Posts Tagged ‘Banks’

Pluto’s Dictators & Their Enablers

February 3, 2014

Plutocracy is bad, but it can be bent. Even some plutocrats develop hearts and minds. An example is the Warner Brothers (who were of Polish-Jewish origin). Their anti-Nazi campaign, started as early as 1933, and, no doubt, helped, for the best.

Sadly, Warner Brothers’ under order from Washington, would produce “Mission to Moscow”, which depicted Stalin the monster as a benevolent uncle. Stalin had invaded Poland, with his friend and ally Hitler, and proceeded to help massacre 15% of the population.

Never, ever, will we forget, or forgive, what happened. Thankfully German TV mentions Nazi horrors several times a day. (In the next part of its enlightenment, Germany may want to explain 1933 with the messianic fascist dictatorship it lived under 1918). This is how to terminate Plutocrats, when they go too far:

French Air Force Terminating Qaddafi’s Henchmen, 11/7/2011, Sirte, Libya.

French Air Force Terminating Qaddafi’s Henchmen, 11/7/2011, Sirte, Libya.

The Nazis ordered the arrest of 22,000 Jews in Paris during the Raffle du Velodrome d’Hiver (July 16, 1942). Because of help from the population only 13,000 were killed.

However, 4050 children were deported, and after months of torture, executed. Some of these children, while in detention, wrote heart breaking letters. Factual letters, full of dignity, asking for help, and the most basic decency. They did not get it. All they got was French adults horrified by the tortures the children were submitted to. Those adults narrated what they had seen, and it no doubt helped in the Nazi rout, two years later.

Reading from a ten year old girl, Marie, asking her papa, gently, to send a picture of him, and her mom, because she did not see them for so long, and wanted to be with them. Unbeknownst to all, the Nazis had already assassinated her mom in Auschwitz. How, why, so much evil?

Some will say, it cannot happen today. Sorry, it does. Maybe not quantitatively, but qualitatively.

Just have a good, cold look at what Bush and Obama have been doing. (Hitler was very good at claiming he had nothing to do with it, whatever it was; Adolf was all for peace, and excellent for posing as a victim: naive idiots, all over, still repeat word for word what Hitler was saying about the Versailles Treaty, and nearly cry.)

When Obama proclaims himself judge and executioner of civilians by drone, worldwide, and add that “ordinary people” are safe from the secret services, that’s the same inhumanity that he is projecting. OK, it’s less industrial. Less industrial at this point, but more obvious.

No wonder Obama’s popularity is low, in spite of the booming economy (in his stupidity, he does not know why he is getting so unpopular, because he does not understand he crossed a moral Rubicon, for all to see. And all have seen, precisely. Something wrong with a giver of lessons that acts in the exact opposite manner.

If we want to avoid the return of horrors such as Nazism or Stalinism. We have to be vigilant, and have tolerance zero for leaders showing patterns of abuse, against anybody whosoever.

The USA, at governmental level has, not just cooperated with infamy, but even organized it: see the complicated four way war set-up by Reagan, ordering Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, while selling to Iran weapons paying for Contra weapons transferred to Nicaragua, thanks to the airport of the governor of Arkansas (skirt chaser Bill Clinton).

A more recent example was the three way deal between Tony Liar Blair, George W. Bush, and Libyan dictator and torturer, Muammar Qaddafi. (The deal left France mostly out, and that proved a mistake, at least for Qaddafi.)

Anyway, the Oblabla administration is trying to make as if it wanted to clean house a bit. Here is the Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2014:

Probe Widens Into Dealings Between Finance Firms, Libya

Justice Department Joins Probe on Possible Violation of Antibribery Laws by Banks, Funds

The Justice Department has joined a widening investigation of banks, private-equity firms and hedge funds that may have violated antibribery laws in their dealings with Libya’s government-run investment fund, people familiar with the matter said. 

The criminal investigation, which has intensified in recent months, is proceeding alongside a civil probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission that began in 2011 and initially homed in on Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS -2.62%  The Justice Department’s involvement hasn’t been reported previously. 

In addition to Goldman Sachs, federal investigators are examining Credit Suisse Group , J.P. Morgan Chase, Société Générale, private-equity firm Blackstone Group and hedge-fund operator Och-Ziff Capital Management Group these people said…

Authorities are examining investment deals made around the time of the financial crisis and afterward, these people said. In the years leading up to Libya’s 2011 revolution, Western firms—encouraged by the U.S. government—raced to attract investment money from the North African nation, which was benefiting from oil sales and recently had opened to foreign investment.

Investigators are trying to determine whether the firms violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act…The 1977 law prohibits U.S. companies and companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges from paying bribes to foreign officials. U.S. authorities consider employees of state-owned investment funds, such as the Libyan Investment Authority, to be foreign officials.”

Qaddafi ran one of the world’s worst regimes. I am happy to have, hopefully, contributed to his demise, by being the first philosopher to call for the dictatorship’s demise.

(Present troubles in Libya are pretty much part of the on-going liberations struggles, some from populations with their own 3,000 year old civilization, which have been oppressed for at least 13 centuries).

Next, of course, should be the butcher of Syria and the dictator of Ukraine. The former ought to be executed, as a matter of principle. Same overriding principle as with Hitler, and the like (too bad Stalin died in his bed; if he had not, maybe Putin would be more careful, and, thus, considerate!)

Notice that the definition of corruption according to today’s Washington, is very narrow: paying “bribes”, whatever that means. When Bill Clinton goes to Nigeria, one of the world’s most corrupt and poorest nations, and he is paid $100,000 for one hour of blah blah blah, is that a bribe? According to Washington, no. According to me, yes.

A bigger example? In 1933 FDR cracked down on Wall Street. Wall Street had provoked the 1929 crisis by speculating in finance instead of investing in the real economy, as its fiduciary duty should have been. In 2008-2009, though, Bush & Obama, instead of cracking down on Wall Street in a similar crisis, crawled down under Wall Street’s jackboot. Same crisis, opposed solution. The first moral, the second as plutocratic, thus immoral, as can be. No wonder We The People is starting to see through Mr. Obama mellifluous homilies.

In other news, New York City has authorized the construction of 15 square meters apartments. That’s a bit less than ten feet by 17 feet. We The People is not just treated like sardines, it will now live as sardines do, inside the cans.

Patrice Aymé

Currency Crisis In A Nutshell

August 24, 2012


Abstract: A situation similar to the one we have today developed in the Third Century of Imperial Rome. Rome’s economy had outgrown its currency. There were three solutions to the problem. One was chosen by the Tang, paper. Another by the Franks, invasion.

Rome, under Diocletian, unable to grow the currency, chose the third way. Command and control of a barter economy. So, ironically, those who advocate the gold standard in the USA, such as Paul Ryan (candidate VP) are partisan of a Soviet style economy. Instead we have to make banks and financiers regurgitate the money they create just for themselves.


Starting in the Third Century, Rome, the world’s largest economy, was increasingly run on the gold standard. With disastrous results.


Caption reads: FLavius CLaudius IVLIA NVS (Flavius Claudius JULIA NUS) P P AVG (Princeps Populus AUGustus). VIRTVS EXERCI-TVS ROMANORVM (Strength Roman Army). (Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right.) 

A Franco-Australian collaboration on Greenland ice cores showed that from 366 BCE to after 36 CE, a period when Rome was at its peak, 70 percent of the global atmospheric lead pollution came from the Roman operated Rio Tinto mines in southwestern Spain (that can be seen from some characteristic isotopes ratio).

The Rio Tinto mining region was the richest source of silver in Antiquity. Some 6.6 million tons of slag were left by Roman smelting operations there. Rio Tinto was exploited by slaves with extremely short life spans. It was a vision of hell, the sky was black, fires everywhere, to the horizon. The rio ran red, still does.

The Romans worked Rio Tinto until Rio Tinto was exhausted with the technology they had (shortly after 36 CE). The mine re-opened in recent times, with powerful machines replacing slaves (and ‘Rio Tinto’ is well known to precious metal investors). 

The demand for silver increased dramatically after precious metal coinage was introduced in Greece around 650 BCE (although Sparta insisted to use iron for coinage: that was paper money, Fiat Currency, Spartan style). Ionian Greece, in particular Phocaea, and Lydia used Electrum, a naturally occurring alloy of gold, silver and other metals.

Interestingly, judging from the Greenland ice cores, the peak of Roman mining pollution was in 79 BCE. That is nearly two centuries before the maximum of the extent of the Roman empire under Trajan (originally a Spanish general) and his successors, the Antonine emperors. 79 BCE was not the peak of the Roman economy, that was reached later. But it is about when Sulla became dictator. This is an important hint.

Just when the commons ran out of coinage, greedy plutocrats monopolized worth. A co-dependency pattern repeated nowadays.

The smelting of lead-bearing ore declined sharply after the fall of the Roman Empire but gradually increased during the Renaissance of the Middle Ages. By 1523 CE, the last year for the Greenland ice analysis, atmospheric lead pollution had reached nearly the same level recorded for the year 79 BCE, at the Roman peak.

So what happened? Rome used three precious metals: gold, silver, and copper. The first was used to make a coin, the Aureus, renamed the Solidus under Diocletian.

The Roman currency crisis of the Third Century was caused by Rome being, de facto, on the gold standard. The Romans had run out of the most precious metals to make small coins with. That left a currency too small for the growing Roman economy. Diluting the precious metal content of the coinage commoners had to use was no solution: it created obdurate inflation (while the gold solidus kept on being made and used for another 7 centuries, it was used only for big transactions).

Diocletian and his colleague “solved” the crisis with a command barter economy. In other words, Diocletian invented the Soviet system. So ironically, that is what going back to the gold standard would force the economy into.

Around 284 CE, the Roman economy had become too big for the amount of currency that could be created from precious metals. Emperor Diocletian solved this with a command barter economy. Even armies started to get paid in kind (say with food instead of coinage; that led to a de-professionalization of the army; soldiers had to marry and live with their families; the Franks under Charles Martel, four centuries later, would re-professionalize the army by getting precious metals in churches).

In the Seventh Century the Tang dynasty in China solved the problem in the modern way, by creating a “fiat currency” from paper notes. (It would lead to catastrophic inflation under the Yuan, six centuries later, and a reversion to metal, when the silver from Potosi became available). In the Eight Century, the Franks solved the currency problem for their growing economy by going where the Romans had not dared to go,  and seizing silver mines in Eastern Europe.

For all its grand philosophy and thinking, Athens would probably not have amounted to much, if not for its silver mines. It’s actually the discovery of a new silver mine that allowed Themistocles to propose to build a 200 trireme fleet to fight off the Persians with. Thanks to her silver, Athens could buy a lot, including wheat far away, in the Black Sea region (hence the far flung Athenian empire).

We are presently in a crisis similar to what struck Rome, a dearth of money for the real economy. Indeed,  banks have diverted money creation away from the real economy, which is starved of investments (that is money and credit, from banks, for private industry).

The situation is even worse in Europe. In the Eurozone, states are supposed to be borrowing from banks. And the banks are unwilling to lend, as they have better things to do with their money, such as investing in derivatives. The result is a dearth of Euros (relative to the size of the Eurozone economy) and an overvaluation of the euro relative to the USA Dollar.

At least in the USA, the UK and Japan, central banks create as much fiat currency as needed. it’s all backed up by the mighty Pentagon, creating a virtuous, and, or vicious circle (depending upon one’s perspective).

In early 2011, Mr. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, gave Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, a warning: “There is nothing more insidious that a country can do to its citizens, than debase its currency.”

Never mind that France clung to the gold standard in the 1930s much longer than the USA, Britain and Nazi Germany, with disastrous results. This essay demonstrates something even more insidious that a country can do to its citizens: not having enough currency. And this is what is happening now. So Mr. Ryan is as wrong as wrong can be.

The unwillingness of banks to lend to the real economy, and the division of the economy between real and virtual makes us presently suffer both from deflation (in the real economy) and inflation (in the fake economy)

The way out is to print more, but, using command to send money that is created to the real economy and not to the fake world of derivatives and the like (as is presently happening). A good way to start is by taxing financial transactions, just like any other transaction is taxed in the real economy. The French financial transaction tax passed in France on August 1, 2012.

However banks did not fall on the heads of the French. According to The Economist, August 18, 2012, the French real estate market is still twice more overvalued than the British real estate market. In Britain, finance reigns, contributing 10% of GDP, in endless conspiracies.

And the other great temple of greedy financiers who give society meaning, the USA, sees, according to The Economist, a real estate market undervalued by 20%. Thus the real estate index is at 80 in the USA, and 145, in France.

Now remember that the wealth of common people is mostly in real estate. Hence a country where finance is repressed, such as France, sees much more wealth going to commoners than it does in the USA.

Some are sure to come up with GDP per capita at this point, and point out that the USA GDP is larger than the French. But that means nothing: a country with more traffic jams and expensive health care and education will see a big GDP, just like somebody with dilated cardiomyopathy, will have an enormously enlarged heart.

(Moreover the French GNP numbers are 10% higher than the GDP numbers…)

And it gets worse, because the French true ownership rate is higher than that of the USA. There is only that much wealth to go around (as the Gini Index observes). If most of the wealth goes to plutocrats, it does not go to the People, and vice versa.

Conclusion: The People on which the Wall Street empire reigns is naked, and that is because the financiers stole it. At least, relative to the French. Everything is relative, as long as there is life and it breathes… A Soviet style economy, as unknowingly advocated by the likes of Mr. Ryan, would bring with it the attending ominous fate of tyranny and theocracy (Stalin, Ibn Saud, Putin, etc.)

To come back to the situation in Rome, the increasing debasement of the Denarius, the common currency, relatively to the 80% pure gold Solidus could have been solved by introducing paper money. But that would have required a stronger state. It was, precisely, an occasion to get a stronger state. The Tang were able to organize a paper money currency, precisely because they had a strong state, with formidable sovereigns such as empress Wei.

Rome did not seize the opportunity to go to paper money. instead Rome went for theocracy, and its living descendants are Putin’s Russia, and various Islam theocracies, wobbling between cretinism and civil war.

And thus what the fanatics of the gold standard are proposing is actually a weaker state. It does make sense: most of the right wingers in the USA who are for the gold standard are also proposing to weaken the state.

They much prefer the jungle, and its law. 


Patrice Ayme

Happy Banking Barack!

August 4, 2012



Abstract: Obama’s birthday today. What a precocious child, from nothing to president. OK, Senator a few years. “Senator”: the word is from “senior”. The Roman Senate was made of seniors, advising.

Obama: so young, inexperienced, and yet father of the nation, with his young fellow multimillionaires friends from Chicago to talk to! Jamie Dimon, a young plutocrat, third generation, lived there in a 17 rooms mansion. Is not the world wonderful? Obama: even Nobel before noble! What magic! President of the mightiest nation without genuinely friendly family elders for common sense advice?

At least Vladimir Putin got the elders at the KGB for advice, who he knew and trusted since he was a student! With Obama, the elders were there for advice, sure: they were the very greedy plutocrats who caused the crisis.

What did Obama accomplish? Why so admiring of banks and financiers? Is it why he did so little in reforming finance? Because it was the greatest heist that ever was, and is still on-going, in full view, and still nobody sees it? The emperor has no clothes, but dances the twist? Truly a wonder! Fooling all the people, all of the time?

In Great Britain even the right wing conservative government of David Cameron has had enough with the banks. The Tory-Liberal government and The Economist are now saying about banks what I have long repeated. The bank outrage is central to the crisis not just in Great Britain and the USA, but in the entire West.

Just two days ago a crazed financial program went on line and caused at least half a billion dollar loss to its firm, while battering the credibility of the USA’s financial markets. Operators could not even stop it for half an hour. That sort of scandal could easily be avoided with a Financial Transaction Tax. A Financial transaction Tax would automatically impose a speed limit on financial trading to re-establish causality, as I have long advocated. (Also it’s only justice; all other transactions are subject to taxation!)

Why did only France pass a Financial Transaction Tax?



