demanded that we disable the following content on your site:

Unfortunately, we must comply to keep accessible for everyone in the region…

Muhammad explicitly said that the Islam ideology gave the mental framework to attack the Greco-Roman and Zoroastrian civilizations, and that, for the first time in 1,000 years, it was the precise military moment to do this. On both counts, Muhammad was perfectly right. And history proved it, as islam collapsed, through astounding military victories, both the Zoroastrian Sassanid empire, and the (Greco-)Roman empire. Now the god crazed ones have nukes…

So notice how a rabidly religious bully (the Pakistani authority) forces an entire publishing organization (WordPress) to submit to censorship, under the threat to outlaw it, altogether.


Let me repeat slowly and amplify:

I have wasted lots of time reading carefully fundamental Islamic texts. One interest is to find out how crazy people can get, and the reasons which prop them to become so. So Jihadists and other Islam fundamental hysterics are of general interest to probe the human soul.

Islam, from the start, was a war religion. War is intrinsic to Islam, and the reason of its instantaneous, stupendous success. Islam arrived in Pakistan many centuries (at least 4 or 5!) after Christianism. Christianism arrived peacefully (however painful it may be for me to admit this, it’s a fact… in this particular case). Islam arrived in Pakistan in a few decades, at the point of swords. Immediately, the Islamists made the Pakistani aliens in their own land (they had to wear special clothing, pay a special tax, and would be killed if they show disrespect to the Muslim invaders, or engage physically with their enslaved females…)

Killing Christians for “Blasphemy” became routine in Muslim occupied Pakistan.

Muhammad explicitly said that the Islam ideology gave the mental framework to attack the Greco-Roman and Zoroastrian civilizations, and that, for the first time in 1,000 years, it was the precise military moment to do this. Then Muhammad headed a large army into the Roman empire: Muhammad, a man of his word, and his sword. On both counts, Muhammad was perfectly right. And history proved it, as Islam collapsed, through astounding military victories, both the Zoroastrian Sassanid empire, and the (Greco-)Roman empire… in a few years.

Of course world civilization cannot afford hysterical lunatics really believing in attacking civilization being armed with hundreds of thermonuclear weapons, as present Islamic Pakistan is. Thus, Pakistan is a bigger problem than North Korea (with which it collaborated in making weapons to fight civilization). Potential nuclear war by enraged Jihadists is a concern for the whole planet, as a threat, and a prospect. Whereas the UN engaged in well deserved boycotts against anti-human rights regimes such as Rhodesia and South Africa, resulting in changes, it has done little about rogue states with nukes (except South Africa, which agreed to dismantle its nukes). This playing with fire. No state clearly violating human rights should be authorized to have nuclear weapons…

Now for the official complaint of the Jihadists in power in Pakistan against our work:


Begin complaint —

Dear WordPress Team,

I am writing on behalf of Web Analysis Team of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) which has been designated for taking appropriate measures for regulating Internet Content in line with the prevailing laws of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In lieu of above it is highlighted that few of the web pages hosted on your platform are extremely Blasphemous and are hurting the sentiments of many Muslims around Pakistan. The same has also been declared blasphemous under Pakistan Penal Code section 295- B and is in clear violation of Section 37 of Prevention of Electronic Crime Act (PECA) 2016 and Section 19 of Constitution of Pakistan.

Keeping above in view, It is requested to please support in removing following URL’s from your platform at earliest please.

The below mentioned websites can be found on following URL’s:-



You are requested to contribute towards maintaining peace and harmony in the world by discontinuation of hosting of these websites for viewership in Pakistan with immediate effect. We will be happy to entertain any query if deemed necessary and looking forward for your favorable response at your earliest.


Web Analysis Team

+92 51 9214396

— End complaint —

Space Law

March 12, 2019

Space Colonization: Unavoidable and the Solution to the Main Ills…
Man is the colonizing animal. Man, the genus Homo, evolved because of colonization. That’s why we evolved our long arms carrying tools or weapons, and our bipedal posture. Only thus could we survive in the savannah.

Colonization made us: we all descend from colonizers genetically and mentally, and culturally. Wherever one looks on this planet, a piece of the history of colonization is found, from Tasmania, to Thule, from Patagonia, to Kamchatka, and all over Africa.

