Enslaved, But Saved?

May 12, 2015

A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE:

No philosophy is very new, if all it does, is to tenderly stroke the minds of the past, and their pet theories.

It is a given that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a black eye for Western Civilization. Does that hold under hyper-critical scrutiny? A few remarks:

1) It’s plutocrats who organized the slave trade, not “Western Civilization”. The average European knew nothing about slavery, as it had been unlawful in (what the Franks called) “Europe” for a millennium. Plutocrats organize a lot of things nowadays, far from prying eyes.

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful Inside Europe Since 660 CE

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful Inside Europe Since 660 CE

2) It is better to (let) drown Africans by the thousands as they try to reach Europe, as is practiced nowadays? Is it worse to be put in chains, laying on one’s back like sardines, rather than drowning in the Med? And on this latter point, we can’t say we never heard about it.

3) At least, indeed, slave traders were keen not to drown their expensively purchased slaves.

Let’s dig in the slave logic.

The claim is generally made that 11 million Africans were transported in slave ships, from Africa to the Americas. Once arrived there, they were used as living robots. They were moreover generally submitted to racism, the idea that they were not quite human. Accordingly they were treated inhumanly.

Between 650 CE and 1920 CE, 18 million Africans were transported to Muslim countries. Many were castrated, and suffered high death rates, so the slave population did not increase much. Islamist jurisprudence frowned upon enslaving born Muslims (and initially Jews and Christians, except if captured in war; however, that was rescinded soon).

The transatlantic slave trade was organized by pretty satanic individuals.

However, differently from slaves in Muslim countries, American slaves were not castrated, and however inhumanly treated, not only suffered much lower death rates than in Muslim countries, but grew and multiplied.

African slaves in the Americas were never treated so badly that they engaged in as a large scale rebellion such as the Zanj (= East African Great Lakes Bantus). 500,000 African slaves captured the large port of Basra in Iraq, and fought for 15 years. (The largest North American slave rebellion involved barely more than one plantation, and killed a few dozen people… Who all knew each other.)

The slave population in the Americas augmented rapidly… From doing what comes naturally when conditions are not so bad.

But let’s reconsider the basic point. How did Euro-American plutocrats get their slaves? By buying them. (Europeans hunting Africans down was tried a bit by the Portuguese early on, but proved way too expensive and dangerous, past the first element of surprise.)

African states and empires were well armed (with native steel arrowheads). Starting in 1300 CE, in the empire of Senegambia and Mali, one third of the population was enslaved. Slavery does not have to do with riches: the emperor of Mali went to Mecca and blinded all the Arabs with his incredible wealth (Mali was full of gold and slaves to extract it). He was probably the Earth’s richest person.

In Madagascar, half of the population was enslaved. In Zanzibar, 90%. Slavery was all over Africa, and it had nothing to do with evil white men.

And the natural question is this: had these slaves not been sold, would they have lived?

Africa was crisscrossed by wars. Ever since the Carthaginians, white men had been unable to conquer it, because Africans were expert at war, and mastered steel technology. It’s only after 1850 CE that Europeans achieved military technology so advanced that they made local, African soldiers into conquering armies (or, at least, that’s the way the French did it; the British used their own soldiers and suffered two tremendous defeats, one in West Africa, the other at the hands of the Zulus).

So would have these prisoners of war and other criminals live, but for the slave trade?

The observation is the perennial one, the great enforcer of the Dark Side in the human species: the first thing humanity always had to kill, was overpopulation.

Bartolome’ de las Casas stopped all by himself the Conquista of the Americas by Spain (he did not like the genocide and persuaded Charles V). He also condemned the African slave trade, pointing out that it “incited Africans to sell their own children”.

A fine, very humanitarian, cute and cuddly argument, but is it really true? Could one cut and paste European ethical logic onto Black Africa?

In truth we know that mass human sacrifices as happened during the “Customs” in Dahomey were stopped, because the captives got sold as slaves instead of being chopped into bits.

It is no accident that, shortly before its civil war, Rwanda was the most densely populated country in Africa. 20% of the population was killed. In three months. (And the story is more complicated, and troubling, than usually told, as it seems a majority of the people killed were Hutu, not Tutsi, as supported by the evidence that the “genocide” happened during the invasion of Rwanda by the Tutsi “Rwanda Patriotic Front”.)

Morocco closed its last slave market in 1920. It helped that it was under French supervision. Saudi Arabia made slavery unlawful in the 1960s. (Islam, by giving a precise legal framework to slavery, allowed it to fester forever.) Mauritania, a country of ineffable charm, which I have resided in, criminalized slavery in 2007. 600,000 people, 20% of the population, are currently enslaved there (the French had abolished slavery in Mauritania in 1920, but the country became independent in the 1960s, allowing to re-establish slavery).

A well-known reason brandished to justify the invasion and occupation of Africa by European powers was the presence of slavery in Africa (the source of the Transatlantic Slave Trade). That argument failed in Christian Ethiopia, which, although attacked by Italy, was never conquered… But also was never part of the slave trade.

Amusingly, as “passengers” are packed like cattle in planes nowadays, getting strokes by the thousands, as a result, nobody points out that slaves at least enjoyed flat beds. (I had still another friend who died, yesterday, from a stroke within days of flying; not a subject airlines and their sponsors are keen to examine.)

Once transported to the Americas, slaves were branded, and treated worse than 3,500 years prior in Mesopotamia. Well, that was a problem with the inhuman character of the laws in the Americas. And yes, it is unforgivable.

However, as far as the slaves were concerned, enslaving them may have saved their lives. I am not saying that this is sure, obvious, and proven.

Just, that it seems likely. Reality is harder than fiction.

Think, but verify.

Meanwhile, please consider the possibility that the situation with thousands drowning in the Mediterranean is actually worse than the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Patrice Ayme’

Too Much Anti-Judaism

May 11, 2015

Not Enough Nazis Were Executed

Anti-Judaism is becoming fashionable again. A simple reason is that Islam is fashionable, and the most sacred texts of Islam are full of anti-Judaism (all the way to death threats of exterminationist type in the Hadith: See Book 041, Verse 6985, and the ones like it, by Al Bukhari and Al Islam, and their ilk).