This is Barack Obama’s birthday. For those outside of the USA, it is hard to fathom the cult the Obama campaign is trying to build around it. Truly pathetic. Those guys are desperate, begging for money. And people ask: what did you give us for our money, Barack? Odes to banks and the world’s richest men? The citizens of the USA are treated as if they were three years old.

As I am slightly more mature than that, I decided to go to the bottom of that childish behavior. I met recently with people who knew Obama pretty well when he was a child, when they, themselves, were already responsible adults with children of their own. I asked them whether they found normal that the kid they knew and befriended is not only now president, but never bothered to ask for their parental advice. It’s not like Obama had living parents. He has not been so endowed, for years.

Those elders thought it had been a mistake for Obama never to talk with them. They were actually shocked by it. Who else could Obama have turned to for friendly trust, guidance and experience?

People such as the plutocrat Eskrine Bowles, advised (or ordered?) Obama to “leave your friends behind, they only cause problems“? Welcome to plutocracy, Obambi!

We, the elders and me, concluded that the inappropriate public dreaming of Obama for figures such as Warren Buffet was an ersatz search for fatherly advice. Instead of finding the latter, with those he could trust, since childhood, Obama went to search for advice in all the wrong places. It will, no doubt turn out well for him financially. If you obey Morgan Stanley as USA president, Morgan Stanley should not forget you, as USA citizen. But the question remains: is that all the wisdom the world can pretend to?



Tyranosopher: So this is your birthday, Mr. President, and what have you done? [Words on the song of John Lennon, So This Is Christmas]. Answer: When I could, not much. When I could not, well, I begged for much money, for me, The One. Although I did support the war of France against Qaddafi, like you guys wanted.

Tyranosopher: This you did, and that was good. And you also saved the auto industry, and that was excellent. But you saved the auto industry, because it begged for mercy, first, and when only public money could provide it. The banks have not begged for mercy. Ever. Quite the opposite, they, and their agents (Honorable Krugman among them), have been dictating the agenda, up to, and since, 2008. The banks were not allowed to fail, first. So they could not be nationalize for nothing.

The only bank that was not helped, Lehman Brothers, was not helped because the secretary of the treasury, Paulson, ex-football player, not really an intellectual, ex-head of Goldman Sachs, and owner of a large island, hated it with a passion.

Obama: I accomplished my signature achievement, ACA, the Affordable Care Act.

Tyranosopher: You could have expanded Medicare in one minute, and get Congress to pass the whole thing the next day, when you had a super majority in the Senate (60 votes, as Ted Kennedy was still well enough to vote, then). It would have long been effective. That’s change. Change that may happen someday, if you are still around on top, that’s not change.

Instead you bent over backwards to please the plutocrats, so it is taking years to produce that silly, hyper complicated thing, and we ended down in the muck with an ACA, aka Obamacare, aka Romneycare, which pleases nobody. If you lose the election, we can only admire how hard you worked for it. Or how hubristic you were to think you could fool everybody, and get away with it.

Obama: “What’s done is done. We gave a serious thought at what you call Medicare For All, too late. Now ACA is the law.”

Tyranosopher: ACA is the law, as long as you are not beaten in three months. And that hinges on enough of an economic recovery, which is hobbled by the financial plutocracy, which believes it owns all the money in the world, and ought to keep it to itself.

That economic non-disintegration, in turn, depends a lot upon Europe not collapsing in another bout of deep recession in its on-going Greater Depression. Please don’t forget that the present head of the European Central banks was a partner at Goldman Sachs for six years, and even a vice-chairman there. Why would he want to help you? When he can help the real thing, Romney?



Ever since the 2008 banking Crisis, the Anglo-Saxon governments, the U.S. Federal Reserve, and their obsequious followers (the ECB Draghi) have known mostly one policy: throwing money, ever more money, at the banks (It’s called under various names, to confuse the herd of bleating sheep).

The self celebrating conscientious liberal Paul Krugman would put it, trying to hide his apparent plutophilia behind semantics, throwing ever more, “monetary base” at the banks.

Obama of course, has been a central part of this celebration of the banks. Obama does even more: he celebrates hyper rich financiers and over-crooks, and sing their praises all over the main stream media. He wrote an ode in Newsweek to the famous Warren Buffet, a rare plutocrat owning the main rating agencies, Goldman Sachs, and going long or short, accordingly, when he is not plotting with the Chinese the demise of Western work, industry, and the global atmosphere.

Indeed China, were Buffet invests so much, is “severely under-reporting its carbon emissions“…China may be under-reporting its annual carbon emissions by as much as 1.4 billion tonnes a year—roughly the amount that Japan, the world’s fourth-largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2), pumps out each year” (The Economist quoting Nature Climate Change.)

Obama went on TV to sing the praises of Jamie Dimon. Hey, suppose Obama has no job next year, would not it be nice to be invited at Citigroup, or Goldman Sachs, and be n $200,000 for a few minutes’ speech as Larry Summers had been? A man needs to feed his fancy, and cannot live normal, after living so big, that would be cruel and unusual punishment…

OK, back to the banks. I will quote extensively from the most current issue of The Economist (I am a subscriber), and if the Economist disagrees, it can always have its directors in Luxembourg, behind that cheap door, explain to me that I cheated taxpayers. I will address their grievance.

The reason for quoting extensively from The Economist is that this way I cannot be accused to be far out to the left of Marx, all alone. I have company among the fact based community.



The Economist says, in “Money For Nothing“,  that: “Although it should still, in theory, be profitable for banks to lend to small and medium-sized companies, they seem unwilling to do so. The latest figures from the European Central Bank show that bank loans to the private sector were down… Nor is it economic, given the issuing costs, for small companies to borrow money in the bond market.”

So why don’t the democratic governments create PUBLIC banks to finance small and medium companies? (The French Socialist government has said it would create such a bank, but it has been busy changing the fiscal system, with the Financial Transaction Tax, effective since august 1, 2012. Now, of course it went to the sacred August vacation, last savagely interrupted in August, 1914!)

Amusingly, some in the right wing British government are starting to feel so inclined…



The Financial Times, on August 2nd 2012, announced that “cabinet ministers” have been discussing the nationalization of the Royal Bank of Scotland (The British People already owns 82% of the Royal Bank of Scotland after bailing it out in 2008!) OK, the Financial Times has also its directors behind that same door in Luxembourg: the theme today is collaboration with the enemy, to fight greater evil.

As The Economist put it (before  removing the post later!):

“Fed up with the lack of lending, “senior government figures” are discussing whether to spend £5 billion buying up the 18% of RBS the state doesn’t own.

… the long-toothed Liberal business secretary Vince Cable… is looking for a more radical solution. In a leaked letter to the Prime Minister David Cameron in March, Mr Cable suggests breaking up RBS to create a “British Business Bank with a clean balance sheet and a mandate to expand lending rapidly to sound business“.

The rationale behind it is to lend to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Current government policy on this lies in tatters. In February 2011, those at the top came up with a whizzy idea called Project Merlin. The idea was that British banks would sign a contract agreeing to lend more to businesses and—like magic—there would be growth. The Excalibur of bonus cuts was hinted at.

This didn’t work. Growth flatlined. Lending dried up. Excalibur stayed in its stone…

To Mr Cable, “the banking crisis casts a long shadow”. Some economists place Britain’s flagging productivity and lost output down to the seizing up of credit. To desperate ministers who think the market has failed, letting the state step in seems increasingly a good idea.

…the coalition’s current plan—is to nurse RBS back to health and sell it off for a profit. But the bank is expected to announce losses of about £1.5 billion for the first half of the year…. This gives ministers a political reason to nationalise it.

There would also be trouble from the EU. Letting the state direct credit for a bank with a £1 trillion balance sheet might breach EU state-aid rules. This is not to mention the political difficulty of spending £5 billion (where will the money come from?) on something less likely to make a profit. But in an economy now smaller than when the coalition came into power, these things seem to matter less and less.”

To prevent all this economy stalling circus, money losing bank corporations should have been allowed to fail, until they were bought back (by the government, if nobody else, like a crazed sheik, moved in first), for cents on the euro, pence on the pound, pennies on the dollar.

The correct course would be for the British government to coolly announce that they would stop helping banks such as RBS, and threaten to take away their banking license. After such a menace, loud and clear, the stock prices of the banking corporations would collapse, and the banks could be nationalized cheaply. Meanwhile a PUBLIC bank to lend to SMEs ought to be created (say with the 80 billion pounds brandished to help existing banks).

The same applies everywhere.

Of course, in the USA, the lovers of financiers come around, and like Obama, proclaimed that the USA put its banking house in order, while Europe did not. But Europe did lent trillions, at zero interest (basically) to banks. And what did the banks do? Keep the money to themselves, not recycle it in the economy. That is what is giving many European leaders pause.

In the USA, it has been just the same: the banks kept the money for their own operations and that of their friends. The difference with Europe is that much more money was given (sorry, “lent” at zero interest or so) to them. So indeed, American bankers are more arrogant, as those who are given more often are. 

They know they are the ones who, using leverage, create the money. They abused that privilege, for themselves, so regulators are cracking down, thus cracking down on money creation. The only way out is to create public banks.

Big corporations have no problem getting money, as… they are trusted more than most government: investors know they rule the world (and often do not pay tax, because, thanks to decolonization, they have 100 banana republic to call home, like pirates of old, in the seventeenth century).

Is the state of world finance something to celebrate? Probably not. And now the USA is facing the real possibility that a plutocrat red in fang and claw becomes president. After 4 years of Obama bending over backwards to please plutocrats, voters of the USA may be thinking: if the president thinks plutocrats are so good for us, why not being led by the real thing?

So happy birthday, Mr. President. After all, even Adolf Hitler celebrated his birthday in April 20, 1945, as Soviet shells were exploding all over Berlin. Some people are so much into themselves, they never get out.


Patrice Ayme


July 11, 2012


The Other Side Of God.

Abstract: Both the financial plutocracy and the biosphere catastrophe from CO2 poisoning are self feeding exponential phenomena (as Nazism was). CO2 poisoning is with no historical precedent since there were dinosaurs, and they died.

Any exponential phenomena affecting humanity is, by definition, immoral (I explain why, and what it means). The CO2 curve is not just immoral but also pathological. Only extreme force can be called upon crushing such spiralling towards destruction. In such cases,  violence, the usage of extreme force, has to rise to the ultimate occasion. That is moral. Appeasement is immoral.


Introduction: Most of the worst civilization destroying calamities are self feeding, vicious spirals down the abyss. Rarely, the disaster is purely launched by nature.

This happened with Crete, which was devastated by the eruption of Thera (Santorini) volcano. The generated huge tsunamis, formidable ash fall, and devastation of the economy of the Orient. Crete did not recover. A more subtle case was Sumerian civilization, even earlier, destroyed by man-made salination and, supernatural flooding. The latter, I would venture to suggest, may have been caused by ecological man-made devastation, upstream.

Famous examples of man induced calamities are tied to the plutocratic phenomenon as happened in Rome and for the Mayas (the Yucatan drought was probably human engineered, and massive wars failed to improve the situation, until the population crashed, and stayed crashed, just as happened with the collapse of Rome, but even worse). “Pluto” is pretty much synonymous to “Dark Side” and “evil”. In all cases the inclination to view elimination as the ultimate solution.

In my view of meta morality, the Dark Side pretty much arose as the ultimate safety mechanism, the one that sacrifices Homo to save Gaia.

Voltaire recommended to “crush infamy“: he was talking about crushing the most outrageous aspects of plutocracy (the doubled headed hydra of the aristocracy and the theocracy). He was certainly not talking about crushing nascent international finance (because the roue’ Arouet was an extremely rich, not to say dishonest, international financial speculator himself).

Now the many headed calamity hydra is clearly graced with a globalized financial front (with a picturesque touch, we just learned that Bank of America was used massively by Mexican drug cartels for laundering), but also, worst of all, it sports the greatest disaster in dozens of millions of years: a man made CO2 rampage. We must speak more harshly than Voltaire to save civilization and its supporting biosphere (that’s why I call on the powers of the son of his friend Sade: only Pluto can fight Pluto). 



A TALE OF TWO MORALITIES: Reality Versus Superstition (Plutocracy):

Dostoyevsky has one of his characters proclaims that:“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

Now, of course, God cannot be defined, so it does not exist, thus everything is permitted to the members of the plutocracy. This is, so to speak, the other side of god, the one rarely talked about (although obsessing about this is one of Nietzsche’s fortés).

The other side of God was the huge reality of the Middle Ages. The top members of the plutocracy at the time believed fervently in God, especially when it was highly convenient to them. Otherwise, they made fun of god, sometimes in the cruelest manner, as when they went to the Middle East, supposedly to free the house of Christ, while eating and roasting the local children (when it was expedient to do so).

Faced with thousands of prisoners, only some of them heretics, the following declaration was attributed to the Pope’s legate: “Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius:”  (“Tuez les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens!”, “Kill them all, Dominator will recognize who is his own.” The same concept, and word, dominate, was used for emperor, and god…)

Although the attribution is dubious in that particular case, it symbolizes well the mentality of the Middle Age plutocracy while it reigned. Amaury, the legate, had trespassed the Pope’s instructions by invading the giant, republican minded Toulouse County (this hints that Amaury was conspiring with the secular plutocrats in Paris, led by the king there, and the heresy was just a pretext, so what they were after was truly finding cause to kill as many citizens of the county as possible: no plutocrats love a republic, when they can kill it.)

Augustine famously said that there were two cities, one built by greed (civilization), the other by love (for god, the elusive notion nobody sane can define). Instead what Augustine made possible was a tale of two moralities. That of the slave (Christianism), and that of the masters. This is what Nietzsche found while analyzing scripture, and what the historical record makes plain. I would add it made possible a tale of two mentalities: those who care about reality, and those who hate it. Unsurprisingly, at least in the USA, those who love CO2, love Augustine, that is, fundamentalist Christianity, and hate reality. The reality being that, with what they want not to do, Florida will soon be underwater.



Sartre said that all of French existentialism held in ‘If God does not exist, everything is permitted.’ That of course makes existentialism into a big nothing, because only Nazis and the like believed in such a thing, that “everything is permitted“. It is precisely because Nazis felt thus, that everything was permitted, that they did what they did.

As Nietzsche had guessed, nihilism was a rising scourge. So, the same mood that infected the Nazis, that everything was permitted extended much further, including in places which opposed the Nazis. Nowadays, many of the Internet stupid out there have erected as a nihilistic moral principle, at the grass root level of their subjection, that one has lost the argument, each time one mentions Hitler and company.

In other words, every time one rises an objection to “everything is permitted”, their minds leave the room, and, moreover, they insult you.

In any case, if “everything is permitted” is the definition of French existentialism, one arrives to the apparently paradoxical conclusion that the Nazis were actually French existentialists… It’s paradoxical until one realizes that many of the French existentialists were partial to Nazi like theories… Before, during, and well after the occupation of France by the Nazis.

Some of these Nazi fellow travellers, such as Beauvoir, deliberately collaborated with the Nazis! Sartre proved that aplenty later, with his hysterical support for various Nazi like movements (“of liberation“, instead of deliberation), all the way to Mao’s senile “Cultural Revolution”.

But maybe all what Sartre meant was that everything was permitted to Sartre…

Contrarily to what Sartre and company affected to believe, ever since there are civilizations, there has been interdictions springing out of morality.

An army is crucial for establishing a civilization, as is a treasury and a government (learn Europa, learn…). But morality holds all of it together. “Civilization is repression.” As Freud more or less said, in his Civilization and Its Discontents.

More generally civilization provides the context that individual human logics need to operate. In other words, civilization, all civilizations, determine what minds are going to be, and decree that, out of this arena, immorality reigns.

This fundamental precondition, a common experience, in that case, of (fascist) disaster, all of Europe (more or less) shares. That is why it was part of a healthy debate for the Greeks to remind the Germans what the old reigning German mentality, circa 1941 did to them, and that one should take a wide berth from a repeat performance.