The Earth can’t sustainably support the present human population, with the present technology. So two things have to occur: expanding our Lebensraum, our vital space, or improve our technology. Space colonization does both.

On the question of law, it will evolve as needed. It already exists, in embryonic fashion.

No less than nine US companies are involved in human space explorations, collaborating with NASA. The Trump administration, sensibly, has decided to focus on the Moon, and NASA is suddenly scrambling for heavy duty lunar landers, in cooperation with the said nine companies (latest developments, 2019). SpaceX is preparing a giant steel spaceship which will sweat during re-entry, to cool itself, which is really cool, as our friend the verbally challenged would say… The official idea of SpaceX is to go to Mars, but round trips to the Moon are more likely (be it only because radiation and low gravity will be too much going to Mars the slow way…)

This is all, not just very proud, but very good…
It’s not just playing with toys, not just fun, or giving hope. Not just Plutos on a rampage, getting their yayas out. And space is certainly not a pathetic distraction. That’s where we live, savannah revealed in its  righteous immensity.

Because it brings… space, & tech, as needed, space colonization is the only way to seriously mitigate the present war against the planet, hence how to make politics more sustainable, and avoid a general thermonuclear conflagration.
Patrice Ayme


One of the more notable recent events was the launching of a non-government rocket by a company run by Elon Musk to the International Space Station. Apparently Boeing is going to do something similar in the not too distant future. In some ways this is exciting, because one way or another, human ventures into space will increase markedly. I recall in 1969 sitting in front of a TV one morning (I was in Australia) getting direct feed from Parkes to see the first Moon landing in real time. (OK, there was a slight delay due to the speed of light, and probably more due to feed looping, but you know what I mean.) There was real tension because while everyone was reasonably confident that NASA had selected a good site, it was always possible the ground was not as solid as it might appear and it only needed for the…

View original post 941 more words

Brexit Corrupt and Corrupting

March 9, 2019

It just formally surfaced that Brexit was paid in part by foreign money. The UK government disingenuously claims it can’t do anything about it. Even the Washington Post finds this alarming, and discovered that financial plutocracy was the force behind Brexit (see quotes below). Financial plutocracy is the world’s great organizer at this point, ever since the Clinton presidency put it in power. 

Brexit was driven by plutocracy. Plutocracy always molds minds. Consider Roman emperor Constantine literally inventing Catholicism, to better exert his terror.

The plutocratically owned British tabloid newspapers were the primary mind molders which build the Brexit mood. The Sun (Murdoch), Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Daily Star command at least 75% of the market. The Daily Telegraph is of the same sort, and even the BBC mass produces anti-European propaganda. They’re as rabidly racist, xenophobic and anti-Immigrant. They relentlessly compare the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany imploring their readership to summon their  ‘Dunkirk Spirit’, to once more vanquish the enemies of freedom and take back control.

Pluto tabloids completely misrepresent how the EU works. The argument can easily be made that the EU is more democratic than the UK, After all, the EU has no Lords and no chamber of Lords, nor an immensely wealthy tyrant privy of the affairs of the state, living in an assortment of big castles, with her enormous famous family living on the world’s most expensive dole. This is serious business: Brexit will restart the Irish civil war, which the EU accords had terminated, twenty years ago. People are already getting assassinated.

Mother of two young children, and Member of the British Parliament, Jo Cox was assassinated because of the mood of anti-European hatred ruling Britain, installed by the global Plutos. Brexit is not exactly Nazism, but the basic idea is the same: kill for the (imaginary) tribe! And the basic fundamentals identical: manipulation by global Plutos, installing a mood of hatred. Murdoch or Murder-rock, that is the question.

The new element? Here is the Washington Post telling the basic of the latest story:

“Elements of the 2016 British referendum campaign have long seemed familiar to Americans. There was a close, controversial election, full of rancor and anger. There were a lot of wealthy men talking about “the people” and their “will.” There were targeted advertising campaigns, stolen data and fake social media accounts. But now, with only a few days left until Britain is due to face the consequences of that vote, the Brexit story suddenly looks even more familiar: One of its protagonists turns out to have much deeper Russian business connections than previously suspected. He also tried to conceal them.