This is unfair, obscene, erroneous, criminal. Moreover, it prevents to attack the real problems. Even those who are obsessed by the Jews ought to understand that massacring the Jews, will not happen again, as the West’s mightiest states (and that include Israel) won’t let it happen again.

Obsessing about the Jews like some sadists do about voluptuous movie stars, only prevents to obsess about the righteous subject of indignation, such as the private-public fractional reserve monetary system (which Italians, not Jews, invented).

Vienna, 1938: Himmler, Heydrich During Their Splendor

Vienna, 1938: Himmler, Heydrich During Their Splendor

Nazism was a collective madness, but its very mass gave its participants a feeling of sanity and justification. The same applies to Putin nowadays: the more Putin engages in demonstrations of mass Putinism, the saner he feels, and the more encouraged.

I am not a tender soul when confronted to murderous insanity. Be it only because murderous, genocidal insanity is a natural human tendency. I feel that all the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg ought to have been executed. Too bad for Speer’s Memoirs. On second thought, they all should have been allowed to write their memoirs, first.

I even feel that the top 100,000 Nazis ought to have been executed. OK, it would have taken a while to determine who qualified in the top 100,000. And trials to determine this honor roll, ought to have been conducted. Followed by executions. That would have allowed to determine more thoroughly who knew what, and how the entanglement of horror and cover-up worked.

Then we would also have to deal with special cases (not among the top 100,000, but still worth of the honor of the rope).

That’s my African philosopher’s side; no holds barred.

France executed more than 40,000 Nazi collaborators, more than any other country (although the USSR did not keep a tally).

Nazi collaborators were bad. Real Nazis, worse. Kurt Waldheim was a top Nazi who ought to have been hanged (he was in charge of the execution of thousands of Greeks, on the ground of their assumed “racial” origin). Instead he became head of the United Nations, and later president of Austria.

One has to understand that all Nazis knew about the systematic assassination, on “racial” grounds, of vast swathes of the European population. Himmler had made an official discourse in front of the generals of the SS, at Posen, on October 4, 1943. Yes, we have the recording, in Himmler’s own voice. [French version, as an English one was, mysteriously, not available; are Nazis sympathizers blocking it?]. A worse discourse, with more details, more secret, followed, 2 days later.

Here is the Posen Oct. 4, 1943 speech:

‘I also want to mention a very grave matter here before you in complete frankness,’ said Himmler, during the speech.i ‘We can talk about it quite openly among ourselves, but we shall never speak of it in public. Just as we did not hesitate to do our duty as we were ordered to on 30 June 1934, and stand comrades who had lapsed against the wall and shoot them, so we have never spoken about it, and we shall never speak of it. It was a matter of tact, for all us, thank God, never to speak of it, never to talk of it. It appalled everyone, and yet everyone was absolute in his mind that he would do it again if ordered to do so, and if it should be necessary.             

I am referring now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things which is easy to talk about. ‘The Jewish people will be exterminated,’ says EVERY Party comrade, ‘It’s clear, it’s in our programme. Elimination of the Jews, extermination – we’ll do it.’ And then they all come along, these worthy 80 million Germans, and every one of them produces his decent Jew. Of course, it’s quite obvious that the others are swine, but this one is a fine Jew. Not one of those who speak this way has watched it happening, not one of them has been through it.  

Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie side by side, or when 500 or a 1,000 lie there. To have stuck it out – apart from exceptions caused by human weakness – and to have remained decent, that has made us tough. This is a glorious entry in our history which has never been written, and can never be written. For we know how difficult it would be for us if we still had the Jews, as secret saboteurs, agitators and trouble makers, amongst us now, in every city on top of the bombing raids, together with the suffering and deprivations of the war. We would probably already be in the same situation as in 1916/17 if the Jews were still part of the body of the German people.’

Obviously the collaborators of the Nazis overseas, especially USA plutocrats, ought to have been prosecuted too. But, faced with the rope, some of the intermediaries such as Dr. Schacht, would have no doubt been more talkative. Instead, Schacht, was “tried” at Nuremberg, and exonerated (although he pursued a thoroughly fascist conspiracy since 1923, and was one of the most important enablers of Hitler). Later he became an important plutocrat again.

When Allen Dulles, head of the Organization Special Service (OSS) in Berlin was told about the horrors of the extermination camps, of the millions of women and children assassinated, he calmly said: ”So, it was true.”

So, he knew.

The Dulles brothers were certainly among the top 10,000 enablers of Nazism: as lawyers they represented more than 1,000 Nazi companies in the USA, entangling them with the highest USA plutocracy through joint ventures. One of them has the main airport in Washington named after him, and was the de facto USA foreign policy chief, into the 1960s. The other headed the CIA.

Himmler, chief of the SS, was captured by the British. He recognized that he was the chief of the SS. The British knew Himmler had poison. Conveniently, he swallowed (or was made to swallow) his cyanide. That was very convenient to the British establishment. The Brits had negotiated the fate of the Jews with the Himmler and Eichmann, for years… Unsuccessfully for the Jews, very successfully for all other concerned.

Most European Jews had been assassinated.

Patrice Ayme’

A Truth: FRANCE OUTLAWED SLAVERY 1355 YEARS Ago

May 10, 2015

AND THEN IN 1794, 1848. So what happened? Plutocracy and Its Pet Demon, Napoleon Happened.

1794, 1848: Abolition Of French Overseas Racism, Not Just Slavery.

“Francia” Abolished Slavery In The Seventh Century:

The French government abolished the slave trade within the Frankish Empire around 655 CE. That was the work of Bathilde (“BALDAHILDIS”), queen of the Franks and regent. Bathilde had been captured in England, sold to a plutocrat, from whom she later escaped. Re-captured, she attracted the eye of the king of Burgundy and Neustria, who bought her for a very high price. He then freed, and married her. Soon after being elected king some more, he died, and Bathilde became reigning queen of the entire Frankish (“Merovingian”) empire.