And that is why there is good hope for Europe, and, why, paradoxically, any hard times presently encountered ought to forge some more, with fire and beating, of that common hard steel of moral resolve which forges the hardest, and hardiest civilization.



The Nazis’ teachings were deliberately insane, they thought that was very smart. They despised those who could not be as insane as them, such as democracies (the fly in the ointment was that the French republic was much crazier than the Nazis had anticipated, and went right ahead to make war to the Great 1,000 years Reich).

The theory behind this was explained thoroughly by Hitler. Stalin made similar declarations.

The general idea was: “Nobody is as crazy as us, so we will win” and… Stalin was right, as its Soviet organization proved even more ready to kill anybody in the way than the Nazis themselves…. Nazis never had “blocking sections“, killing any soldier seen retreating. The Nazis found that method inhuman, and were unwilling to apply it to their Alte Kameraden!

In 2003, as the USA invaded Iraq, clever conservative commentators argued that none of the reasons for invading Iraq made much sense, but for one, that was in no way official. That was that, if the USA invaded Iraq, other countries would believe the USA was crazy, drunk on its power, thus dangerously unpredictable, hence to be left alone, and treated with the respect extended to an unpredictable predator, such as a grizzly bear.

The same ones are now supporting the CO2 built up in the atmosphere. One can see their crafty reasoning from here: climate catastrophe will bring a world war, so we will win the big enchilada (again). As happened in 1945, when the American plutocratic support for the fascists (mostly pre-1942) was determinant to destroy the supremacy of European democracies and other (not so democratic) states.

That strategy of insanity is, of course, nothing new: besides Hitler and Stalin, many brutes, throughout the ages, have argued just the same. If we act really crazy, people will make way.



A famous example: when the Swiss, the 380,000 Helvetii, a race of Celts, surrounded as they were, by mountains, decided that they would prefer to control a greater territory than Switzerland, they marched West, something they had long planned. They had defeated the Romans two generations earlier, they were unafraid.

So that everybody would understand that the Helvetii meant business, they destroyed all their grain, but for what they could carry, and burned all their cities, villages and houses. There was no going back. That was crazy. That craziness was the point, entirely. Caesar, who knew how to think, was impressed enough to do what it took to stop them. (After Caesar killed all of them but for 110,000, mostly in one tremendous battle, the imperator forced the survivors to rebuild their nation, lest the Germans invade Helvetia, and he obliged the Allobroges to the south to feed the dishevelled tribe.) 



Thus, how can one argue intelligently and politely with Nazis, and the like, when they are often using insanity as a tool, or weapon? This is the question exquisitely civilized people had in 1930s. Following the letter, but not the practice, of great Christian monarchs (the archetypes being Constantine, Justinian, Charlemagne) they embraced a sort of policy of “turning the other cheek, until brutes are ashamed, or their hands tired”. Those naive critters felt they would solve, if not dissolve, the brutes, by being ever more refined. Hence the strategy of “appeasement”. (To call off appeasement, the French republic overwhelmed her distaste, and pushed for a military alliance with the Polish colonels, dragging Britain in the small letters of the appendix; Hitler reacted by making official his long military alliance with Stalin, in the hope of scaring away the French… But France declared war nevertheless, to Hitler, Stalin, and their American plutocrats in attendance… and their snivelling allies in the U.S. congress.)

When facing real brutes, and humoring them, one may as well go to a swamp and read Homer to hungry crocodiles. Ultimately, the only civilized way to handle crocs or crooks basking in the greatest physical violence is according to what they are the most competent at: brute force. It is actually immoral for moral people to expect angry crocodiles to behave. Being moral does not mean to just turn the other cheek, but to know how to draw a line.

Some will notice that my drift tends to justify Obama’s execution policy. Sort of. What I contest with the execution policy is the details of how it is carried out (in particular targeting for death innocent families is not acceptable to me, although carpet bombing was in WWII. Why? Because Obama has other means at his disposal, patience being one of them; that was not available in WWII; in the present case, legal precedent is more important than just winning on the ground, because the battle is all in the minds now (forgetting 9/11), and has already been won on the ground).



Which brings us to those who deny the immorality of the steep CO2 curve. CO2 and associated, even worse, man-made industrial gases, cannot be denied. However, some still deny them, called them insignificant, or even life giving. Those self fascinated crooks are denying the significance of the steep rise in these atmospheric poisons. They are having martinis, and the good life (because they get paid for broadcasting their absurdities) while the biosphere tumbles towards catastrophe.

The phenomenon is exactly the same as with the crooked financiers. They get paid for their criminal absurdities, and the more absurd, the more criminal, the more money they get, a form of compensation for being immoral fools for all to see. Only brute force, jailing them, will solve the …. exponentiating problem they are creating. If one does nothing, just as with Hitler, the situation becomes quickly worse, and for the same reason: it’s self feeding.



Both financial destruction of the economy and greenhouse heating of the planet are self feeding mechanisms. The evil blooming of the financial plutocracy and of the biosphere catastrophe are two illustrations of the exponential. Below the incapacity to do anything about both, lays a deep ignorance of the mathematical nature of that most important piece of mathematics, the exponential.

As Martin Lack, from “Lack Of Environment” points out: “Hi Patrice. You talk of the “immorality of the steep CO2 curve”, which reminds me of a point… If people look at the graph of atmospheric CO2 (with its annual peaks and troughs reflecting variations in photosynthesis by plants) they may notice that the long term-trend is not linear – it is accelerating slowly. However, what many fail to appreciate is that, if you look at the data in the context of CO2 levels over the last few hundred years, we are now in the near vertical part of a J-curve. As someone once said, the main reason Hockey Stick graphs seem to appear whenever you look at climate-related data is because they are there; and we are causing them:
See page 6 of the Introduction to David Mackay’s book Sustainable Energy – Without Hot Air.”

One would expect the CO2 curve to be non linear, because heating the planet is highly non linear. When there is such a thing as no more snow in August, the ground starts to warm up, the CO2 and methane in the permafrost bubble up, the dark ocean absorbs more heat, the tropical ocean makes more haze, steam (itself a most efficient greenhouse gas)… then there is no going back, and the climate will yo-yo, as happened many times in the past. Simply, this time, if we do not do something dramatic, we know that the yo-yo will beat anything viewed in at least 20 million years. And that means the yo-yo will break: no more glaciers. At all. (Smarty pants will point out that we will be able to put a planetary sized sunshade in orbit, someday. Maybe, but not before several billions dead, and not before we design safe and reliable nuclear rockets, or something like that!)

Thus I employ the adjective “immoral” deliberately, when referring to the CO2 curve, knowing full well that it is provocative. But it’s much more than that; it is correct. Morally correct. It goes at the heart of my theory of morality. It’s very simple: morality comes from “mores” the long term , thus sustainable, habits a civilization has.

That exponentiating CO2 curve is obviously not sustainable, thus it is immoral. And it is lethally immoral: CO2 is not just innocuous, life sustaining, growing big trees. It’s also lethal at very low concentrations: it became the major problem for the survival of the crew of Apollo XIII, after their fuel cell exploded.

Greed, itself exponential, feeds the CO2 curve. Exponentials feeding other exponential: a gory mathematical spectacle.



And why is greed exponential? Because the more greed brings, the more one wants more, from a phenomenon of habituation, the same one which makes addicts augment the dose. The exact same brain phenomenon is at play: desensitization, and thus frantic augmentation of the stimulation. That is why Larry Ellison, after refusing to pay tax to schools, and buying huge properties everywhere, has now bought an entire Hawaiian island. He was getting habituated to all these outrages: he needed more, to get the same spice, with spitting into civilization’s face.

And that is why the balanced life, long sung by ancient philosophers, is so important, and, ultimately moral: it prevents this neurological desensitization, from an overuse of some peculiar neuronal circuitry. It is also why to be ruled by wealth, by greed, Pluto, is to be ruled by addicts. 

One may also wonder if the same effect is not at work among those who are obsessed by power (on others). it is already known that animals who are dominant, or dominated, suffer important neurohormonal changes. In some fishes, the need for an all fascist, all dominant leader brings enormous physiological changes, from male to super male, and if, there is no male left, from female, to super male.

Thus representative democracy, by its need for super leaders, may lead not just to select for the rather psychopathic, but even to turn the mild ones into physiological psychopaths.

As the astoundingly naïve Obama recently declared:“I did not know that my job’s description required to kill people.” Well, I have other news for him: his job is changing him neurohormonally, transforming him indeed, into a super killer (if not a super leader)… supposing he did not have it in him all along.

Gandhi called Hitler “his friend“, and tried to prevent India to declare war to “his friend“. What Gandhi did not understand is that utmost morality requires using maximal force against maximal calamities. There are no ifs and buts, and appeals to pacifism when facing a lion’s jaw (the morality Obama has been all too enthusiastic to use against Muslim terrorists, perhaps to compensate not using it against banksters!)

Let me truncate and add some sting to a quote of Sade:“Nature put us all to be equal born; if fate is pleased to intervene, and upset the primary order of things, it is up to us to correct its caprices and, through our own skill, to repair the usurpations of the strongest… So long as our good faith and patience serve only to double the weight of our chains…” Our virtues will be as crimes. (What Sade said at this point was the obverse: “our crimes would be as virtues“, also a valid point, sometimes, such as when Obama feels virtuous when killing innocent families of dedicated terrorists…)

As long as we sit quietly in our corner as the CO2 keeps on climbing, our virtues are as crimes.

What to do right away, besides getting more informed? Well the USA should follow Europe, and put heavy taxes on energy and carbon (it would also help the deficit while broadening the tax base). Even Australia just did this (more exactly on mining and carbon, to the applause of even “The Economist“).

Next the EU and USA could plot together, and squeeze the rest of the planet into clean energy. If Obama were re-elected, and not just listening to clever crocs such as Messieurs Summers, Rubin, Dimon, and countless others, he could put such a plan in action within days. It would even bolster employment (see Germany, which has created 300,000 jobs in clean energies).

The statu quo has become immoral. Time to do triage among the mores, and move on boldly where no minds have been before, same as ever was.


Patrice Ayme

Banking Demons.

May 21, 2012



 People of more than zero influence are waking up to the fact that they have to admit that there is something  wrong with the banking system as it is. A delicate task: something has to be revealed, but not so much that the pyramid upon which the wealthy rest, would crumble.

 Paul Krugman, long extremely partial to private banks, wrote an editorial in the New York Times on the subject of how outrageous banking, as presently practiced, is. Krugman could have written this years ago. But he did not. Instead he waited until the plutocratic party went one outrage too far.

 In Dimon’s Déjà Vu Debacle, Krugman focuses on the fact that the state insures the banksters. Of course the state does much more: it reassures the banksters, thus encouraging them in their crimes. But not just that. The state gives trillions to banks so that they can play with each other. Krugman will not tell you that. For years he has been pushing stridently for Quantitative Easing, giving trillions to banks, no strings attached.

 Same idea as Reaganism, or Sarkozism: give to the rich, so that the rich will give to you.

 The bank JP Morgan Chase lost 3 billion, or maybe 5, or 100 billion. No problem, says Romney: it’s not their money, it’s theirs! If it’s not to some banks, that money, it’s to some other guys. Guys like me, guys, say romney, and he beams with pride.

 In truth, though, that money is neither to the banks, nor to those other guys. That money is yours. Private banks are in charge of creating public money, in guise of private credit.

 Some will say: this is how capitalism works. No, that’s how a particular form of fractional reserve based financial parasitism works. Proof: the Nineteenth and Twentieth century revolutionaries (Marx, etc.) did not talk about it. Instead they mostly talked about the abuse of workers by great capital. (Now there are not even workers to abuse…) At most Marx complained a bit about the monopoly of banks. The scam existed already at the time, but it was discrete.

 Romney lauded the plutocratic doctrine in relation with JP Morgan’s loss. Milder partisan of the established order, such as many in the democratic party, feel that Romney is going too far. More importantly, he wants to take their place. So, to their regret, they have to mention a bit of what’s wrong with banks.

 Romney said that JP Morgan’s loss was excellent, because it benefited somebody else, namely an evil plutocrat laughing all the way to his private jet. Romney conveniently forgot to mention that, ultimately, it’s the taxpayer who foot the banks’ bill (as Krugman finally points out, when, as I already said, he could have done it years ago). Romney is pedagogical.

 Extolling the theft of taxpayer money by hedge funds may look like a blunder on Romney’s part, but of course it’s not. Romney and his operators are clever, they know what they are doing. What they are doing is to prepare the minds to finding this sort of reflections part of the natural order of things. Instead of a blunder on Romney’s part, it’s an attempt to have all Americans become friendly to the notion of rising, shining, and boasting in the glory of that evil plutocracy is best to bring a better world.

 In other words, Romney is not just running for himself, but also, deliberately, on the behalf of plutocracy. It looks clumsy, but it’s crafty, and manipulative at the emotional, “subconscious” level.

 I immediately sent (a version) of the following comment, which put the problem in a wider context, to the New York Times (a context readers of this site will be familiar with). It should have appeared among the very first comments, thus influencing thousand of readers, and endangering the established order. Instead something happened, and it was published in # 195 position (!) Typical treatment given to my comments, when they are too clever by half.

 “It is of foremost importance for the plutocratic order that the following is not understood by the masses. What Romney and the class he campaigns for do not want the simple minds of the People to comprehend, is that BANKS ARE ACTUALLY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

 OK, if a number of individuals put money together, and then lent it, that, and only that, would be a true private bank. Instead what is happening is that banks, especially very large banks, lend much more capital than they truly possess. They can do that, thanks to the full complicity of the government, which, then, in turn, become their accomplice and creature.

 Such is the nature of the Fractional Reserve Banking System. Banks, using leverage, something only possible with the backing of the state, create all the credit, and therefore, most of the money. Money creation, a basic public function, has been farmed out to private individuals.

 Just as tax collecting was farmed out to “general farmers” under (some of) France’s Ancient Regime, and (some of) the Roman empire. However, in France and Rome, money creation stayed an exclusive activity of the state.

 So let me rephrase it: instead of calling banks private, one should realize that any bank using leverage is a public institution. It’s a fact, not an opinion. It’s a crucial fact. That is why, on his first day in office, president Roosevelt could, and did, close all banks in the USA.

 Insisting that banks are private is like insisting that public money making is private, a monopoly the state give to unsupervised, unelected individuals.

 That public character of leveraged banks makes all bankers, including Mr. Dimon, head of JP Morgan, and loudly admired by Obama, into public servants. As they lend to their friends (in finance, or their collaborators in their class (hedge fund managers who use leverage, as they all do), that makes those bankers and the banking they do, fundamentally corrupt.

 When banking executives pay themselves immense amount of money, they do so with public money. The head of the unit of JP Morgan which was playing with derivatives, Ina Drew, a blue eyed blonde, earned more than 31 million dollar in 2010-2011 alone. (She has now been fired to the regret of Dimon, who did not want to fire his “sister“… Said the New York Times.)

 This nature of banking, the exploitation of the public sphere, by a few self selected private individuals, has grave implications on Quantitative Easing and the like. The USA’s central bank gave (or lent at such low rates, it was like giving) trillions of dollars to the very banks and managements which caused the 2008 financial crisis (example: Goldman Sachs). It was quite a bit like paying off the mobsters who just burned your house. Payments are ongoing, and explain why the likes of Dimon fill Obama’s mind with awe.

 In Europe, the central bank lends at 1% to banks which then lend that exact same money to the states at 6% or 7% (Spain, Italy) or well above 50% (Greece). In other words, the public finances the plutocrats rather than the real economy.

 Merkel then barks, and push to cut off funding for public transportation in Greece, so common people cannot go to work anymore, but can, instead, be accused of laziness (feeder trains from suburbia into Athens have been often stopped, and the tracks overgrown with weeds. Meanwhile Merkel sells Porsches to her friendly plutocrats in Greece). Why does she do all that? Because she is protecting the leveraged banks by shifting blame to the common Greeks.