The protagonist in question is Arron Banks, the most important funder of both the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Leave.EU, one of several organizations that campaigned to get Britain out of the European Union. By the relatively low-spending standards of British politics, Banks was a huge donor, giving $11 million of his own money to the Brexit cause and raising an additional $5 million on top. And here’s the peculiarly British part of the story: Thanks to Banks’s extensive use of tax havens and shell companies, it has never been entirely clear where all of that money came from — or even whether all of it was really his.”

Plutocracy rules over minds first, physical terror is a secondary adjuvant (this was pointed out implicitly by La Boetie, 16C, Rousseau, 18C). Global plutocracy succeeded, with the Brexit affair, to potentially lethally distract the European Union from the measures it was debating to mitigate global plutocracy…

Of which Europe is the main victim, ever since the Kaiser plutocrats, secretly allied with the Wilson US presidency, declared war to Russia (August 1 1914), and then drove two million armed men into Belgium, to try to catch a vacationing French Republic from behind (August 2, 1914).    

For years, all Europe has been plunged into Brexit, Brexit and ever more Brexit. Taxed by Brexit, all the proposed European laws to moderate plutocracy have stalled. The perspective of measures such as a financial transaction tax, put forward by France, scared financial plutos. Let alone measures against tax havens. Great Britain itself is a big tax haven. Anne Applebaum:

“But even if this [Banks] story won’t delay Brexit, it does firmly locate the referendum within a larger context. The truth is that Britain has become a place where untransparent money, from unknown sources, is widely accepted with a complacent shrug. London is the world capital of offshore banking, home to the most sophisticated accountants and lawyers; a third of British billionaires have availed themselves of those services and moved their money beyond the reach of the state, according to a report Thursday in the Times of London. Many of them nevertheless continue to make donations to British political parties, and many continue to lobby to keep the rules that favor them exactly as they are.

As a result, the British political class does not have the willpower to force them to bring their money home. The British state does not have the legal tools to force Banks to show where his cash came from.”


Measures such taxing the GAFAM, the tech companies which pay no tax, have disappeared from the collective European consciousness…

Finally, though, the French Republic, pushed by a simmering popular insurrection, decided not to wait for the rest of Europe. The French government has launched unilaterally a GAFAM tax which should hit 30 or more companies which have huge revenues in France, but they disingenuously claim, no profits.  

This sort of European measure is exactly what global plutocrats were afraid of: being taxed from their revenues, not their declared fake profits.

Plutocrats thus decided to weaken the EU by cutting off Great Britain. Historically, plutocracy is a disease which doesn’t hesitate to destroy the state which has allowed it to appear. An example is the Roman Republic, and then empire: Roman plutocracy didn’t hesitate to lethally wound both. Roman plutocracy survived the collapse of the Western empire (it allied itself with the invading barbarians).  

If plutocracy had not thrown the EU into chaos and confusion with Brexit, the great danger for those rulers of humanity, was that the anti-plutocracy laws and measures taken by the EU, had the EU taken them, would have created a similar mood of anti-plutocracy resistance in the USA.

Should then EU and the US have taken joint measures against plutocracy, plutocracy would be finished and the West rejuvenated with a cure of equality. That, thought the plutos, had to be avoided at all and any cost. And they tend to hold the media, especially in Great Britain. Some wonder: why are plutocrats so nasty? Because pluto-cracy doesn’t just mean money-power, it also means, more generally, evil-power. There is a Dark Side to humanity, and those who become extremely wealthy tend to get sucked into it. Overruling republic and democracy then becomes their obsession, because they have everything, but that. All democrats have to fight Brexit, they are facing the fundamental enemy, the same one which financed Hitler, as early as 1920 (some of the same institutions which did this a century ago are still around, and as powerful as ever… let alone the same ideas, moods and habits…).   


Anne Applebaum, Washington Post:
The more we learn about Brexit, the more crooked it looks

The British state does not have the legal tools to force Banks to show where his cash came from. The British media continue to investigate, but if anyone were trying to influence the British referendum campaign from outside the country — beyond the social media manipulation that is now de rigueur in almost every election — it’s possible that we’ll never know.

And here’s the final irony: If Brexit was the creation, in part, of this new world of offshore money and political influence campaigns, Brexit may well ensure that it continues unrestricted. The E.U. is probably the only power in Europe — maybe even the only one in the world — with the regulatory strength to change the culture of tax avoidance. And since 2016, it has been slowly enacting rules designed to do exactly that. Britain, once it leaves the E.U., may well be exempt.