I, Former Slave, Queen Of the Franks, Abolished Slavery

I, Former Slave, Queen Of the Franks, Abolished Slavery

[Luxembourg Garden, French Senate, Paris, Bathilde’s Capital.]

Queen Bathilde proceeded to buy and free slaves, first from her own treasury. Slavery was disapproved by the Frankish Church. It subsisted among the rich and mighty, and in the countryside. Bathilde lowered taxes on peasants so that they would stop selling their own children (the more children they had the less taxes they paid).

Then Bathilde’s French government outlawed the slave trade within the empire. (Owning slaves per se was not outlawed, as it was too injurious and infuriating to mighty Gallo-Roman aristocrats.) Selling or buying slaves was outlawed.

Any slave stepping on Frankish territory was to be freed.

Bathilde’s three sons were all elected kings (she kept directing things, some have claimed ruthlessly, from a monastery near Paris, where she retired).

Bathilde was made into a saint by the Pope in 880 CE, 200 years after her death.

However, the slave trade was not outlawed in Frankish March States such as Venice. Venice merchants, would sell slaves for centuries from southern (present day) Ukraine to the Muslim Caliphate (both outside of the Imperium Francorum).

Yet, this is the foundational act of abolition of slavery. When the Franks invaded Great Britain in 1066 CE, under the Duke of Normandy, they immediately outlawed slavery (more than 20% of England was enslaved).

Holding slaves anywhere in Western Europe was against the law, and stayed against the law. Slaves coming on European territory were freed.

Still there were two exceptions: one systemic, the other anecdotic.

Portugal had been occupied, for centuries, by the Islamists. Islam made slavery legal (although one could do whatever to obedient slaves, there were laws, slaves who tried to escape were typically impaled, to instruct their fellows, as they squirmed sometimes for days). Once freed, the Portuguese king asked the Pope for permission to enslave Africans. That was accorded.

The other exception came within Paris in the 18C: the leaders of the American rebellion held slaves in France, and were told by the French King’s police that they had to cease and desist (Jefferson, future third president of the USA, weaseled his way out)

***

Culprit of the African Slave Trade: African, American & European Potentate & Plutocrats:

I have to excuse the French Prime Minister: a Catalan of Spanish citizenship, he became French only when he was 20, and apparently history was not taught where he came from.

Catalonia was freed from Islamist potentates in the Eight Century by a Frankish army led by Charlemagne himself. So Catalonia became part of the empire of the Franks, slavery was outlawed, and Catalans such as French Prime Minister Valls ought to know their history. But they don’t.

How come the French and Catalans completely ignore the abolition of slavery in the Seventh Century?

Today, from the other side of the planet from France, I opened TV5Monde, the French TV. A banner blared “Commemoration de l’Abolition De L’Esclavage”. By this French leaders, the president, the PM, and the president of the Senate, meant the outlawing of the “traite des noirs”, a three ways trading system also used by Britain, Portugal, Spain, the USA, etc.…

In this system goods were sold by European plutocrats to African potentates who exchanged said goods against slaves who were then sold to plutocrats of European origin who, by then, had become colossal exploiters of the Americas producing massive quantities of sugar, tobacco, precious metals, etc.

In 1794, under the First French Republic, slavery was abolished in overseas French territories. It is instructive to realize that this had to be repeated in 1848, and why.

Slavery overseas was reintroduced by the dictator Napoleon in 1802.

So Valls, Taubira, Hollande and other well-meaning clowns: you want to condemn erroneous history? Then throw Napoleon’s ashes down the Seine, or something. In any case, stop reverence for the SLAVE MASTER IN CHIEF. Throw him out of the Invalides.

The Second French Republic re-established the abolition of the overseas slave trade.

Do the French know their own history? No. That is pretty bad, because deep French history is THE deep history of Western Democracy.

That slavery was outlawed by Western Civilization in the Seventh Century provides a metric with which to measure civilization.

That Napoleon was a criminal against humanity ought to be taught.

That fact, presently occluded, explains a lot of subsequent abuses against civilization. Why? Napoleon is still widely admired (differently from his imitator, Adolf Hitler). Worldwide, not just by the clueless French.

The other day, I had a heated argument with a francophobic, yet very educated American (USA) woman. She told me France was now despicable, irrelevant, although France used to be great in the time of Napoleon. Wrong. Napoleon was a monster, he should be despised.

You want to teach slavery right? Teach Napoleon right. You want to learn from the past? Learn about Napoleon. Yes, French revolutionary armies freed the Jews in Germany, and Napoleon let that stand. However, as the Corsican dictator e re-established slavery, it is no wonder that Metternich and other German speaking leaders re-established the enslavement of the Jews after Napoleon’s defeat.

Learning just a bit of history always lead to imbalanced minds.

History ought to be told right; in full, to the best of our knowledge.

Ignoring the Frankish empires, and the world’s most advanced constitutions which they imposed by force, which forged Western Civilization is not just incoherent, and stupid, it is criminal. Because, you people who go around admiring Napoleon and his institutions, deep down, what you admire is slavery, Napoleon’s unique contribution against the flow of progress, and, thus, you are not just hypocrites, but ridiculously ineffectual.

Patrice Ayme’

Ideologies Lead, Leaders Follow

May 9, 2015

Officially naïve creatures such as Obama, bellow that there are leaders, so mighty, they decide of everything. (Obama even believe that “leaders” can lead, “from behind”.) Hitler said he understood the world, and how to better Germany. 12 years after he was voted in, Germany was in ruins, and 10% of Germans dead. And Hitler did not have one idea he could call his own. He was mostly an angry parrot.

That leaders lead is just smoke, disinformation. A clay pot is not made of iron, just because it’s black. Obama does not seem to have had a single significant idea he could call his own. His entire art, was to hide that from those who voted for him, while flaunting to those who financed him, that he got his ideas from the “Financial Times”. Black? Mostly from too much Wall Street’s smoke.