 (Not that the Greeks were blameless: tax avoidance was a tradition in Greece, something that forced the country to live on credit more than could be sustained.)

 The fundamental nature of the present crisis is the rise of plutocracy, naturally accompanied, as it always is, by the crushing of democracy (see all students having to pay colossal tuitions, so that only the children of the hyper rich can study, just like in the middle Ages; and if you protest, the Quebec government will come to arrest you, so please, approve!)

 The present “fixes” only make the situation worse. (As was demonstrated, say in Greece!) Those “fixes”  consist into shuffling ever more money to banks which then lend that money to their friends, or then to states at usurious rates, while augmenting stratospherically the public debt to said banks. This only augments the power of banks, hence of the financial plutocracy, and thus the crisis.

 Is it deliberate? Probably. I have mentioned it on Krugman’s blog for years, but Krugman, who is very intelligent does as if he did not notice. Why? because if he did, he knows he would sitting in the hot, ejection seat. So he bids his time while munching on caviar, and sipping champagne.

 The only way out is a general default, as advocated in:

 Radical, sure. We have to grab the problem by its roots. Otherwise, we face collapse of civil society, while drowning and boiling.

 Accompanied by a stiff regulation of banking, along the lines of president Roosevelt in 1933. Instead the Roosevelt laws were dismantled under president Clinton, a greedy critter, well rewarded since.

  A few little men of modest extraction, get absolute power, and they want to keep some thereafter. That echo of power is provided by the Lords of Finance. As long as they took the right decisions. Singing hypocritically with U2 lead singer, the so called Bono (not his real name, just a bon mot to make him sound good, bon, bono, bueno, etc.) will help.

  Bono, like Bill Gates, sings about the misery in Africa, while raking the billions in one of Goldman Sachs’ latest conspiracy (he was on the Facebook IPO, and made nearly two billion). Warren Buffet has served the public buffet of forbidden evil foods, and they splurge. Those all too visible plutocrats also make the same lethal mistake as the tiger in Kipling’s Jungle Book… Hopefully their public splurging may attract attention from the destituted commons.  They don’t know that the Lord of the Underground, Pluto, makes itself invisible, for very good reasons. They are blinded by the very goodness they perceive in themselves, after inverting all values.


Patrice Ayme


November 22, 2011


Abstract: Europe long suffered from the exactions of the hyper wealthy, various plutocrats such as kings, dukes, princes or sultans, or, more generally, all those who lust after power to the detriment of the rest.

I give examples extracted from (a small part of) what happened in the late Seventeenth Century, just in (part of, mostly) Eastern Europe. And the irony of it all. While showing that the evil organization of (say) the Ottoman empire, or more generally, of wrath wrecked Europe was such, because many profited from it, Satanic style.

Kratia” in Greek means power, rule, sway… Hence demo-kratia, the rule of the People, and Pluto-kratia, the rule of Pluto, and his obsession with underground wealth, underground emotions, the invisible hand.

So stupid many economists are, at least around New York or London, that they laud loudly the “invisible hand”.

In their ignorance and depravity, they wallop so much, that they have no idea that invisibility was viewed by the Greeks, 3,000 years ago, as one of the Lord of Hell’s most terrible attributes.

And sure enough, if Auschwitz had been visible, it would not have happened. Think about that, Lords of Finance, if you can! Sorry, I forgot for an instant, that one sees best with the heart, and you have none!

Now the world suffers from 600 trillions dollars of invisible derivatives, 450 trillions of them weighing on the bond market, agitated by well orchestrated panics, so that the rich who organize them, can get ever richer, from the toils of taxpayers, and the ruin of savers, retirees, the unemployed, the sick. “Shadow Banking” is supposed to be glorious…When actually it should be a cause for incarceration.

In Egypt, the army keeps on going as overlord, with the invisible American hand feeding it, instructing it, organizing it…

In the Nineteenth Century, Nietzsche claimed that men were mostly driven by the “Will to Power” (and that it was healthy).

A century earlier, Sade had insisted that political leaders, in particular, were psychopaths, lusting so much for power, that inflicting pain on others was their main driver. Louis XVI put him in the Bastille (big mistake, as it turned out in July 1789!)

Perfect illustrations of the Marquis de Sade’s theory soon blossomed in abundance, with vengeful plutocrats trying to burn all of Europe, demented revolutionary leaders cutting heads by the thousands, and Napoleon’s childish ambition to spill as much blood as possible; those tyrans and crats all had this in common that they hated Sade. They imprisoned him for decades, and Robespierre’s gang scheduled his execution for having saved thousands of lives from the terror. (The ambition of Robespierre’s gangsters got cut short, with their necks, sparing Sade, just in time!)

Of course, humans are motivated by more than the Dark Side’s Will, Violence, and Power. Be it only because of the Light Side, of love, empathy, curiosity, even poetry, and singing, which make even more of a driver of human behavior. And we have names for them: lover, empath, inquirer, questioner, investigator, poet, singer, etc. Just as we have now names for sadists and brutes. (“Sadist” though is a neologism introduced thanks to Sade’s provocative revelations!)

In all and any case, nobody proposed to name those who, among humans are obsessed with the infliction of their will upon others. No name for the power-hungry, the over-ambitious, those who lust for power, the Genghis Khans, the Alexanders, the Caesars, the Napoleons and Hitlers, Rothschilds, Clintons, and DSKs. This is all the stranger, because a noun naturally offers itself!

Thus I proposed a neologism: CRATS, for those so greedy for power that they forget other human values. (Krugman promptly used it in his blog without proper attribution, after I mentioned it in his blog’s comments; I do not belong to the power circle of those worthy of quotation, as I am not a Very Serious Person.)

“Crat” has also the advantage of fusionning two concepts: c, for conspiracy, or cretin, and “rats” for an all too social animal which seems mostly motivated by food, and inspiring to those who lead us into oblivion.

Crats, like rats, have always existed, and have always tried to devour civilization. That’s what they do. To prevent the devouring of civilization, Neolithic men invented cats (against rats), and taxes (against crats). Modern politicians though, inculcated in their subjects the complete disdain for this lesson.

However there is an example of a spur of civilization which evolved, thanks to crats. Colonial English America thrived from civilizational devolution: if English colonial Americans had taken care of the Indians as French Jesuits did, in Canada, the colonials would not have got as rich, as fast as they did.  

This is an important point that Professor Niall Ferguson miss in his white wash “Civilization” book (November 2011). Ferguson  celebrates the attribution of Indian property to whites in North America, that is, to the European invaders. He finds that most wise. In contrast, Ferguson recognizes that there were plenty of Indians left in South America, and that Spain limited immigration to South and Central America, precisely because of this, the abundance of the natives. And Ferguson deplores that!

Thus naughty boy Niall does not realize, in his Harvard induced murderous superiority haze, that he is showing his hand. His hand is not invisible anymore, he should be more careful. What Ferguson is actually saying, for all to see, is that holocausts are the superior economic model. That was Hitler’s point, entirely. But Hitler did not teach at Harvard, that was his mistake (although some Harvard songs were adapted into famous Nazi songs by some of the individuals who connected the university and the party!)

And of course holocausts are much superior economically for those who survive them, especially if they are the perpetrators, and they thrive.

OK, the perpetrators of the American holocaust are long dead in the case of the English American colony. But the ideology of GREED AS SUPERLATIVE is still very much alive. Killing it, is what the world revolt is all about. So Niall should find sonmething else to celebrate, it would be only prudent.

The USA embraced plutocratic civilizational devolution as a metaprinciple of “progress”, and access to riches. The exact sort of “progress” Krugman embraces: divide the world, divide Europe, and then New York, what he boasts is the “greatest city in the world“, will conquer. He was a child a few miles north, he thrives a few miles south: alleluia!

American intellectuals of the powerful type, such as Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson, perceive a weakness in Europe, and, as good servants of the plutocratic system they suck from, they are on the attack against the European project, telling us that the gods of Anglo-Saxon finance will forever rule, thus hoping we will lay down our mental weapons, and surrender. But, far from it, here is more ammunition to fight what Voltaire used to call “infamy”.

And what is the modern European project? The wise victory of the mind over fate, from knowing more, the very definition of Homo Sapiens. In particular the victory of mind over wealth. The victory of mind over the military, fascist, plutocratic system, as deployed in, say, Egypt. That system which replaced three important European leaders by agents of Goldman Sachs, in two weeks. The victory over the biased accounting the likes of Krugman venerates.

Krugman tells us that accounting his way, is the most worthy thing. Not only he does not know how, and what to count, but, tell me, Krugman, how much is Auschwitz worth? Is it because Americans were doing accounting their way, that they sent to Nazi Germany’s Air Force crucial war supplies in 1939, to enable it to fly, while France and Poland were already in combat against Nazi Germany? Is it why Poland and France fell, and dozens of millions died? Accounting by American plutocrats, for their own benefit?




During the summer of 1683, the Turkish army besieged Vienna. It was allied with the Khan of Crimea and its 40,000 horsemen cavalry. Everyday of the two months assault, the formidable Ottoman war drums beat ominously. The constant rolling was not mean to just destabilize psychologically the Austrian capital. It was conceived to make difficult for the Europeans to localize where exactly the slaves of the sultan were digging their tunnels and covered trenches.

A vast underground battle between 5,000 experienced Ottoman sappers and defending “moles” was punctuated with large explosions when Turkish mines exploded under the successive fortification rings of the European capital. The last and most formidable mine was detected in the last hours of the final battle, as the Turks tried desperately to blow up the main Austrian fort. It was defused by Austrian “moles”, at the last moment. Elite Turkish troops and janissaries had been held back for that moment after the giant bomb exploded. It never came.

The Turks are an interesting example of the importance of ideology. The old Indo-European (not Semitic!) world of Turkic nomadic bands was transformed by the war religion of Islam, about a millennium ago. It allowed them to conquer quickly a vast empire, and they headed west. In a generation or two, they had the Roman empire on the ropes (Byzantium called itself Roman, because that is what it was, although it spoke Greek). The Romans then called the Franks to the rescue (the Franks were all the more willing to settle the problem militarily as recently 10,000 pilgrims to Jerusalem had been massacred, in one swoop).

But it did not work; the ravenous Turkish military established a gigantic empire, which covered Anatolia, the Middle East, North Africa, Anatolia, Eastern Europe. By far the most important reason why the European counter-attack did not work is that the Europeans were very divided. (The same situation happened with the Muslims to the south: Frankish knights, allied to the Mongols were an irresistible force, so the Pope and the French king outlawed the Franco-Mongol alliance with the greatest threats, after the fall of Baghdad and Damascus! If not for that, Islam would probably have become an archeological curiosity…)

In 1204, the Frankish army conquered and sacked Constantinople, in a final, savage conclusion to their nine centuries old domineering military role in Rome, deep down inside hostile to Christianity, which they viewed as all too anti-German, anti-progress, and no fun, if not kept in check by secular power.   

The European divisions endured. The Turkish high command was good at exploiting them. Or let’s say that European adventurers found to their advantage to ally themselves with Turkish fascist imperialism. During the final siege of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, not only the Turkish shock troops were made of dozens of thousands of indoctrinated, fanaticized enslaved Christian boys, the Janissaries, but the giant “Turkish” guns were made by Hungarian engineers. Moreover, France was treacherously allied to the Sultan, one reason why the relief army failed to materialized. The ancient hostility between the Franks and the “Orthodox Catholic” church had reached its bitter end (Venice and other terminal allies of Constantinople was a client republic of Charlemagne, not Constantinople).

The Janissaries were an interesting institution, typical of a fascist order: Christian families who sold their boys thus got a social promotion and riches. With Janissaries, the Sultans thus had at their disposals a force which owed them everything: so revolution could not come from the real Muslim population. Indeed the anti-Islamist, pro-European revolution in Turkey followed quickly the elimination of the Janissaries in the 19C.

When the situation got grave enough, the Europeans cooperated enough to get the Turkish off their back. The Europeans came together at the siege of Vienna, with the alliance of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After 12 hours of battle, at 17 hour (5 pm), the Polish king ordered, and led, the largest cavalry charge in history. 20,000 horsemen galloped down a mountain. Simultaneously, the Viennese garrison made a sortie. The Turks were finished.



Prince Eugene of Savoy‘s reconquered Hungary and some of the Balkan lands within the following years. “Prinz Eugen” is also the name of the famous Nazi battle cruiser crammed with advanced technology, which became later a U.S. Navy ship (at least three of its master technologies were thoroughly copied by the Americans). Prince Eugene de Savoy (old French for modern “Savoie”) was born in Paris in 1663. After chasing the Turks off a bit, a peace was concluded (1699). Europeans were free to fight each other. Prinz eugen then fought with Malborough against members of his own family, for example the elector Emanuel of Bavaria.

Tellingly that prince/prinz signed his name: “Eugenio von Savoy”. An Italo-Germano-French signature! At the village of Blindheim (in English: “Blenheim”), Marlborough and Prince Eugen fought against the combined Bavarian and French armies. 240 years later, a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, namely the British Prime Minister Churchill (an Anglo-American), sent Bristol Blenheim bombers to sink the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen.

It sounds funny, but, in the great European wars, up to half of the population died. Many wars lasted centuries. Prominent individuals were on both sides of the same war. Do we want more of this European war circus? Well, Wall Street does. Because the more the Europeans are divided, the more the financial pirates of Wall Street reign. The long memory of the Europeans for the exactions of the hyper wealthy is nothing Wall Street wants to hear more of.

Thus it’s useful to change the conversation with distorted history. American intellectuals such as Krugman and Ferguson live off Wall Street (whether they are conscious of it or not). While playing the roles of critiques, they help the pluriharmonic melodious chorus which allow the likes of Obama to claim total confusion, and support the mighty.



Another weekend, and another blast by the servants of American plutocracy against Europe. In the Wall Street Journal, Niall Ferguson, the Scottish born plutophile history professor at Harvard informs us that Ireland, will asked to join the United Kingdom, in a “Reunited Kingdom“. Ferguson boy probably does not know that the latest measure of inflation in Great Britain is 5.9%. That means: near catastrophe (and I love inflation at 4%!). By the way I am reading his book “Civilization”. The usual thing: history started when Great Britain was created. That would be after the Dutch invasion, and the submission of Scotland, after 1700 CE. By then the American English colony was de facto independent, and had invented racially discriminating slavery. Indeed, a unique contribution. by killing lots of Indians and enslaving lots of Africans growing lots of tobaco, English colonists had become the world’s richest tribe.

But Ferguson does not tell you what I just said. Instead he tells you it’s all about British genius, just like when Newton discovered the Law of Universal Attraction. That is the Anglo-Saxon propaganda at its best. Actually Newton himself, more honest than Ferguson (who, as an historian should check history before proclaiming it!), asserted that  Bullialdus, a French priest and lawyer, found it first. Giovanni Alfonso Borelli suggested first the balance between centrifugal force and gravitational attraction. But you see, Bullialdus is French, thus he does not count, because he is not endowed by Anglo-Saxon genius. Even worse for Borelli: he was the son of a Spanish soldier and a Napolitan woman, races which according to Ferguson, do not have the Anglo-Saxon genius so obvious at Goldman Sachs.



That may be also why Ferguson has the history of the Anglo-Saxons starting so recently: before that the so called Anglo-Saxons were actually French lords, so that’s best forgotten. Edward III “Long Shanks”, conqueror of Scotland, initiator of the half a millennium long “100 years war” was French on both sides, and the grandson of the formidable  Philippe Le Bel.

Of course the only reason why the tiny Netherlands became so powerful was that, in a 150 years long war or so, Spain was defeated by France, and lost the low countries (which was only justice, as the Franks came from said Low Countries! And for centuries, France, England and the Netherlands had formed a triangle of commerce). Of course Spain owned the Netherlands, because Charles of Bourgogne did so, as part of his middle of the Imperium Francorum inheritance, and he had been elected king of Spain.

Charles V spoke perfectly five languages, but his birth language was French, as was that of his great enemy Francois Premier, born a few “lieux” away.