British industry might suffer after Brexit, and British power will be reduced. But the gray zone — where politics meets money, where foreign money can become domestic, where assets can be hidden and connections concealed — will survive. Perhaps that was the point all along.

Thus talked Bezos, and he talked well.
Bezos, Amazon, the GAFAM cheat, but they also do lots of good. The same compliment can’t be extended to the financial plutocracy, which is immensely more powerful, and obviously see s Great Britain as a powerful platform they can rule over, and thus the world… The crash of 2008 was engineered a lot from the UK…

Brexit should be suspended for one year. The European Parliament could sit without Britain, for one year. Thus “Remain” would win, in a (3rd!) referendum. Real problem: French republic, and other pro-european actors, are fed up with UK plutocracy, & wants clarity, Brexit. It is correct that making Great Britain into Norway (pay and shut up, to access the European Custom Union) maybe the best way to manage British plutocracy.

However, a “#People Vote” can’t be avoided. It would be unreasonable for the rest of the EU to kick Britain too hard when it’s down, because of its subjection to global plutocracy!

When running a mental asylum, after driving We The People insane, an elite has an excuse for abuse… Beyond the self-abuse the inmates visit onto themselves. That’s precisely why a plutocracy tries to make We the People crazy and worthless. Yet, that doesn’t mean those standing outside should get along. 

Patrice Ayme


Literary Critique Good, Historical Critique, Better, Deeper, and More Life Saving

March 7, 2019

Many humanists are what’s called “literary critique”: they read one of the 1,001 most famous authors, and speak about that. The advantage is that one doesn’t need to know much: take Montaigne, and speak about his discourses, it’s a small universe.

What we don’t get much of is historical critique. It requires much more, from the author, and from the reader.

Right, it happens in some books… A little bit, rarely too much. Take the example of… Christianism. Harsh critiques against Christianism are not new: the Cathars criticized Catholicism, although they thought of themselves as Christians (and they were). The Catholic elite didn’t like the joke, and the Cathars and all their books were eradicated like the worst vermin.

It’s true that in China, a “Cultural Revolution” went over the top in the 1960s. But that was rather a struggle inside the ruling dictatorship there. However, much of the strident critique of mediocre, and sleep inducing Confucianism was justified (and was precisely why China went down before various savages from the north, nearly a millennium ago… and there was no serious recovery… until mao and deng Tsia Ping…).

The First Emperor was more subtle than Mao about historical criticism, and he tried to destroy the “100 schools of philosophy”… while keeping other books (state records, tech, medicine, etc…). The First Emperor thought that too much philosophy had contributed to the troubled period of the Warring States. Later, and in a much more damaging manner, Christianism boosted to the general collapse into fascism, political and intellectual, which brought the destruction of nearly all books of Greco-Roman civilization. (The First Emperor was a political fascist, of course… but by ordering the non-destruction of many important categories of books, he demonstrated he was no intellectual fascist. Whereas the Christian were careful to annihilate various scientific theories, for example the atomic theory, or evolution… They kept only that little fascist, Aristotle, and even, barely so…) 

Cathar Cross next to Monsegur Fortress, erected later: Catholics eradicated anything Cathar… Although they total population amounted to 25% of contemporary france, spread all the way to Constantinople…

Thus one sees that criticizing the past harshly is nothing new. Akhenaten and Nefertiti trashed the entire Egyptian mythology, replaced it by monotheism (the cult of the Sun, to be revived by emperor Diocletian, 17 centuries later, and immediately transmogrified as Catholicism by Constantine). Akhenaten and Nefertiti were in turn wiped out (she may have been assassinated).

But what I am talking about is to make Historical Criticism into a revered academic profession. All the more as Artificial Intelligence should turn it into an ever more scientific psychohistory.

So when I write about why Germany went crazy in 1914-1945, I am not anti-German (as some hater once suggested), but I am trying to make psychohistory, by explaining how that madness arose.

It’s all the more pertinent as we keep on living with some of its causes. They are greatly conspiratorial, and they don’t want to come to the surface. If they laid on the surface, all exposed, they would be widely condemned and destroyed.

Bill Gorrell All the people who brought us the current mess in the Middle East by invading Iraq are still respected members of the US establishment. John Bolton is working in the White House. Elliot Abrams is back from the Iran-Contra scandal.