Plutocratic Butler With Gift Of Gab Is Passé

Plutocratic Butler With Gift Of Gab Is Passé

In truth, humanity’s trajectory is rarely inflected by individuals. Obama himself may as well have been a robot programmed by the haves; all he did, as president, was highly predictable, once one has situated him as an excellent Republican president, Reagan with a fresh coat of paint… From the Financial Times.

Instead, Humanity is guided by the logos, ideology, and the institutions it gives rise to. Rather than just by the individuals they inhabit.

Even Christianism understood this, and identified the Logos to God, in the first few lines of the New Testament!

This was not just the price Christianity had to pay, to be taken seriously by the Greeks. It was already an evidence at the time. Now we call the Logos “Apps”. And it is the path to riches.

That ideas truly lead, especially when organized as vast ideologies, is not the usual vision of history. In conventional history “Leaders” of flesh and blood, are supposed to be paramount. But the truth is different.

A famous example? After 10,000 Greek soldiers led by (philosopher) Xenophon succeeded to extricate themselves from the core of the Persian empire, in spite of having the entire Persian army after them (plus the Kurds), the idea became paramount among the Greeks that the Persian empire could be conquered. And the top plutocrat, Philip of Macedonia, prepared the assault. After his assassination, his son Alexander took the reigns of the planned invasion. Clearly Alexander was secondary, and the idea, that Greece could defeat Persia, was primary (all the more remarkable that most Greeks refused to help Alexander!)

If Alexander had never existed, some of other leader would have led a (real) Greek army across the heart of Persia. The idea of democracy had won over that of the empire of plutocracy.

What leads humanity, the real leaders, are ideologies. And thus, those who launched these ideologies (as Muhammad did), are paramount. Secondary are those who deflected existing ideologies. As the Third Caliph did, in the case of Islam (as I mentioned in the past).

Another example: modern science is a hyper-critical ideology which got launched in the Middle-Ages during the Twelfth Century, among the individuals around Abelard. (At least, so I claim.)

Abelard was crucial for erecting, for all to admire, the very way in which hyper-criticism was to overrule everything. Hence Abelard’s fight to death with Saint Bernard. In the fullness of time, Abelard won. Abelard launched, not just an ideology, but a mood of hyper-aggressivity towards the established mental order. In short order, this new attitude brought tremendous advances in science and technology.

Thus individuals can have tremendous influence… As long as they give rise to ideas… Or new attitudes.

Patrice Ayme’

 

8 May 1945 Versus 8 May 2015

May 8, 2015

That was the second day when the Nazis surrendered. The true capitulation, without conditions, had been made May 7, in Reims, France. (The Soviets insisted to conduct another ceremony in Berlin, the next day… and they celebrate it the 9th…)

As the French Republic had declared the Second World War, the surrender in Reims was appropriate. At the time when France declared war to Nazism, the USSR was allied to Hitler (and it as also, de facto allied to the USA, as the president and congress of the USA took sanctions against France and its belated ally, Great Britain… on the ground that those two parents, direct genitors of the USA were “belligerents“).

The rendition of Nazism was celebrated with extreme seriousness, and the same spirit, in France and Germany, on May 8, 2015.

France, Joined By USA Sec. Of State John Jerry, Celebrate V Day, May 8, 2015

France, Joined By USA Sec. Of State John Jerry, Celebrate V Day, May 8, 2015

[Republican Guards Horsemen.]

May 8, 1945, is also the same exact day the Franco-Algerian war started, with a wound that was pretty much fatal. Both facts are related. French civilization (and lack thereof) was central to both facts. While racial fascism was smashed in Germany, for all to see, it exploded on French soil (in an atrocious contradiction).

Let’s recapitulate.

1) The leaders of the French Republic knew, as early as 1919, that there would be another war with Germany. That was mostly caused by the hyper-nationalism, racism and fascism mindset which reigned in Germany. Also Germany had been immensely successful industrially, technologically, economically, leaving both Britain and France behind.

That very successes of German fascism (under Bismarck and then the Kaiser Wilhelm II) seemed to prove that fascism was a system superior to the degenerating democracies of Britain and France.

2) France, all along, prepared for the third round with German racist fascism. However, Great Britain and the USA had opted for the opposite approach. It is of course insufferable for contemporary citizens of the UK and the USA to read that their countries aided and abetted the Nazis (some come to scream about that periodically on this site).

However there is a deep lesson there, a warning for tomorrow: British and American plutocrats drove the collaboration of the UK and the USA with the racist and fascist mindset. So doing, they set-up the conditions for the violent death of more than 70 million people, among other inconveniences. Indeed, if the USA and the UK had made a block with the French Republic, in the 1920s, and especially in the 1930s, the fascists in Italy, Japan and Germany would not have had the possibility to dream that they had a chance in the land grabs they envisioned.

Actually the plutocrats which helped the fascists so much were nearly as culprit as the crazy, murderous tribal nuts they encouraged.

Lessons? Plutocracy can manipulate not just the minds, but history itself.

When democracy stand divided, tanks can roll all over it. Something to remember with Putin. Those who cannot stand firmly for democracy, encourage fascism.

3) War can turn badly, unexpectedly. The Nazis use insane, desperate, strategies which turned around the mightier French army and its slow poke little British bulldog. This military disaster of May 1940 is nearly impossible to reproduce in war games.

Lesson? Don’t underestimate the ability of fate, incredible stupidity, really very bad luck, to surprise even those who felt the best prepared.

This is valid now more than ever. A few nuclear bombs could bring losses comparable to all of World War Two, within hours. North Korea is arming itself to the hilt, and threatened to use its nuclear devices, even against the USA. This should not be taken lightly.

The Franco-Algerian Massacre in Setif:

As in places all over France, there was a massive demonstration of joy in Setif, Algeria. A young demonstrator carried an Algerian flag. He was killed by a gendarme. A first wave of retaliation led to the death of a few dozen colons (or more). The later, in further retaliation, supported by the French army, tanks, even planes, killed in turn tens of thousands of Algerians.