Thus in the end, much of the terrible wars between 1300 CE and 1815 CE were all about French fighting French.  It is normal: France was the largest single piece of the Imperium Francorum, and the later had not been formally dissolved. Instead it went on, at some point as more than 1,000 pieces…

This would go on: after the fascist, or, as he put it himself, “poorly advised” Louis XIV, kicked out millions of Protestants from France, many fled to Switzerland (where they started watch making), some to the Netherlands, or South Africa (where they made wine). many also were welcomed with open arms by Frederick the Great of Prussia (this explains why so many Nazi generals had French names).

In 1945, most French and Germans had come to the conclusion that, whatever was next, it would include definitive peace between France and Germany. The seventy five years of war between France and Germany (1870-1945) had shown that they had more to gain being together, than fighting against each other.

Those who knew history real well knew that the Franco-German wars had started with growing apart.

A lot of this had been propelled by the arrogance of Parisians. In 358 CE, shortly after the name of Lutetia had been changed for Paris (name of the local tribe, the Parisii), the Parisians and the crack Franco-Gallo-Roman troops elected by acclamation Caesar Julianus as Augustus. Julianus demurred for a while, but then accepted the nomination. He had no choice.

The emperor Constantius II, anxious to separate the Caesar from the empire’s best troops, had decided they would be moved to Mesopotamia. Instead, the Parisians rebelled. Julianus took control of the entire empire, and proceeded to de-Christianize the Roman empire (Julianus’ view of Christianism was even worse than that of Nietzsche, 14 centuries later, and fit well wit those of the Franks). Julianus was hit by a lance in Mesopotamia, the Franks took power directly, a century later. Frankish troops would be allied to the Mongols to seize Baghdad, and Damascus, a millennium later.

Forever after electing Julianus, Paris acquired a dangerous attitude. No wonder Carlus Magnus made his capital in Aachen. Throughout the Middle Ages, Paris was by far the largest city in Europe. By the Eleventh Century, Abelard had gone beyond Aristotle, and Paris had a university, by the Twelfth Century, Paris invented the so called “Gothic style“, then actually known as Opus Francigenum.

Actually one of the Franks present at the inauguration of the first Gothic cathedral, with typical Parisian spite, called it “Gothic” as that was the ultimate insult for a Frank (the Goths had been exterminated 450 years earlier, in a combined Franco-Roman-Muslim effort).



One has made a big deal of the reunification of Germany. But that is small potatoes relative to the reunification which is really needed, that of West and East Francia. That is, Francia and Germania (to use roman rather than Frankish terminology).

The six year long Second World War (1939-1945), the last bout of fighting between France and Germany, coming at the end of 75 years of hostilities, demonstrated to all French and Germans that a thorough rethink of the situation was needed. Obsolete nationalism had become clearly counter-productive for all to see. The Nazis, supreme irony, had demonstrated this to themselves, at their entire dismayed dissatisfaction.

During WWII, Hitler himself, to his rage, had to collaborate with French industrialists. He whined to his cabinet that, once Germany won the war, it would be in the grasp of French civilian industry. But Speer told him that was there was no choice. Hitler’s top, most fanatical generals, once brought to France to occupy and terrorize, generally turned around, and worked against their evil master. Marshall Rommel, a fanatic, mass murdering Nazi in 1940, was pretty much the exact opposite four years later, after getting command in France.

Thus Hitler put in command of Paris the SS “butcher of Sevastopol”, who had, during the siege of Sevastopol, exterminated Jews (as he admitted in a secret recording made by the British August 29, 1945).

Hitler’s order from 23 August 1944: “The city must not fall into the enemy’s hand except lying in complete debris.” Hitler phoned Von Cholztizt in a rage, screaming, “Brennt Paris?” (“Is Paris burning?”) [An account confirmed by Col. General Jodl, Hitler’s chief of staff, who added that Hitler asked the question many times, and wanted independent confirmation.]

Instead Von Choltitz and the 17,000 German soldiers under his command surrendered to French general Philippe Leclerc de Hautecloque, commanding the Second Armored French division, which had rushed to Paris through successive Nazi defense rings, and to the Resistance leader Henri Rol-Tanguy at the Gare Montparnasse on 25 August 1944. The Germans had suffered 3,200 dead in combat with the resistance in Paris’ streets, and resistance leaders persuaded Von Choltitz of the uselessness, and immorality, of pursuing the fight, and burning the capital to a crisp as he had been ordered to do.

In 1948, after careful thinking, Robert Schuman proposed that “Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe.” French and German political leaders united the energetic and steel production of France and Germany. This actually extended work made in the same spirit in the early 1930s (which would have prevented WWII, had it come to fruition).

In 1951, the Treaty of Paris extended the European Steel and Coal Community to the Benelux and Italy.

Why the extension?

Well, France and Germany together united form a superpower which cannot be beaten, so it has to be joined. Superpower? France and German GDP, together, is four times that of Russia (and Franco-German GDP does not rest on the viscous prop oil and gas, as Russia’s does, but, instead on genuine human genius!) For other European countries it is not as if Franco-Germania were sitting on the other side of a vast ocean: if you are a European country, Franco-Germania is next door. Overall, Western Europe is the size of the North East of the USA. Just ask the Swiss how much they have to obey when France and Germany bare their fangs.

Moreover, the other powers, say Italy or the Benelux, were clearly lose parts of France, or Germany. Often of both. In other words, those other countries were created mostly to weaken one, or the other (For example, modern Italy had been pretty much created by the idealistic Napoleon III, who had a long history of conspiring with Italian independentists, as he was truly a Swiss… Piedmont, as its name, and its Savoy cross indicates, has more to do with France, than with Rome…)

So now here we are. American intellectuals are very well paid to demolish the European Union, and to distract from plutocratic Wall Street. Meanwhile in Egypt, the army is firing on protesters, using American weapons and cartridges. The government of the USA gives billions a year to the Egyptian military. The crackdown in Egypt was subsequent to the shooting, and killing by University of California police in Berkeley of a student at the business school, while Occupy Wall Street protests were going on outside.

Why does not Krugman attack that? Instead he deplores that accounting does not reign and that European countries are not fighting each other through competitive devaluations:




Paul Krugman, the Europhobe, is in great shape, his masters in what he calls the “greatest city in the world” will reward him well. In “Boring Cruel Euro Romantics” (Nov 20, 2011) he pontificates imprudently that:

I like technocrats — technocrats are friends of mine. And we need technical expertise to deal with our economic woes.

But our discourse is being badly distorted by ideologues and wishful thinkers — boring, cruel romantics — pretending to be technocrats. And it’s time to puncture their pretensions.

I guess among “ideologues and wishful thinkers are philosophers, like yours truly, who believe in the victory of the mind and enlightenment over the viciousness of Pluto. Indeed, who does Krugman want to “puncture“?

“these people — the people who bullied Europe into adopting a common currency… — aren’t technocrats. They are, instead, deeply impractical romantics.

They are, to be sure, a peculiarly boring breed of romantic, speaking in turgid prose rather than poetry. And the things they demand on behalf of their romantic visions are often cruel, involving huge sacrifices from ordinary workers and families. But the fact remains that those visions are driven by dreams about the way things should be rather than by a cool assessment of the way things really are.

And to save the world economy we must topple these dangerous romantics from their pedestals.

Let’s start with the creation of the euro. If you think that this was a project driven by careful calculation of costs and benefits, you have been misinformed.

The truth is that Europe’s march toward a common currency was, from the beginning, a dubious project on any objective economic analysis. The continent’s economies were too disparate to function smoothly with one-size-fits-all monetary policy…”

Just like the Nazis used to claim that the Jews were cruel, Krugman claims “impractical romantics“, those who want European unification, are both boring and cruel. Well, it can only mean that they do not use expert torturers. In the Middle Ages, torturing was the most appreciated spectacle. nothing boring about it. Maybe we could torture some boring American academics with our contempt, to start with.



Bravo, Krugman, Bravo! Listening to Krugman you have the impression the euro, as a currency, is a disaster. It needs to be “saved”. The Economist”, and the rest of the financial propaganda systematically claim that the euro needs to be saved. So how come it’s 40% overvalued over the dollar?

Krugman is called an economist, but apparently, he cannot distinguish between a currency and banks. He apparently wants them to be the same. Does that mean American economists are even more incompetent than the realm they built, or is it actually a Freudian slip?

Verily, the so called euro crisis has nothing to do with the euro, or with romance. Whatever the admirers of New York and its financial system say. Europe was born in war. Dozens of millions have died in an holocaust, and the survivors drew some important conclusions which can only have escaped the American society, which ate on both sides of the manger.

The USA, in the entire war lost about 415,000 people, nearly all of them soldiers. French controlled territories lost about two millions, only a third of it, soldiers (don’t expect to find this statistics in USA propaganda). True, for a while (1942-1944), after the defeat of 1940, the million man French army fighting was out of Africa (several of my relatives were in it).

Other European countries had much greater losses. Poland lost six million. Germany lost ten million (OK, they started it, as they chose to be led by Nazi marionettes, with plutocrats pulling the strings). The USSR lost not far from thirty million (OK, they did not have to be led by a Georgian gangster).

To avoid conflicts, it’s important to know who is really pulling the strings.

There is a crisis in Europe, but it’s not a euro crisis. The German ratio of national debt/GDP is 83%. The British and especially Spanish one are lower. France has a ratio of 87%. The USA thrones with a national debt/GDP ratio of 104%.

OK, that’s not all: one has to look at personal debt, etc. It’s bad in Spain. One also has to look at the instantaneous current account deficit: it is nearly as good in Italy as it is Germany, but it is really bad in the UK and the USA (around 12%).



The crisis has everything to do with the privatization of public money, as I explained many times before. It was in the air of the times, the era of privatization of everything: Your Money Or Your Life!

Thanks to Milton Friedman and another 13 American “Nobel” prizes, most of them from Chicago (a place of dubious fumes such as mafia, Daley, Obama, and “French” IMF director Lagarde). The doctrine of Milton and his ilk, is the simplest and the oldest of the enemies of civilization: Greed Is All You Need.

Currency is the essence of the state, short of military force. Privatizing currency, made the oligarchy on top ever more powerful, because it made, at the outset, that oligarchy into the state itself. that made it into an instant plutocracy.
Plutocracies can be most resilient. Look at Egypt: since the late forties, when it set up a coup, the Egyptian military has reigned. Cynics in Europe suspect the dictator Mubarak (ex-general commanding the Air Force, like Pinochet in Chili), is still in power. What is sure is that his right hand man, another general, is in power, plotting with the Islamists (who he uses as a justification for his iron rule).

We have seen plutocracy before: it ended up with highway men all over the ex-Roman empire, asking for your money, or your life. And behind high walls, sat the great lords, with their private armies.

So a conspiracy of crats, plutocracy, brought the Late Roman empire where it finished, and us where we are. Crats just want power, nothing else matters to them. They select other crats.

Obama, in his memoirs, say that what is important, in life, is navigation. The grand Vizier would have said the same. Thus the rule of law was very weak in the Ottoman empire. The Grand Vizier travelled with his personal fortune. He had it on board when the Ottoman fleet was tremendously crushed at the battle of Lepanto.  
All and any financial transaction ought to be revealed, regulated, and taxed. Those who cheat should go to jail and have their property confiscated, as pertains gangsters of the highest and most dreadful order.
That European banks, and Shadow banks are in the world financial spider sucking on blood, there is no doubt. That they behaved as if they were our overlords, no doubt either. However the three buffoons nominated recently, Draghi, head of the european Central Bank, super Mario (-nette), parachuted head of Italy, and whatever his name in Greece, were all Goldman Sachs officer, one of the major the spider nests.
So the present austerity is not about saving the euro at all. The euro is strong, all too strong. No, it’s all about paying rent to the banks, until all freedom is gone, except that of the ultra rich, it’s all about a new feudal order.
I will not answer the ill informed anti-European rant about European states being so disparate that they cannot have a common currency. France and Germany decided to become united in 1948. Together, they are at least half the economic power of the USA. Other states on their doorsteps can hardly ignore them. a truck driver, on one shift can cross half a dozen countries, and so on and so forth. I do understand though, that those who think, as Paul does that New York is the “greatest city in the world”, probably thing that, by necessity, Wall Street is the greatest street in the world.
France and Germany want to put an end to the domination of Wall Street. The euro will survive, big banks too big to fail, and big enough to flail us all, should be killed, and the American university-plutocratic complex will be exposed for what it is.



In 1944, the Americans intended to treat France, exactly just as if France were Nazi Germany. The AMGOT administration for France had been planned by the American Chief of Staff, Marshall. A fake French currency had been printed. Hundreds of American collaborators had been trained to take over the French administration. France was to be occupied. Indefinitely. By the Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories.

The American hegemony failed, because the trained, combat experienced French army was actually much bigger than the American army… in 1944 (it’s always the same American divisions which did all the fighting, whereas the French had completely replaced their experience and ferocious African army, by a new one). At most the Americans had 65 divisions in Europe. In any case the relationship between the French government and Washington was execrable. The French played the pivotal role in the failure of the Nazi offensive in the Ardennes: the panicked American command ordered the evacuation of Alsace (as Hitler thought would happen). But the French refused. That allowed Patton (who also believed that Washington was full of traitors) to throw his Third Army, the best tank army of the USA, north (as his right flank was covered by the French, who had surrendered just two and a half centimeters to the enraged Nazis).

In any case, AMGOT explains clearly why the USA, as a government, refused to help France and Britain in 1940, after hurting them in 1939 (and for several years before that). As far as all too many in Washington were concerned, France was an enemy, and Nazism a tool against that enemy.

A war gets engaged first by propagandists. Europeans have to understand Washington will keep on supporting the banks. So maybe they should stop collaborating.

Why not let the too-big-to-fail banks fail? Is it not what austerity ought to mean? (By failing I mean, while protecting small savers’ deposits, of course!) Then banks, helped by ferocious re-regulating, could stay small enough to help the People, rather than help themselves.

Massive default of the culprits, punishment and recovery of stolen hundreds of billions is a pre-condition to a new, and better financial order. Austerity ought to start at the top. Reintroduce Eisenhower’s 90% upper margin tax rate!

And please resist Krugman’s Europhobic ranting… Just as the Nazis, in a tradition going all the way back to the proto-Nazi philosopher Herder, Krugman exaggerates the “disparity” of the different European nations. Why does not Krugman tell us too that the Jews were too different? Why does not he tell us that Jews and Muslims, or Protestants, for that matter, were too disparate to function smoothly with one-size-fits-all monetary policy? Because he would sound too much like a proto-Nazi?

The Nazis, to a great extent, were manipulated by their American corporate sponsors. They also had German sponsors, but Wall Street overlorded over them (for example, Wall Street created IG Farben, among others; of course Wikipedia will not tell you that; I suspect that paid cleansers take out, or displace, a lot of the serious evidence in the Internet about the connection between Wall Street and Nazism; some pieces are left here and there).

What were the American plutocratic sponsors of Nazism about? Always more power to themselves, getting others to make their dirty work. Yes, some of the most important ones, like the Warburgs, were Jews. American culture, after grabbing an entire continent for itself, could only want to grab others.

As far as the other side of the culture which brought Auschwitz, one does not have to go very far. The ex astronomer Kant was, with Frederick the Great and Herder part of an infernal trio. Kant defined the Enlightenment, just as Krugman defines Europe. In his essay. “What Is Enlightenment?” Kant eructs that:

“Only one who is himself enlightened…and has a numerous and well-disciplined army to assure public peace, can say:’ Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey’ A republic could not dare say such a thing… A lower degree of civil freedom, on the contrary, provides the mind with room for each man to extend himself to his full capacity.”

Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering parroted this sort of thought many times during their reign.

Kant was a very good astronomer, but, as a proto-Nazi philosopher, he was superlative. As a historian he was a zero, because he obviously did not know the history of the Roman republic, a place where steely obedience triumphed, and where fascism was harnessed for the better, and for justice, in the interest of the many. Republican fascism: “All for one, one for all” became the symbol of the Roman, and latter the French republic.