Absolutely. And this happens precisely because there is no desire for studying history in a highly critical way.

Could the Athenian democracy have handled the twin Spartan and Persian threats and aggressions differently?

Could France have gotten rid of Louis XIV or Napoleon, before they became two-legged atrocities maniacally obsessed by vainglory, greed, and the darkest evil?

Could Rome have done without calling onto Tiberius to reign?

Could Marcus Aurelius have launched a revolution back to the Republic?

What would have happen if the Western empire army of Arbogast have defeated the Goths and their promoter, the arch-Catholic Theodosius I?

History is not taught that way. So US politics has deteriorated, ever since Carter was not criticized for his stealth war onto Afghanistan, instrumentalizing the Muslim Jihadists (and Carter’s motives were the worst). B movie star Ronald Reagan and Democrat O’Neill launched trickle down (the socioeconomy developed ever more ever since…. Obama used to say he admired Reagan (perhaps not now anymore, as people are getting wiser, and the idea would make books harder to sell…)

When talking of racism, many love to bring up “antisemitism”… And that’s itself disinformation. Flavius Josephus, the Jewish general who was the adoptive son of emperor Vespasian, was part of the Flavian conspiracy and propaganda machine… but he was himself a Jew, of course. So now a salad is made between racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, etc… Intelligence consists in the ability to make distinction, and it’s now compromised.

Islamophobia can’t be identified with hatred for Jews, Au contraire. Because Islam HAS hatred for Jews. Hitler explicitly admired Islam. Grand Mufti gave Hitler thousands of crack troops. Famous Hadiths say all Jews have to be killed to proceed with Final Judgment

German anti-Judaism is as old as Christianism anti-Judaism., it’s not just something about Germany. Christianism is a Flavian ideology which appeared exactly at the time of the first Judean War (66-71 CE)

Cardinal Bellarmine supervised the torture to death of Giordano Bruno, including hanging the astronomer and philosopher upside down alive and naked on the market place, and burning him alive (1600 CE). Bellarmine was professor of theology and later rector of the Roman College, and in 1602 became Archbishop of Capua. Bellarmine supported the reform decrees of the Council of Trent.

Bellarmine is remembered for his role in the Giordano Bruno atrocity, the Galileo affair and the execution of Friar Fulgenzio Manfredi.

Later, having warmed up his holly hands on the Bruno live roast, Cardinal Bellarmine also persecuted, and prosecuted, Galileo, indeed. But it gets even better. In 1930, Bellarmine was made a “saint” and one of only 36 “doctor of the church“. Who said the fascist Catholic church ever changed?

So when people see the Church abusing systematically, on a mass and secular scale, they are surprised… because they don’t know history enough to see through the massively abusing Christian conspiracy and propaganda, itself central to the established order (puns intended: mass sex abuse is the fundamental mass of the church, and secular initially meant a period of 120 years…) The argument can be made that Constantine invented Catholicism, in his image, so he could abuse:

The fact that “literary critique” is a recognized activity, even a profession, whereas “history critique” is not, is revealing of the priorities of the Pluto driven academic establishment. All the more as history is more interesting, more unbelievable, than fiction.

Differently from a few thousands of words from a few authors, historical criticism calls onto everything. Even chaos theory, and the butterfly effect (a famous scientific paper a few decades ago claimed that a butterfly flapping its wings could change the weather three weeks later…)

Calling onto everything is what human intelligence does best. Artificial Intelligence can be of some help, though, running simulation.

Yes, much of history should be reviewed and criticized, as much as possible, so we can learn to learn. Learn to learn how to avoid catastrophes. As we are launched into the Sixth Mass Extinction since before fishes learned to walk, this is not unpractical.

Patrice Ayme



More disagreeable critique? Sometimes the literary and the historical merge.

Herman Hesse was a volunteer to fight for the criminal Kaiserreich in 1914, and later refused to criticize the nazis, practicing “detachment”. Want to understand why Nazism happened? This disgusting and criminal behavior is viewed as “pacifism”, and got the Nobel in 1946

Now of course the Swedes had interest to give the Nobel to behaviors which made Nazism possible, because that’s exactly how Sweden made lots of money selling high grade iron ore to Hitler and equipping him with the excellent 88mm gun…
Now of course, I could do something remotely comparable with Montaigne… Who was not that indignant during the religious wars….