Philosophically, this was a tribal reaction not substantially different from Nazism and the like.

This event is not commemorated enough (neither the French state, nor the FNL, which became the Algerian state, but got started in a different mindset in 1954 are anxious to remember it).

It exhibits a lot of warnings about human nature. It needs to be analyzed more. How could the French forget 15 centuries of tribal tolerance? Because they just finally defeated the Nazis, they could act like them? Inhibitions were lifted for a day? Well, whereas France and Germany are now (re)united, and now share a common fraternity, much work remains to be done in the case of France and Algeria.

A work of truth. Thorough truth.

And that’s not just about Europe and Africa, and the USA. Establishing, and imposing the methods to elucidate, uncover, and make everybody admire truth, is the general first order strategy to deal with the world’s ills.

Patrice Ayme’

Is Britain A Democracy?

May 7, 2015

The Swiss vote every three months, and take all sorts of decisions. The French People, although not as directly sovereign as the Swiss, vote for all sorts of representatives, frequently (France has as many mayors as the rest of Europe combined, or so. 35,000).

In four years, the USA vote for the president twice (sort of, including the primaries), and the legislative, twice.

Every five years, the French have two presidential elections (the two turns, the first functioning as a national, open primary; many other countries have adopted this system; there has been even vague talk that the USA ought to do the same, as the present system gives too much importance to tiny states!) The French have also two legislative elections.

The Sun Is Setting On The (Extreme) Right Flag. Edinburgh Castle Below.

The Sun Is Setting On The (Extreme) Right Flag. Edinburgh Castle Below.

How many times do the Brits vote in five years? Just once. That day, today, is like a combined legislative and presidential election. And that’s it.

So the French, or the Americans, vote at least four times more than the Brits.

Of course, the Brits do not vote for their head of state. Their future head of state just made a point to deny the Armenian Holocaust, by saluting briskly the (elected) Turkish Caliph, Erdogan, the very day of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Holocaust. For years, Prince Charles got a multi-million Euros yearly subsidy, from the European Union (supposedly for his organic farming, but obviously, in the greater scheme of things, an unabashed bribe!)

The upper chamber of the legislature in the UK, the equivalent of the Sumerian, Roman, American, and French Senat,e is not democratically elected: it’s the “Chamber of Lords”. There unabashed hereditary coal plutocrats such as Lord Ridley, seat, legislate, and rule. And, more importantly, nefariously influence the world.

Some will say: ’That’s Britain, it does not affect Europe, the USA, the world.’ Unfortunately, it does. Lord Ridley, for example has a whole page of the Wall Street Journal to himself every six months, or so, to explain that, the more CO2, the better (he gets five million dollars or so of income from a coal mine of his English land). The influence of the wealthiest people in Britain (who generally are exempt from taxation) on the USA has amplified into considerable world impact. Reaganism, “trickle-down” economics, was invented in Britain, imposed by Thatcher, and Reagan followed.

British aristocracy, the ultimate form of honorable plutocracy, is a world problem.

The grip of plutocracy in Britain is so strong, that only a few weeks ago did “Labor” propose to tax the wealthiest Brits living in Britain while claiming, very legally, to be overseas. “Labor” also proposed a property tax on multi-million dollars homes (those worth more than three millions). Even then, that tax would be just a tiny fraction of the one paid in New York.

London has become a big financial capital, because financial manipulators are allowed to do there tricks that are unlawful anywhere else (including New York).

I am not the only one to have noticed this.

The Scots did. They want to “Free Scotland From Thieves.”

Want to get rid of plutocracy? Instituting democracy in the British monarchy would be a good first step. Scotland will help that way. Meanwhile “first by the post” “democracy” will keep on advantaging “conservatives”, as it did, for centuries, from sheer fear, and lack of choice. (The reason that Britain did not join France in revolution in the late Eighteenth Century was, paradoxically, because the British “aristocracy”, also known as plutocracy, had a much better grip on Britain than the French aristocracy and church had on the French society.)

A “democracy” where one rarely votes, is no democracy, just a parody.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Free Speech Versus Islamist Fellow Travelers

May 6, 2015

Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical weekly, was given the American PEN Freedom of Expression Courage Award. Nice and courageous for PEN to do this. During the attack against Charlie Hebdo in January, 12 victims were killed, including two practicing Muslims (one of these Muslims was the Charlie Hebdo “correcteur“, a supervisory editor; the other was a police officer who had come to the rescue).

The gunmen were killed later, but an accomplice of those two  killed (in the back) a (black) police woman, and then a number of patrons in a Jewish supermarket he held hostage (before being killed by police).

Love Stronger Than Hatred: "Cultural Arrogance of the French Nation?"

Love Stronger Than Hatred: “Cultural Arrogance of the French Nation?”

The PEN gala came two days after two Jihadist gunmen opened fire at a Texas competition to draw cartoons inspired by Islam. Hard core Islam does not tolerate drawing the creatures of Allah, be they beasts, or men. A fortiori, prophets.

Accepting the award, Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief Gerard Biard said that the magazine’s shocking and sometimes (gently) offensive content helped combat extremists angry against free speech. “Fear is the most powerful weapon they have,” he said. “Being here tonight we contribute to disarming them.”

Secularism was not the enemy of religion; it simply said that the state had no religion, Biard persevered. “Being shocked is part of the democratic debate. Being shot is not,” he said.

Honoring Charlie Hebdo bitterly divides the literary community of the USA: 200 members of PEN signed a letter claiming: “there is a critical difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding such expression.”

This is hogwash. Show me, literary men of little merit,  just ONE cartoon of Charlie Hebdo which is “not acceptable”. Just ONE. Or are you upset about guys kissing guys? And let’s talk about it. Insulting without explicit example to back it up, is just hate speech.

Those literary buffoons of the vicious type, also accused Charlie Hebdo of “cultural intolerance… All this is complicated by PEN’s seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation“.