But fascism as defended by Kant, was just in the service of his master, “one who is himself enlightened…and has a numerous and well-disciplined army”.

The rule of the one: the Greeks called that tyranny; that is what the word means. So Kant was also an etymological zero, or extremely dishonest, as he chose to forget what tyranny was. Kant’s call, just as that of Krugman, is that of division. All and any country at each other’s throats, in the hope that his own, with a “numerous and well-disciplined army” will win.

After all both Kant and Krugman lived of what they praise. Indeed economic war of countries against countries through devaluation is the essence of Krugman’s message. One may wonder how much of Krugman’s so called New Trade Theory” is little more than a fig leaf over the vast worldwide conspiracy, plutocracy its name, which strangles civilization, and the biosphere itself, a galaxy of conniving crats around the globe, immune to reason but for more obsessive power to themselves.

Krugman may still learn. A few of the basics above he learned in the last 12 months. Ferguson is a more complex case. He is less short sighted than Krugman, but neither his mind nor his eyes, nor memory, go far enough. Kant will not learn anymore, and he had nothing major to say which was good. It remains to kill him in other people’s minds.

Kant has much to do with what became the “German problem”. As Eichmann testified in Jerusalem.

What was the “German problem”? It was the Prussian hallucination that Frederick the Great approach to civilization could triumph. It was very similar to the English American colonial approach. In truth, it was an even more dreadful devolution than the American one, because not only it was out to spoil the Indians, but it mistook Europeans for Indians. As so many influential Germans brandish the most selfish and idiotically short sighted reasons for not supporting the rest of Europe Germany profited so much from, one can only conclude that some more philosophical work needs to be done.

Qaddafi used to call the freedom fighters who wanted him out of power,”rats”. But he spent his last moments of freedom in a sewer. Thus that crat was caught as a rat. More generally, one suspects that human institutions, which are all power structures, to be full of crafty crats in the most powerful positions. Thus the outraged/indignes/Occupy Wall Street are right to insist on absolute democracy. Crats there always will be. Mitigating them is of the essence for the survival of civilization.

Civilization is hard work. But first, civilization is superior mental work. Nothing that sheer brutality can buy. Greed is not enough to animate a civilization.

Civilization, and, more generally, the human spirit, has always incarnated  the triumph of ever more sophisticated minds over the “objective economic analysis” of rats, crats, and other crocs.

Si Vis Civilisationem, Cave Kratos.


Patrice Ayme

Outrage Dictionary

October 19, 2011


I Will Add Further Material To The Following Dictionary As Relevant Concepts Come To Mind.

(All the more since the crisis is extreme, & could turn (more) murderous, as it mutates into greater virulence. Readers’ help is respectfully suggested, as usual.)


Aid to Banks: In general, I approve aid to faltering banks, so that they can keep on operating. As long as it comes with big strings attached. After all, banks are public institutions, in charge of money creation, although they are privately managed (see fractional reserve). However, when a bank holding corporation is given financial aid by the public, the public should acquire ownership and control. If the bank does not like it, it can find somebody else to steal. And if it does not, then it has no choice.

American: word used by abuse of language to qualify the USA. That usage is clearly offensive to all of Latin America and Canada, which have significantly different civilizations. Although I try to use the qualitative “USA” as much as possible, “American” is so common, and flows so smoothly, that I will use it myself, in spite of the fact that Latin America is escaping the hegemony of the USA (known as the Monroe doctrine).

The nature of American civilization has made it most friendly to plutocracy. Actually the world headquarters of plutocracy are on Wall Street. So occupy it with a liberation army!

American Civilization: A deviant branch of European civilization, rendered possible as the colonies of the Americas stayed out of reach from European law (differently from, say, Siberia). This lawlessness allowed the physical extermination of the natives in North America.

That immense availability of riches, in turn, made American colonists the richest people in the world for 350 years: they found themselves with a gigantic continent to exploit, which had been spared abuse by middle age European agricultural technique. (The American colonists started by cutting the giant forests of the Eastern USA, with their giant trees, of a size unknown in Europe for millennia; actually places such as the Alps in Europe were still trying to repait their forestry, the main source of wealth, from the Roman over-exploitation, let alone the over-exploitation culminating in the early Fourteenth Century.)

The American holocaust happened initially in the Spanish empire, until emperor Charles Quint, made aware of the massacre by the outraged Las Casas, ordered various enquiries, judgement, debates and reforms. Finally the multilingual Charles Quint, born in Bourgogne, and elected emperor as a young adult, ordered the halt of the conquista. That is why so many of the natives survived in Latin America.

This is also why Spain did not colonize North America. Charles’ son, the fascist Catholic fanatic Philippe II respected his retired father’s orders, although he went out of his way to exterminate the French colonies on the Eastern seaboard of North America (as part of his total war against France, England and the Netherlands, which finished in total French victory, after no less than 160 years of war…).

As England experienced wars, republic, and revolutions, throughout the Seventeenth Century, she was unable to keep control of her American colony, which had re-instituted slavery as early as 1620 CE, followed by deliberate extermination of the natives as if they were vermin.

After England had unwisely got rid of France in North America, she tried to clamp down on her colonists, who were all too keen to invade Indian lands. That, plus a vengeful France, led to the “American war of Independence“.

Independence allowed the colonists’ full return to savagery, while paying lip service to civilization, to better obscure their outrageous practices. Presidents Jefferson and Jackson were particularly ferocious against the natives. However Jefferson is revered to this day, and has a grand mausoleum in Washington by a lake, probably the best looking edifice in the capital.

American civilization is characterized by the massive, industrial practice of slavery, and holocausts, for several long centuries. These markers of deep civilizational devolution left a deep imprint, explaining why, say, president Obama finds normal to kill those who are presented to him as a threat to the USA, without even a semblance of enquiry, or trial. Same old, same old. (English judges, in the 17C would hang seven year old children for, say, arson; however tough justice was in Europe, European society knew that it was crucial to keep the formal domination of the law, a crucial idea from the Roman republic, a big difference between 17C England and 21C USA!)

American left: The fundamental quandary of the American left has been that American plutocracy bought it off… The American middle class was by far, an order of magnitude, richer than any other middle class after 1945.

Nevertheless, subsequent to its tremendous defeat in Vietnam, the American pie started to shrink, as more and more countries, worldwide, became ever more independent of the USA, making the post WWII American empire ever less profitable. 

A split within the Western left occurred in 1968, as youth rebelled both against the established order, and the established opposition.

In Europe the official left progressively accepted many of the ideas of 1968, as shown by the strong and lasting influence of the ecological movement. In the USA, though, the split persisted, as the unions refused to support McGovern against Nixon. It got worse after the pseudo left president Carter (see Afghanistan) made the bed for the outright pro-plutocratic regime of Ronald Reagan and his successors.

As the left was not united, and the army had become private, Reagan was free to crack down on unions. His employees Summers and Krugman helped establish a world order friendlier to chain reaction plutocracy.

Except for a few colorful, ineffectual old characters (Chomsky, Nader, etc.), the American left basically does not exist. Not anymore. It used to exist, for maybe a full century, and was often savagely repressed (May 1, celebrated worldwide, was a plot by American plutocracy to kill union leaders; repression by the McArthur led army in the 1930s was also savage).

No European leader could have stayed in power producing as much extreme right-wing legislation as Obama did. People would have revolted, and assaulted Congress and the White House, forcing power to show its true, savage, barbaric face.

American plutocracy: Its triumph in 1945, made it an ally of American democracy, for a full generation, as socialist minded presidents (Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon) ruled in times when the gigantic might of the (socialist minded) popular army of the USA weighted heavily in the minds of leaders. The un-election of Ford demonstrated, though, that the assent of the People was not really necessary. The privatization of the army did the rest (in 2011, the Pentagon employs officially about 300,000 private mercenaries, besides the regular professional army).

The Iraq and Afghan wars would have been impossible with a drafted army.

American Plutocrats: unsurprisingly, full-blown plutocracy did not appear in the USA before it became a wealthy empire, in the late 19C. After being bashed over the head by the Roosevelts, American plutocracy found a new line of expansion overseas by collaborating with fascist regimes hostile to the imperial West European democracies, mostly Britain, France and the Netherlands.

This was not just highly profitable at the time, but the government of the USA, by supporting one side, then the other, with exquisite timing, was capable of leveraging its entanglement of plutocracy with fascism. For example American plutocrats supported and encouraged the Nazis, like farmers support, fatten and encourage pigs. After 1945, Nazis were refurbished and re-used to further American plutocratic rule.

After Nixon went to China, it dawned on American plutocrats that they could repeat their performance with Hitler and his colleagues, by manipulating carefully the alliance with China. However, that remains to be seen, since China was not born yesterday.

Also, whereas American plutocracy and Wall Street were instrumental in giving birth to Nazism (above and below the surface), there again, Chinese civilization is more than 3,000 year old.

American plutocracy repressed: The first two manifestation of plutocracy in the USA were cracked down upon by the two presidents with the Roosevelt family name. The first, Teddy, having obviously inspired his spiritually very close cousin, FDR (the former indeed played father in law for the later, a significant fact those who describe them as distant cousins always omit).

So it all started with Teddy, a very aggressive man. Teddy killed bears, and charged Cubans on horseback. And he was just warming up. Later he ran as president, again, against all odds. A lesson for Obama: if you want to lead men up the righteous path, staying meek, cool, and respectful will not do it. Harsh, self-assured, domineering is more like it. (Those who throw the lamentable, self-contradictory Gandhi as a counter-example do not really know what they are talking about. Mandela, by the way, was a terrorist, and rightly so.)

Aristocracy: It means “Rule of the Best”. Even if that were true, it would still be wrong, because THE MANY IS BETTER THAN THE BEST. If nothing else, it’s more clever. (Contrarily to the self-serving legend promoted by plutocracy that just a few geniuses did it all.)

Assassin In Chief:The United States conducted an operation [mini pause] to KILL [followed by another mini pause for accentuation] Osama Ben Laden…” This is a quote, word for word, accent for accent, pause for pause, announcing the assassination of the USA’s main ally in Afghanistan for two decades. Most Americans thought it was cool to have assassinated Ben Laden.

Having little knowledge of history, those Americans do not understand that what was  assassinated, once again, was the primacy of the rule of law. Just when we thought we could not sink ethically lower than Bush!

In comparable situations, say with Jugurtha,  the Roman republic arrested the perpetrator in a special operation led in person by a top general, Sulla. Jugurtha had famously said Rome was for sale, and his betrayal caused much greater losses to the Roman republic than 9/11 did to the USA.

The deliberate non application of the rule of law to Ben Laden goes hand in hand with the non application of law to banksters. It is the same meta principle: spare Bin Laden from the law, spare banksters from the law.

The prerogative of the King of France to make his own law with his own secret committee was one of the most important reason evoked to make the French revolution of 1789. The objects of the King’s own personal justice were imprisoned in the Bastille. One of them was Sade. He had six other fellow prisoners. The method was often used to spare the imprisoned the rigors of normal justice.

The last case when a French monarch ordered a traitor to be executed for all to see, was when King Henri III ordered the “45” (his bodyguards) to kill the Duc de Guise who had fomented religious civil war in France in a plot with Philippe II of Spain for many years (Sixteenth Century). Henri III’s action was fully justified, in light of the ongoing full-scale war Guise was leading against state and society.

Balls: What Obama seems to have discovered he may need to stay president. Since that is a part of a very recent evolution towards common sense and populism, not to say popularity, I reserve my judgment. By the way, full-fledged women are also pretty aggressive (and several prominent women officials played a courageous role in fighting the plutocracy, whereas none sided with it: Sheila Bair, etc).

In general the Passion of the West explains its neurological superiority over the supine societies inspired by submissive slave religions, which have kept the East, well submitted. However all of South and East Asia has now adopted the Passion of the West (with the late increasing exception of Japan, smothered by its spiritual isolation, and vanishing demographics).

Banksters: The gangsters who manage the big banks, and make the mighty Mafia pale into insignificance. The more they lend to their friends from their class, the more powerful they get. They apparently hoped to destroy the economy, so that straightforward feudalism could be re-introduced, before the outraged People could revolt. After all, that trick was accomplished many times in history, and first of all, in Rome (although the Romans were well aware of the danger).

Banks’ president: Also known as “first black president” (although a president of the USA claimed before “black” ancestry, which, in Americana, is enough to qualify someone as “black”).

Obama banked his entire presidency into saving banks which deserved to disappear, be it only for the sake of the economy. Indeed, whether in ostensibly helping homeowners (but truly only 5 homeowners with a few pennies, and the all the big banks with trillions), or Quantitative Easing, it was all about helping banks, disguised under other semantics. By comparison, in his entire presidency, Obama gave less than ten billion for trains. 

Bear Sterns: An investment banks which failed, as a forerunner of the Lehman failure. In this case the Treasury stepped in, and set-up a sweet gift to JP Morgan Chase, led by Obama’s “friend”, Jamie Dimon. That 30 billion dollar gift came to be known as the “Jamie Deal“. So Jamie swallowed Bear, and was viewed as a genius. Other may just view corruption therein.

Bernanke, Ben: Fallow head of the fed under Bush-Obama, playing wise old man behind his beard. Recruited Krugman at Princeton (it’s a small world…). A student of the Great Depression, he provided “liquidity” (= cash) to banks until the bulls came charging home (this had not been done in the 1930s, but was done continually by Greenspan, for more than a decade, for no good reason whatsoever; at least Bernanke had a good reason). Having run out of bullets, Bernanke admitted in Fall 2011 that it was for the politicians to find a way out. He added two weeks later that he “can’t blame” protesters for taking to the streets.

Big Banks: Private organizations given the monopoly of public money creation by their accomplices and co-conspirators the politicians. Politicians get financed and facilitated by the big banks and in turn allow them to create, or be given, as much money to put common job and property out of reach of common people, in a race to create a new serfdom before the masses revolt.

The top 6 banks in the USA have assets equal to 65% of the GDP of the USA.

Black: Unbelievably, it is all what Obama wanted to achieve by becoming president, in his own words. He is well on his way to total success that way, having achieved strictly nothing else.

In Suskind’s book, “Confidence Men“, brand new Senator Obama decides to run for president. Michelle Obama confronts her own husband in public, and asked him “what is he running for”? Obama thinks carefully. It is remarkable that those two never had a pillow talk about it, and Obama never even asked himself the question. After a bit of hard thinking, Obama says just having somebody with his skin color as president will be good enough. Well, good enough to re-awaken a lot of racism. As Deng Tsiao Ping nearly said, whether the monkey is black, brown or white does not matter, as long as he does his job. But if he does not his color does not matter. On top of that, Obama was born from a white woman and raised nearly exclusively by white people without a connection to Africa, in places such as Hawai’i, Indonesia with basically nobody of African ascendency. As a genuine African, I say this with perfect relaxation.

Black William: well-known professor of economy and law at the University of Missouri has condemned the present financial system. He described how some of the USA’s largest financial institutions engaged in massive fraud. He entitled his book The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One.

Bush: American dynasty founded by one of Hitler’s most important collaborators, Prescott Bush, manager of Auschwitz slave labor for Hitler’s most important defense company. Although the first president by this name was well-behaved after leading the CIA, his son engaged in a civilizational devolution, which, philosophically speaking, went further than the Nazis did, in some very important aspects. Torture and war of aggression (called “war of choice” in the USA) , for all to see, were initially enthusiastically welcomed by the American population. Although people who voted for him expected Obama to prosecute those violations, he endorsed them, and went further (while hypocritically claiming he did not).

Another aspect of Bush’s rule was the reduction of taxes on the richest lower than those on the lower middle class. As if that were not enough, Obama went further down that path to hell, brazenly boasting that it was “stimulating”.

Central Banks: Their nature and missions differ according to countries. In the USA: the “Fed” is a private organization masquerading as a public utility. In Europe: an academy of national central banks, with an insufficient mandate.