A really hilarious charge for anybody familiar with French and USA societies (the French are much more tolerant: homosexuality was legal in France, in the Sixteenth Century already, and Senegalese were French citizens, under Louis XIV; moreover, slavery became illegal in the Frankish empire, at the time when the Qur’an, which mandates slavery, was written for the first time! There was never any legal racism in France, whereas racism is still official in the USA: just look at the census bureau’s methodology! Among other “racially” aware tweaks… Some racist ways which are perfectly legal in the USA, to this day, are punishable in France with prison!)

Notice also that francophobia (obvious in their denunciation of “cultural arrogance of the French…”) is not racist, according to those fellow travelers of the most violent form of Islamism.

Satire is more than 5 centuries old in France. Satire is viewed as central to civilization. Some French regimes fell, just because of satire, even centuries ago, before the USA was constituted. Charlie Hebdo is just one of several French satirical publications. They have no equivalent in the USA, as they are too “shocking” for the USA, where the respect for authority (including tax-free superstitions) is highly ingrained.

Humor is central to intelligence formation.

To become more intelligent, we have to envision more of all the possibilities imaginable (within the boundaries set to free speech by the law). This is all what cartoons are about.

The irony is that Charlie Hebdo is fanatically anti-racist. It was made, to be fanatically anti-racist. Biard and Congolese author Alain Mabanckou told the PEN audience that Charlie Hebdo was and always had been “anti-racist”, a reply to the criticism that the magazine portrayed French racial and religious minorities in a stereotypical way. “Charlie Hebdo has fought all forms of racism since its inception,” Biard said.

Jean-Baptiste Thoret, who received the prize with his colleague Briard, told Charlie Rose that Charlie Hebdo is “absolutely not the same” as the Texas contest because the magazine does not specifically target Islam. It is true, that, over the years, Catholicism has been more of a target. Overall, Charlie Hebdo is focused on politics, not religion, so politicians are the first victims of Charlie Hebdo’s harassment.

I am personally of the opinion that the empire of Islam upon vast parts of the world, is the MAIN cause of their poverty and on-going mayhem, just as Christianism was in Europe, in the Middle-Ages. Same problem.

And it has the same solution: just as Christianism was domesticated by civilization, and this is called secularism, Islamism too, has to be domesticated.

Those who claim to refuse to understand secularism is better than Islamism are actually closet racists. What else? They want Muslims to keep on being oppressed, subjugated, victimized, mutilated, humiliated and decerebrated by the ideology of Islamism. And especially the women (whom the Qur’an views legally as a fraction of the worth of men, at best).

Salman Rushdie lived under a fatwa from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini for a decade for writing the supposedly blasphemous Satanic Verses. This means that Salman Rushdie, for mentioning a part of the Qur’an, was condemned to death, by Ayatollah Khomeini, who ordered all and any Muslim in good standing to go, and kill Mr. Rusdie, so that they could be rewarded by Allah.

My opinion is that this was an International Crime, as Khomeini was then the dictator, the head of state, of Iran. A warrant ought to have written for Khomeini’s arrest.

Mr. Rushdie described those who opposed the PEN’s award to Charlie Hebdo as fellow travelers” of the Islamic extremists who murdered the Charlie Hebdo staff, and argued on Facebook: “I fear some old friendships will break on this wheel.”

Let me repeat slowly: those who claim that there is everything good to be living under an Islamist dictatorship are racist. (Living under Islam is supposed to be living under an Islamist dictatorship , according to the Qur’an itself). The Qur’an is one of the most violent books anywhere: see “Violence in the Holy Qur’an”. I don’t have anything against violence, if and only if, it is fully justified, and the only solution. But ordering to kill ill-defined “unbelievers,” as the Qur’an has it pages after pages, is not acceptable. To me. And that’s true for Catholicism, Protestantism, or Islamism.

It’s not acceptable to Islamists themselves, as it drives them lethally crazy: millions of them spend most of their time wanting to kill each other, and acting on it. That may have been OK in the Middle -Ages, but nowadays, with Weapons of Mass Destruction easy to make, this attitude is not compatible with the continuation of civilization. Thus we cannot afford indifference to it.

We are at war, whether we want it, or not. Those who do not understand this are traitors to civilization, just as those who did not understand the danger of Nazism, and that tolerating Nazism was intolerable, were traitors to civilization, in a very similar vein. And this is not just an accidental analogy: Hitler was a loud supporter of Islamism (the Nazi dictator loudly admired Islam’s violence and war-mongering, while despising the softness of Christianism).

Those who love Islamism, just as those who loved Hitlerism, are not just cowards, but ill-informed, and not very smart.

Patrice Ayme’

Camels in The Highest Arctic, Again, Soon.

May 4, 2015

Abstract: Logic and, or, independent observations, show that, considering the present CO2 (and other human made greenhouse gases) density, the High Arctic will be ice free pretty soon (except for the highest mountains, but that’s to be expected).

***

Once again, Jihadists decided to kill those who draw with a pen. Fortunately, they met a Texan police officer who was very good at drawing his pistol. (More on this soon.) Here I am going to consider another type of drawing. A rudimentary, yet enlightening, computation of mine. It is important, because it is about what keeps the Arctic cold: what is inexorably disappearing, the sea ice itself. Here is the picture (let a thousand Jihadists rage, for my daring representation of God’s creatures):

Pliocene Camels Lived As Close To The Pole As One Can Get On Foot

Pliocene Camels Lived As Close To The Pole As One Can Get On Foot

A recently published multi-year study revealed that there were giant camels in the extreme high Arctic, on Ellesmere Island, just west of North-West Greenland, 3.4 million years ago. Their bones show they were apparently 30% taller (and thus twice heavier) than today’s largest camels.

Camels originated in North America. What is surprising is that the environment of these giant dromedaries (one hump!) was characterized by an open larch forest (represented above), with an average temperature of – 1.8 Celsius, up to 22 Degrees Celsius warmer than today. Whereas GLOBAL Earth temperature was only 2 to 3 degrees C warmer. So here we see an Artic Temperature Multiplier of roughly ten: the Arctic was ten times warmer than the Earth average.

Interestingly, the CO2 density then, 3.4 million years ago, was the same as now, 400 ppm. Hence the 2 to 3 degree C Global Warming experienced then is what we are heading towards presently: a High Arctic which was ice-free in summer.

As I have advocated, years before anybody else, that two degrees Celsius of warming is too much. (See 2C IS TOO MUCH.) The main argument there was that observations show a rise of five degree Celsius in Polar Regions whereas the planet’s average has been only .5 degrees. So we observe a multiplier of ten, as I called it.

I admitted that this rough reasoning was simplistic: an obvious objection from Very Serious People would be that the observed rise in temperature, so far, was actually not 5 degrees Celsius in the Polar Regions, but less than that. I will give several independent reasons to object to the objection.

However, what is certainly true is that rises of 5 degrees Celsius have been observed for extended periods, in the Polar Regions. And that’s all what matters: once ice has melted, that’s it.

That, an extended temperature rise, plus a wind, is how the Larsen B iceshelf suddenly collapsed in Antarctica (this was observed by automated machinery set in the area prior to the collapse; there was a foehn of 100 km/h bringing a temperature of 15 C or so, for a few days).

Official observations are more modest: Polar Regions are warming at TWICE the average rate, say the official experts (the IPCC). However the latest explicit measurement found 4 times that rate in extensive areas (such as the Yukon).

Let’s make a little computation to decide whether officialdom (twice the rate) is right. Or whether my apocalyptic prediction is closer to the truth, as I claim it is.

Say the Earth temperature is 10 Celsius at 45 degrees latitude (10 C is the Earth’s average temperature, 45 degree is the average latitude). Say the permafrost is at the Arctic Circle (in some parts it’s north of it, in others, south, depending upon complicating factors such as oceanic climate, or snow cover… the latter acting like a warm blanket…).

The Polar circle is at 66 degrees. That makes it ¾ of the way from the equator. Thus one loses 10 degrees Celsius in 21 degrees of latitude. That corresponds to 10 degrees C in 2,300 kilometers. If the temperature rose at twice the rate in the Polar regions, and the average Earth temperature rose two degrees Celsius, it would rise by four degrees there (something as I said which as nearly being already observed, say in the Yukon, not exactly a small place). That means the permafrost would go north by 1,000 kilometers, or about ten degrees of latitude.

However, from what we observe, about four times the rate of warming in the Arctic relative to the average rise, one would gain 20 degrees of latitude, or so. 66 + 20 is roughly 90 (degrees of latitude)Therefore the ice will run out of planet.

And, with existing technology, there is nothing we can do. (Or imagine we could do in the future.) Hence the interest to cut down on CO2 production.

Once the ice, in particular the sea ice is gone in summer, the region will absorb much more heat, and its temperature will quickly gain the twenty degrees Celsius of temperature it used to enjoy in the warm Pliocene.

Patrice Ayme’

Teaching The Dark Side Subconsciously

May 3, 2015

How Respect For Infamy Subconsciously Taught

Does USA Academia Teach Respect for Wealth & the Leader Principle?

In a society, institutions teach insidiously the subconscious often more efficiently than what they profess officially. Precisely because, being insidious, the “teaching” is subconscious, surreptitious, thus undefended against.

American Academia teaches the Leader Principle (Hitler’s Fuerer Prinzip in German) in subtle ways.

One way to do that is to give a human being’s name to prestigious chairs. Then proudly, firmly and very officially, it is announced, often by the beneficiary himself, that said beneficiary of the Chair is “The Blah Blah Von Bloh Bloh Bloh Professor of Such and Such at the University of This and That”).

Thus, the impression is imprinted on teenagers that it is by the good grace of someone extremely wealthy that the professing professor seems to have been created. Hence wealth creates intellectual, academic authority.

French Soldiers United Nations Mandated, Central African Republic 2013

French Soldiers United Nations Mandated, Central African Republic 2013

[French soldiers were killed in combat in the CAR, while stopping a huge civil war/holocaust in the making; All the more a reason to act well, with nothing to hide.]

One can instill reverence for money in a myriad of related ways. Buildings get named according to wealthy individuals or corporations. The (self-described) “best” universities flaunt their wealth, in billions of dollars (they call that wealth “endowment”).

Better: one can force students to pay “tuition” which is of the order of the average family income. Thus wealth, and wealth only, makes access to knowledge and wisdom possible.

(Some will object that there are scholarships given on merit, or “racial”, ethnic, or gender reasons. However, the fact remains that even the scholarship are processed, loud and clear according to wealth distributed.)

The “Leader Principle” is continuously taught in the USA. The paradox is that a real democracy is ruled by the People, not leaders. So the very prominence of the Leader Principle admits that democracy is secondary.

How To Avoid War Crimes:

Some soldiers in the French Army were accused in a secret United Nations report of sex abuse against some boys in the Central Africa Republic (CAR) during the on-going Operation Sangaris. The report was leaked to the French Military by a UN official, and the French immediately started an enquiry.

Now it has become a huge affair. The UN heavily depends upon the French Military to intervene all over Africa, ever since French paratroopers blocked the Cuban army from invading Congo (wars Shaba I and II), and engaged in spectacular operations such as the rescue of Kolwezi.

16 soldiers are involved (and, apparently, only 4 of them French, contrarily to what journalists in England claimed; others were Africans, yet still under the UN Mandate).

In any case, full light will be made: the French Republic recognizes the authority of the International Criminal Court for war crimes committed by its own soldiers.

Overall, the greatest difference between the Western democracies and their enemies in the Twentieth Century, was that they (mostly) did not engage in war crimes.

Perhaps the greatest crime was committed in Algeria in 1945, when the French engaged in a crack-down against would-be independentists (or just ex-soldiers who wanted full rights). This did not work well, as ultimately, as a result of this (war) crime, a terrible civil war happened in France and Algeria (which is basically unresolved to this day!)