Clinton, Bill: United States president who allowed ex Reagan advisers and Goldman Sachs to finish the job allowing banks to do whatever with money, such as fake trading among themselves to mimic profits. Clinton became immensely rich after his miserable tenure, to reward him and inform his successors that they would be immensely rewarded too.

Clearly, as Obama became president, he got enticed by the Clinton example: help the plutocracy, and join it, since you cannot beat it.

Clinton, Chelsea: Hedge Fund princess, straight out of college. When she got married, the United States Secret Service closed airspace over a large part of the USA, thus training the common People to accepting, de facto, the notion of American Princess served by the state, greatly revered by simple folks, although she was never elected to anything.

Connivance: Connivance is how the 1% reign over the 99%. Connivance was at the heart of the globalization set-up before July 1914. It permitted the ever higher rise of plutocracy. That, in turn, incited the instauration in an advanced country such as Germany of a fascist system led that country to improve its economic performance less than perceived strategic threats such as democratic France and democratizing Russia. Thus German generals conspired, then plotted an attack, and finally assaulted the world at the first pretext they could find.

The connivence network is strong because, as a super organism, it supports its members, first, independently of all other considerations. That is why big banker CEOs are Too Big To Jail

Colbert: French minister of the army and then of economy and finance who deployed a science oriented intervention of the government in the 1600s, following the ideas of Henri IV and his finance minster Sully (a reconverted top marshal of Henri IV’s army). Colbert is infinitely more modern, and superior to Keynes. Although they both speak warmly about state intervention, Keynes and Colbert are radically opposed.

Indeed, Colbert’s policy was radically opposed to that of the Roman emperors, who hated technology, and the advancement of the economy it provided with: if the economy advanced, why would not democracy advanced too? (Remember that, even under imperial form, Rome viewed itself as SPQR: Senate and People of Rome, so the return of the republic was always a threat, since, technically, it was not gone.) Instead emperors preferred to throw money at the People, exactly what Keynes advocated brazenly. OK, Roman emperors threw money at people, but Keynes wanted them to dig holes, and fill them up, to get the money, so Keynes had a sadistic side Roman emperors were deprived of (OK, I present my excuses to Sade, who was not like that; let’s just say Keynes was more cruel than Roman emperors, at least on paper).

Death Panel: According to Reuters, an American information company:”– American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.”

One cannot emphasizes enough what a regression of civilization that is. It would not have been lawful, permitted or practice during the European Middle Ages. It would have been a no-no even in Imperial Rome, let alone Republican Rome, or Greek City-States (such as Athens; by the way, Socrates was legally judged, condemned, and executed).

The Reuters article gives the context. Let’s just say even the Nazis or the Stalinists did not sink that low.

Democracy: The natural organization of human society as found in the small bands which constituted human prehistory for millions of years of evolution. Democracy maximizes the production of ideas, so it is the optimal regime for civilization.

Derivatives: Fake accounting and conceptology to cook the banksters’ books. Suck all the world’s capital into the banksters, and other plutocrats’ possession and influence trafficking. Total GDP of derivatives is about ten times world GDP.

Should be allowed only as insurance for commercial operators with some reduced and tightly regulated liquidity from outside speculators with much lower, or no, leverage.

Education: is being made extremely expensive and private in the USA. Two interests: it is profitable, and it gives the higher class, the plutocracy, exclusive access to knowledge, and the ability to select as savant servants those who have the most submissive attitude.

European Leaders: A bunch of conservatives, friends of financial terror, masquerading as open to reasonable change, but desperate to change as little as possible from the piracy they profit so much personally from. They copied the American plutocratic method of giving public money and offering the entire economy, to the exact same banksters who caused the crisis, without any counterpart in any sense. Thus they make no sense socialistically, nor in a pure capitalistic system, and, of course, this is explained by their love of plutocracy. Plutocracy is not just the fundamental enemy of democracy, it’s also the enemy of free capitalism, and the free market.

Soon to be thrown out of their jobs by resurgent socialists (except in Spain, where the latter are too corrupt). Starting with the French presidency. 

Euro: European currency. Malevolently and malignantly presented by the plutocracy, its servants and the enemies of the open society, as the cause, and scapegoat of the European Banking Crisis. In truth, not only the euro had nothing to do with the influence lending by banks, but the ECB, by going beyond its mandate, was able to attenuate the mauling of European economies by the plutocracy and its Weapons of Market Destruction.

Eurozone: 17 countries with insufficient institutions to cope with the gathering crisis. Fallow leaders, quite a bit like Obama, do not want to turn against their plutocratic sponsors, although it’s the only way out.

Exceptionalism, American: the doctrine that the USA is above normal civilization. Illustrated by Obama’s leitmotiv that only in the USA his story was possible (ignoring the glaring fact that French president Sarkozy has exactly the same story).

Unfortunately all the most significant objective makers of American exceptionalism are completely monstrous: slavery, holocaust of the native, and the worst civil war in many centuries (it killed many times more both absolutely and relatively than the French revolution and its attendant wars).

American exceptionalism is now used to justify invading other countries, torture, out of the law assassinations, and the general non respect of the law by the state, its representatives and its plutocratic allies. A very troubling devolution.

Esso/Exxon/Standard Oil Of New Jersey: A great supporter of European fascism, throughout World War Two (like IBM or Ford, etc.) To celebrate, the Italians hanged the fascist dictator Mussolini from an Esso/Standard Oil station in Milan.

Fed: Central American bank. Seven of its governors are appointed politically (i.e., with a semblance of democracy). However the remaining 12 members of the board are appointed by the private banks. In other words, the foxes sit inside the hen-house, and make policy. (It’s a bit like the CIA allying itself to Bin Laden, oops, wait…)

The individuals sitting at the Fed, among the most powerful financial individuals in the world, do not have to disclose personal conflict of interest, in a striking contrast with other central banks of the West, from Australia to Europe. In other words, the “Fed” is the most corrupt, most powerful large financial institution in the world.

There is evidence that 16 trillion dollars (more than the GDP of the USA, and even the EU) of loans were given by the “Fed” to a number of institutions and wealthy individuals, worldwide.

Right now the private bankers inside the “Fed” are voting against any stronger measures to fight the slump, which makes sense as the banks profit mightily from it, as all that has been organized is a rescue of their profits and machinations (all the more since some of the measures slowly adopted will prevent the full use of the old piratical methods, causing pain to the likes of Goldman Sachs…)

Financial Transaction Tax: One reform to implement right away, be it only because it is so simple to do so, and it can hurt only the worst speculators engaged in high frequency trading, especially methods to lead the market. The idea is to tax a small amount, say .1 of one percent. Normal investors will not see the tax. It will also establish a dynamic speed limit on transaction, thus re-establish causality. 

If Obama is real about fighting plutocracy, he can go ahead with that. Apparently he suggested it earl in his administration, in accordance with the main train of thought here. But the agents of plutocracy in his government shut it down. 

Foundations: A way for plutocrats to further their power without any interference from states. Allows the richest people in the world to also claim they are the best, and, moreover, humble and devoted servants of the People. 

Fractional Reserve system: the private monopoly of money creation allowing the rich to lend ever more money to themselves with full public backing. 

Ford Henry: Hated Jews, wrote a book who inspired Hitler. Earliest financial and mental backer of Adolf Hitler, before 1923. Later one of the pillars of the Nazi regime, which he armed all the way through. Got away with it.

Gangsters: Individuals constituting a gang for unlawful profits, personal, or that of their friends and, or family. Goldman Sachs bought at auction the Treasury Secretary job, and has held the position directly or through proxy for two decades. Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, Holder, Summers, Bush, Mr. Clinton are responsible for the organization of a criminal racket, as I advocated to do under RICO since February 2009. However they could first be prosecuted under simple fraud (See the work of professor Black). 

By the way, people such as Paul Krugman are accomplices too, because Krugman has never uttered the word FRAUD in connection with the rigged largest criminal organization ever.

GDP: Supposed to mean Gross Domestic Product, the sum of all transaction. In truth has come to mean Goldman Demonic Power. It is way too much about financial transactions, which, by themselves, detached from what financing can accomplish, mean nothing for the 99%. What we need instead is a Grand Divine Plan, to fit what our ancestors would have viewed as our divine powers.

Globalization: Fundamentally, in first order, a good idea. Everybody works, worldwide, and because people have different abilities, for different jobs, they trade, worldwide. It’s certainly better than the division, xenophobia, threats and wars, which constitute the alternative to globalization.

However globalization happened before, in somewhat similar circumstances. Moreover the globalization then was even more extensive than now, in many ways. For example identification papers were not needed for travel. And there was a lot of connivence. The kaiser was the grand son of the Queen Victoria of Britain, and his cousing was the Czar, etc. It all ended on August 1, 1914, when a half dozen military men acted on their plot, and attacked the world.

How come? Well, there was, first of all a globalization of plutocracy, just like now. When plutocracy is cornered, plutocracy calls onto Pluto and Mars, the gods of hell and war. Plutocracy, faced with the loss of its advantage, an existential threat, as far as it is concerned, prefer to launch armies, as it is never in the forefront of them, but leads them from behind. Example: in the Libyan war, Kaddafi was the last to be killed, or so, and then the war stopped. Same for Hitler, Mussolini, etc.

This is also exactly what happened to the Prussian plutocracy. By 1912, it had figured out that the march of democracy, outside (France, Russia), or inside (German socialists in the Reichstag), spelled its doom. So it doubled up, and went to war. World war, as it knew perfectly well. 

Could it happen again? Yes, if we don’t pay attention, and let the erosion of civilizational standards proceed (the path Bush II engaged on). 

Global (Democratic) Institutions: an indispensable way to keep the world out of the most outrageous clutches and machinations of plutocracy. The UN, UNESCO, WHO, IMF, World Bank, BIS, etc. are examples. They are not perfect, and they have to be improved democratically and that means transparently. Of course. But for that they have to be engaged.

Other international organizations, such as Mercosur, encourage trade instead of war, and that is good. Even NATO prevents war between Greece and Turkey (at least now). There is no doubt that more economic cooperation, including Israel would make things better in the Middle East.

Geithner Tim: Famous for never paying $40,000 he owed the IRS, on the ground that he got away with it (more than 3 years had elapsed between his fraud, and it being revealed). Now heading… the IRS.

As the well paid head of the New York Fed, he was main architect of giving trillions to his friends the banksters. Under Bush. yes, more than Paulson. Picked up by Obama to extent giving public money to his Wall Street friends, and his friends in the biggest banks, who had financed him much more than Hillary Clinton.

Now tiny Tim is furious that the conservative European leaders are slowly oozing towards asking the big European banks to take perhaps more than a 50% loss on Greek loans (the solution I have long advocated, and which was viewed as iconoclast, because it is equivalent to rejecting the rule of the wealthy). Tim knows all too well that would break the spell, and Americans would ask: if right-wing European leaders refuse to send public money to banks, why should our pseudo democratic president be allowed to keep on doing it (as he does through the housing crisis and “The Twist”)?

GE, General Electric: One of the largest American corporation. Sent millions of American jobs overseas. Declared it would transfer secret American aviation tech to China to gain influence. Pays no taxes. Its CEO, Mr. Immelt, is chief of economic advisers to Obama. As such he declared that what is good for GE is good for the USA, just as what is good for Siemens is good for Germany.

Such statements exhibit a total lack of knowledge of German Kurtzarbeit and other deals between German managers, companies and shareholders, and the rest of German society. The grandeur of Immelt, like that of most American CEOs is demonstrated by his immense physical size, thus making clear that bulk is smarter than smart. At least, for American plutocracy.

Goldman Sachs: An investment bank which has been at the forefront of the silent coup of plutocracy against democracy in the last few decades. Accurately depicted as “Government Sachs”. G-S has always several officers in the White House, telling their employees, that is, the politicians, what to say. G-S even allowed the right-wing  Greek government to lie to Eurostat to dissimulate the extent of the Greek deficit.

G-S played a very important role in the sub-prime crisis. Having set-up an elaborate plot with AIG to insure derivatives, it would nevertheless had gone bankrupt. But the government of the USA stepped in, and offered to Goldman Sachs up to 60 billion dollars, without any counterparties. That was all the more remarkable, since, as an Investment Bank, Goldman Sachs was not protected by state insurance system (as deposit banks are).

Great Depression of the 1930s: A warning sign on the way to, and a lower dimensional version of the present Greater Depression. The Greater Depression we are enjoying has ecological and globalization dimensions not encountered before. Moreover, the plutocracy is now operating in plain sight, whereas in the 1930s its support for fascism was hidden by an opposite language.

Greater Depression: All the basic factors of the depression of the 1930s are present today, but others, even more drastic ones, have appeared. Thus this is a Greater Depression, and not a “Great Recession” as well compensated half-wits have soothingly called it.

The reason why there is no panic yet is that some of the stabilizers put in the 1930s (such as banks’ rescues, and deposit insurance) are in place. Also, this time, states have not been at each others’ throats.

Greece: Undermined by a combination of overspending on not sufficiently profitable investments plus too many plutocrats paying no taxes (the Orthodox Church, the state religion, and ship magnates and other plutocrats pay no taxes, as they plead that they are friends the People cannot do without). See PIIGS.

Greenspan, Alan: was made head of the central bank after his predecessor, the esteemed Paul Volcker, refused to play the plutocratic game. Certainly delusional and probably corrupt, he did exactly what president FDR had warned again, namely borrowing more to pay old debts.

Obama tried to use Volcker mostly as a verbal smokescreen. However some reforms Volcker advocated are more or less, or rather less rather than more, been adopted, threatening some of the feeding habits of Wall Street’s greatest sharks.

GSEs: Government Sponsored Enterprises: USA plutocratic propaganda depict Europe as the land of the welfare state, and the USA as the “land of the free“. Including the “free market“. However Europe has nothing comparable to the GSEs.

The GSEs were set-up to artificially make mortgage affordable to people, thus making the banks their lords, and people into serfs. They collapsed financially in 2008, and had to be nationalized to the cost of 150 billion dollars.

Since then, most mortgages were bought by the GSEs to allow banks to flourish again. So the GSEs carry toxic investments the banks have been cleansed from. There is evidence that the GSEs will collpase again, augmenting the taxpayers’ bill.

Gross, Bill: The California based manager of world’s biggest bond fund, PIMCO, declares that it’s no surprise that the 99% are fighting back “after 30 years of being shot at.

Hessel Stéphane: French citizen born in Berlin, who escaped to France. Published in October 2010, Time for Outrage! (original: Indignez-vous!… Be outraged!). Hessel advocates to Occupy Wall Street. One has to find the time and energy to be outraged when human values are not respected says the 94 years old. He has been an immigrant to France, French Resistance fighter, concentration camp survivor, diplomat, advocate and author. A fighter caught by the Gestapo during World War II, he was sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp, escaped during transfer to Bergen-Belsen. Later he helped draft the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

IBM: Famous for having the monopoly of computing in Hitler’s Germany, and occupied Europe. The Nazis leased all its equipment to IBM, which was managed from New York by CEO and founder Watson. every extermination camp had one or several IBM machine, managed directly from New York, as I said. See the book:”IBM and the Holocaust” (by Mr. Black). An example of an American plutocratic corporation, getting away with it. It was only fair: familiar with the American holocaust, the Nazis deliberately decided to copy the ways of the USA, but inside Europe (as they explained among the few who were in the know). 

Imperialism: derived from the Roman term “imperator”, the supreme title given to a top Roman general, by acclamation, by his troops, and held until a triumph. Came to mean vast realms administered by a government. Empires can be good, or bad, depending. There is no doubt that the empire of the USA was excellent especially for the USA. It was an unmitigated disaster the way it came to be, through the connivance of American plutocrats and racist fascism of the hypernationalistic variety. 

Income Inequality: One of the main causes of the Greater Depression. Income inequality does not just abate economic activity, it deprives most social actors of a share in society. Ultimately if just one plutocrat owns everything, nobody else does anything, or everybody else is a slave.