Right, the French engaged in torture in Algeria (but that was entirely excusable). Right, the USA engaged in massacres in Vietnam (but the most famous such massacre, My-Lai, was prosecuted). Right, the greatest crime of the USA in Vietnam, clearly a massive war crime, the usage of Agent Orange, was abominable (one million were killed, disabled, or severely affected). But it can be argued that these dangers were not clear at the time (the British had used defoliants during the Malaysian Emergency, without a significant outcry).

And of course the British, French and Americans had been pretty rough with the Nazis in 1944-45, to the point the Nazis had whined about it. Surrendering to Americans was difficult, they tended to shoot until there was obvious peace; the British fired-bombed cities… But, there again, the Nazis had got it all started. The first raid in Germany, a raid on Berlin, by French Naval aviation, was a direct retaliation to Nazi attacks on French cities…

The USA has gone, though, the other way, in recent years. Obvious war crimes in Iraq were covered-up for all to see. And the USA does not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court.

Too bad Obama did not have the guts, and brains, to even try to change these things, when he (supposedly) controlled the politics of the USA, six years ago.

Instead, those who reveal the crimes were prosecuted. This subconsciously teaches the world that it is OK for violence to be used criminally by authority in the USA. And thus by any authority, anywhere in the world. And then even by those who have no authority.

Correct Globalization

May 1, 2015

First, some answers to some questions:

Kevin Berger ponders: “Truth Saved Germany After 1945,″ and asks: “How real, how deep was denazification, really? Both internationally (case in point, the USA) and domestically?”

Answer: Germany is still denazifying. I follow German TV and I can tell you today’s Germans view the Nazis as monsters from another planet. Today’s Germans are completely French republicans, as far as Nazism is concerned.

It was not yet the case after the war. Thanks in great part to the ambiguous influence of the USA, reinvigorated by its discrete campaign of annihilation of French ports, just because they could, countless Nazis escaped prosecution. Even more were put in leadership roles, from financial bankster Schacht, creatur of JP Morgan, genitor of Hitler, to top Nazi Marshall Von Manstein (who blocked denazification in the German army), to the industrialist Thyssen (author of the 1940 book “I paid Hitler”).

But then from trial to trial, and revelation to revelation, the truth has come out. The latest guy on trial, then a young accountant at Auschwitz, fully admits how terrible the Nazi system was and his role in it.

The Bush family was never asked to regurgitate the fortune it made from managing his arms industry for Hitler. This is typical of the absence of denazification of the USA.

Whereas of course the heroic SNCF, the French Railways, which suffered hundreds of summarily executed resistance fighters, was required to pay reparations, by USA Jews, for having transported Jews under the Nazi gun… That outrage, punishing an institution which fought the Nazis to great loss of life of its own members, pertains to the same mentality which decided that flattening French cities, after the Nazis had been defeated in France, was strategic. This is the reality of 2015: it’s strategic, for the USA to keep on flattening France.

Thus, when Obama evokes “anti-Americanism”, it’s hopefully, tongue in cheek.

Kevin: “Is today’s “German mindset” that far removed from yesterday’s (case in point, Germany’s recent conduct in the EU)? The Nazi’s enablers are still here, untouched, unpunished, how can there be truth?”

Well the austerity thing is a very vast problem, which, as you hint, did not originate in Germany. (Actually in the 1930s France was austerian, whereas the USA, the UK and Germany, starting in 1933, were all very much into default, devaluation and massive liquidity creation!)

The French Socialist Finance minster (Mr. Sapin) is as hard line on Greece than his German colleague (who holds that France has to be reformed, “by force”. I don’t disagree: austerity ought to be removed, but not reforms).

The Nazi enablers”, the really effective ones, not just the noisy ones, were more based in New York-the USA than Berlin (this is one of my main theses). It is not just a question of Ford financing Hitler (1920), or of Schacht-JP Morgan (1923), or the Wall Street Morgenthau plan of 1928.

Kevin: “Hell, I’d even say that as WWII fades more and more into History, it becomes a mythology, if not a religion, a unction divine if you will (case in point, the system below, its drivers, its collaborators and its parasites). Where is the truth, where there is myth only?”

This is exactly why it is important to understand that Hitler was a plutocratically constructed phenomenon, in the general sense of the word “plutocracy”. And that much of Hitler’s power, and advice, came from the global plutocracy, based in the UK and the USA.

It is important to get the mythology right. It’s not obvious, as the Nazis themselves spread disingenuously the disinformation that they were against “plutocrats” (while feeding at their teat).

Kevin: “Patrice says: “What I reproach to Gandhi was to view the minor problem (getting the British exploitation of India to stop) to be major,”

What about [the free trade deals]? The “major” problem is not the above-mentioned Islam in this case, but the global (Anglo, it never can hurts to point out) exploitation system you rail against, which is triumphing overall (and thus exhausting itself, along with everything else).

There is no jumping out of the runaway train”

These global free trade treaties have caused massive unemployment in the industrial workers class in the USA, recent studies have shown. Even the Wall Street Journal (!) had an editorial about this, a few days ago, and said that had to be fixed.

This evidence was long denied by the economists paid by plutocrats in the last 35 years that plutocracy has reigned over the minds, in the West.

The question, thus is not so much about “Anglo” than about “Pluto”. For a long time, the average denizen of the UK and the USA profited from empire. But now it’s clearly not the case in Britain. And clearly, in the USA, the writing is on the wall: although fracking has been profitable for the average citizen of the USA, as the Greenhouse Crisis gathers pace, this is not going to be the case anymore. The anti-flooding (from sea level rise) plan of New York City cost (put in place by Mayor Blumberg) cost 20 billion dollars (when Antarctica starts to melt big time, stopping the sea will not be a possibility.

So how to fix a lot of things?

A carbon tax.

It should be applied, worldwide.

When? The Conference in Paris is the place to impose it. Although I do not think it is on the agenda. Instead complicated laws are supposed to be brought forward. That will not work.

A carbon tax will increase the availability of local work (as it taxes world transportation: ships emit lots of CO2). It is also absolutely necessary if one wants to be serious about decreasing CO2 emissions.

I will explain this next.

Patrice Ayme’


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 377 other followers