Inequality, Taxes:  The higher the incomes of Americans, the less taxes they pay. It is not necessarily better overseas: de Bettemcourt, a wealthy French woman, owned an entire Seychelles island with a runway, without the French IRS knowing about it (among billions of property she had, unbeknowst to them). Don’t worry: far from getting in penal trouble, she was declared senile!

Iraq: Invaded because the invasion would pay for itself, by selling Iraqi oil, said the Neo-Conservatives at the time. The idea, exposed again and again on Fox News, at the time, by the elements of the U.S. regime, was a totally gross violation of the Geneva Conventions. When that fact dawned on the Bush administration, it could only decide to evacuate Iraq. 

Keynes: Pro and proto-Nazi British economist famous for inventing in 1919 the thesis that the Versailles Treaty was a casus belli. Namely that the French republic, by making independent the gigantic portion of Eastern Europe that Germany and Austria occupied, had fatally weakened Germany, and was an offense against peace.  The thesis was adopted by the Nazis, and Hitler in particular.

Keynesianism: The doctrine that the government should replace a meaningful participation in society with make belief work. Very popular with the fake opponents of plutocracy.

Philosophically and historically, Keynesianism is nothing new, it’s 2,000 year old. It was central to the undoing of imperial Rome. It is the idea that you pay the People to do nothing, to keep it occupied and peaceful. Keynes illustrates this by explaining how good it would be to pay people to dig holes in the ground, and they fill them up, and doing it again. It goes well with his Nazi like contempt for the People.

The Roman emperors used to distribute massive amounts of money and bread to the People of Rome. The result was no Roman revolution whatsoever (only military coups), and a slow plutocratic decomposition over a period of more than six (!) centuries. 

Krugman Paul: Famous editorialist at the New York Times, later made Nobel Prize in economics. Started his career with his friend Larry Summers at the White House with B movie actor Ronald Reagan, one of the plutocratic figurehead presidents. Summers deregulated the finance industry, Krugman deregulated globalization. An ambivalent figure, like most individuals of the pseudo left of the USA (Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, etc.).

Krugman ardently supports Keynes and (Neo) Keynesianism.

Lehman Brothers: 158 year old Investment bank which got over leveraged and over extended in unprofitable investments. At the end its leverage was more than 50 (meaning it had four billion of assets when it lent 200 billion). Running out of cash, the Fed lent it 50 billion each morning, which it recovered in the evening. Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary, who, as CEO of Goldman Sachs, two years before, refused to save it. It was a major mistake. The USA ought to have saved Lehman, by nationalizing it (which was done with the GSEs). There is evidence that Paulson had a personal grudge against Mr. Fuld, the head of Lehman, and may have thought the elimination of Lehman would profit Goldman Sachs.

The collapse of Lehman, a major bond market maker, made the banks unwilling to do business with each other, freezing the entire financial system, worldwide.  

Lending: The more they lend, the more powerful banks get, especially if they lend to each other. As it occurred to the biggest banks that the government would save them, they did whatever. Solution: make all and any loan and the reason(s) why it was lent, public and transparent. Violations of that to be prosecuted, and the same for bad loans. Worldwide, from loans to aircraft makers, to loan to car buyers.

Some will say that I am promoting the end of the free market. But banks are private, secretive monopolies, with the full backing of the state: they already have nothing to do with the free market, and everything to do with the connivance between state and plutocracy.

To break that connivance, only one solution: bring in the enlightenment of democracy, plutocracy’s arch enemy. So I propose to replace the connivance of the state and plutocracy, which is unconstitutional and anti-civilizational, by the connivance of the state and democracy, which is both constitutional and civilizing. 

Mafia: Pales in comparison with the present plutocracy. 

Medicare: Existing national health care system in the USA. Covers people above 65. Extended to drug coverage by president G. W. Bush, in his one and lonely positive contribution. Forgot to pay for it. My suggestion was to transform it in Medicare For All.  Everybody could have used it as health insurance in lieu of private insurance (and at equivalent spending levels). Advantage: permanent coverage, independent of government. By adjusting things carefully, Medicare For All could have paid for most uninsured. It ought to have been given full ability to negotiate with health providers and drug companies, as national health plans have in other countries. Medicare for All could have been signed into law in five minutes, by executive order.

Obama instead opted for Obamacare, which forces individuals into private contracts with for profit companies, and that is obviously unconstitutional in any democracy (when the government forces the public to serve the privates, that’s called servitude). 

Money In USA: In 94% of cases the candidate who spent more money wins elections in the USA.

Median Income In The USA: Down 7% from 2000 to 2010. Everything indicates it will get worse, as no measure whatsoever was taken to stop that. Plus: the pillars of middle class’ well being, such as middle class free education, all the way to the PhD, are collapsing (whereas they have been instituted in say India, or China, or even Brazil). 

“Militant”: Subject to assassination, upon recommendation to the president by a secret White House subcommittee. Will they come for Obama some day? Just asking.

Monroe doctrine: The ill disguised assertion that the American continents belong to the USA, and that the Europeans, in particular, should stay away from them. It is a natural extension of the doctrine that the land of the Americas belong to Washington and its agents. Put in practice by organizing plutocratic dictatorships all over the Americas for more than a century. Culminated with terror in Chili, Brazil and Argentina. It was de facto overthrown by the British counterattack (secretly helped by France) against the Argentinean dictatorship (Falkland war). 

Nazism: is intimately tied to the rise of American plutocracy. However, this is suppressed in the USA, and in places such as Wikipedia. One can only suspect that agents are paid to do so. The reason is simple: to realize American plutocracy created a lever called Nazism, and then used it carefully, would open a whole can of worms about the nature of American plutocracy and the absolute viciousness it is capable of. It would also lead to worry about a possible repetition of the scheme. 

Obama: Uncle Tom as president? (Since there are many non American readers let me explain. “Uncle Tom” is a derogatory term for a person who perceives themselves to be of low status, and is excessively subservient to perceived authority figures; particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people.

Obama’s motivation to run for president? After Michelle Obama incisively asked him in public why he, her young and inexperienced husband, wanted to run for the highest office in the land, Obama, after lots of ponderous thinking, lamely replied that being “black” and sitting pretty as president would be enough. Well, he is not black, and it’s not enough. If he does not want to just been viewed as the most despicable “Uncle Barack” of history, he has to do way better. That means to chose between plutocracy and history. He has only a few months to do so. 

Obamacare: Obama’s ways of ingratiating himself with the health care potentates (his friend Warren Buffet, another hypocrite, among them). Barack had forgotten to fund it, though, and so he dropped a major part of it October 14, 2011, demonstrating that Obamacare was mostly for show. Meanwhile Obamacare gave a pretext for health care premiums to go up 9% in one year, and health care from 16% to 18% of GDP.

Passion of the West: The real engine of Europe in the last 3,000 years. Already in evidence when the Greeks resisted stubbornly the Persians, and counterattacked devastatingly over the next two centuries, going all the way to India.

But it is not just the Greeks and Romans who were passionate. In a way, the Germans were even more passionate, as demonstrated during the Roman victory on the invading Teutones below the Sainte Victoire (thus its name!) next to Aix en Provence (102 BCE). To their dismay, the legionnaires found that German women had grabbed weapons and cut down some of their own men fleeing the legions, accusing them of cowardice. (In truth Consul Gaius Marius, with superior generalship, had hidden troops in ambush, and soon more than 100,000 Teutones were rotting in the sun, giving its name to the town of “Pourrieres”.)

Neurology’s engine is passion. Superior neurology leads to superior science, and then superior economics. Something China, India and Brazil have finally understood, but that Europe and especially its rogue American colony, seem to have forgotten.

Paulson Hank: Ex football player made bully in chief at Goldman Sachs. Became Secretary of the Treasury by Bush as the financial crisis loomed. Sent, with his boy Geithner and Bernanke, thousands of billion of dollars to fellow bankers and past alumni, like himself, at Goldman Sachs. Owns an island with seven villages. 

Paulson John: Hedge Fund manager. Personally earned, for several years, after tax, enough to pay for 50,000 teachers, a year, with benefits.

PIIGS: Portugal Ireland Italy Greece Spain. Countries where big banks invested in private projects which were bound to be unprofitable. But they did not mind, because they knew that their friends the politicians would come to rescue them.  

Philanthropists: Title used by plutocrats in the USA. Generally accompanied by an oath to give, free of taxes, the management of one’s immense fortune to oneself, and family, to increase further one’s importance and obsequious adulation.

Plutocrats: Plutocrats are more or less vicious. Some are like Soros, making a billion from breaking the pound, and then using his influence and money to give a PhD to Saif Al islam el Qaddafi. Some plutocrats are like Bill Gates, playing the foundation trick to the hilt. Others are even richer, like the Walton family (which controls more than 100 billion dollars), and unfriendly to organized labor. Some are outright promoting Pluto’s underground wealth, like the Koch brothers, also financing the Tea Party and those who believe that poisoning the atmosphere with CO2, CH4 and a monstrous cocktail of man-made greenhouse causing poisons, is what the doctor ordered.

And then there are outright genocidal plutocrats, like the Ceaucescus, Qaddafis, Assads, and the like. One has to understand that the Kaddafis controlled more than 150 billion dollars, managed overseas by Western banksters (who ought to be jailed as objective accomplices, and their properties seized).  

Was Hitler a plutocrat? Of course! So was Stalin (who started by attacking and stealing banks, sometimes in a very bloody way). Not only do leaders of great nations have huge power, hence wealth, at their disposal, but the often rule using the Darkest Side imaginable, the one way down there, where Pluto dwells (before Pluto there was Hades; Hades got such a terrible reputation among the very ancient Greeks, that the word “Pluto” was rolled out to replace him!) 

Plutocracy: Usually described as the rule of wealth. However, it is not just the rule of wealth, but also of Pluto himself, as the Greeks had already established.

Plutocracy is mode of mental organization of the multitude which civilization made possible. So it is a paradox that civilization created its own enemy. But so it is when one suppresses fire too much: the all too lush forest can turn into the ultimate inferno.

Plutocracy is the ultimate enemy of democracy.

Nowadays, with the god like technology of destruction we have, the return of plutocracy would probably mean the irreversible annihilation of civilization, and, soon, enough, humanity. Maybe that happened many times among the stars.

Nazism was just a warning. So was the rule of the Aztecs. The return of full blown plutocracy would do much worse than those two combined. There would be no limit, as everything has proven relative, except the limited resources of the planet. It does not require much imagination to realize what the largest, and troublesome, biomass is.  

That the two latest presidents of the USA gloat of ordering torture and extra judicial punishments, incarcerations and arbitrary executions, is another warning that Pluto is becoming ever more arrogant.

This was all encouraged by the greatest fraud ever committed, the Wall Street machinations which culminated with the financial crisis of 2008. To this day, no prosecution was engaged against any of the perpetrators, thanks to their obsequious servants, the best politicians wealth ever bought.

Plutocratic Trans National Corporations: Complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich mapped ownership among the world’s Trans National Corporations (TNCs). Previous studies had found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world’s economy, but they included only a few companies and, naively, omitted indirect ownerships.

From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, the theorists pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships interlinking them. A core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships became apparent. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies. On average they were connected to 20. Although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 TNCs appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large bluechip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team untangled the web of ownership, it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Mr. Glattfelder, one of the authors. Most of those were the usual suspects, the top financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Bankf of A, UBS, and Goldman Sachs, and quite a few French and German financial giants exposed to Greece.

The apologists of plutocracy hasten to add that this does not prove conspiracy, thus demonstrating they do not know what conspiracy means. It means “breathing together“. A fortiori so if one owns each other.

Popular Arising: The USA is one hundred percent opposed to the suppression of popular demonstrations, as long as they are not happening in the USA.

Quantitative Easing: a technique hidden by technicalities to transfer thousands of billions of dollars to the banks, and their wealthy bankers and wealthy shareholders, from the 99%, while claiming to be helping “the economy”.

The technique consists into the USA central bank buying long term bonds so that banks which have bought them make plenty of money. How did the banks get the cash? From the zero interest rate policy Krugman and the like advocates. This way money has been transferred from the little savers and little grandmothers to the wealthiest people in the world, while forcing the rest into the bond and stock markets were their money disappear, thanks to market manipulations by the wealthiest people in the world, and their operators, such as both Paulsons. Now called the: “Twist“, to avoid criticism.

Radical: from the Fourteenth Century medieval philosophy, from the Latin radicalis “of or having roots” from radix “root“. Meaning “going to the origin, essential” is from 1650s. Political sense of “reformist” (via notion of “change from the roots“) is first recorded in 1802 (by then the fractional reserve public-private monopoly was established). In other words, not only there nothing wrong about being radical, but sometimes it is the only way.

Rating Agencies: The so called “Three Sisters”, Standard & Poors, Moody, and Fitch, rate how much the institutions which borrow money can be trusted. They rate companies, states, and even cantons. States don’t pay them, although the USA engaged a criminal inquiry after being downrated (a sort of negative payment!)

However companies (such as banks) do pay them.  Thus during the subprime times, AAA ratings were given to junk. In the end, this was profitable to the entire big banks connected plutocracy, as it allowed the co-conspirators to create a super giant fraud which the plutocracy then was able to surf.

Reforming Finance: 1) A worldwide Financial Transaction Tax should be first, immediately, at the G20 in November, because it’s a no brainier.

2) To provide immediate relief, systematic and systemic default ought to be organized, as needed, throughout the financial system. Start with Greece. Address the problem of homeowners in the USA.

3) The next lines of reform would have to be derivatives, shadow banking and further lending. The first two ought to be mostly outlawed, and what’s left, made transparent. All and any lending ought to be made completely transparent, according to the philosophy that banks, are, truly, agents of the state (under private management).

Revolution, American: There was a strong anti-plutocratic component in the American Revolution, as the king, the plutocrat-in-chief, was vigorously attacked verbally and philosophically. But there was also a pro-plutocratic component, as the evil design of invading Indian lands was high on the agenda of land speculators such as Colonel Washington. The American states gave the right to vote under various conditions, such as property or religion.

Revolution, French: The Revolution started mildly, with the General States having proclaimed themselves a Constitutional Assembly. Under the impulsion of Sade, and thinkers such as Danton or Mirabeau (Comte de…) though, the Revolution took an ever stronger anti-plutocratic character. Finally all European plutocracies conspired to crush it, and a war to death between the republic and the plutocrats took shape.

There had been plutocratic republics in the European Middle Ages, but, being plutocratic, precisely, they were never perceived as threats against established plutocracies. The Holly Roman empire had no more problem being allied to the Venetian republic, than Charlemagne himself. Quite the opposite, as the republics were full of bankers leveraging through fractional reserve (to find money to pay mercenary armies!). Those republican bankers were keen to bankroll the likes of Francois Premier or Charles Quint (even when that was just to fight each other! The wars maintained plutocracy dynamically, by presenting with pretexts to crush popular energy).

But the French revolution was a completely different beast: it was a full return to the Roman republic, as every man was a citizen, and every citizen could vote. Plutocracy has dreaded such a return ever since Octavian became Augustus. In the end, the Revolution won: Europe is now covered with republics (even the so called monarchies are, de facto, republics). Even better: the whole planet is covered with French revolution style republic (with the notable exception of China’s PRC).

Meanwhile, fractional reserve has slowly eaten at democracy, and it’s time for an overall system reboot.

Rights of the Child, Convention On: the Convention On the Right of the Child is recognized by nearly all countries of the United Nations, but not by the USA, and its fellow soul, Somalia. what is the tie with plutocracy? No hand is small enough to work for a plutocrat. This also exemplifies the relationship between piracy on the high seas (practiced in Somalia) and financial piracy (practiced on Wall Street).

According to the Heritage Foundation and other similar ultra nationalistic organizations, American exceptionalism, can do no wrong, and thus stands way above the Rights of any Child.

The supine attitude of Americans about this scandal is another proof that there is no American left, and that, 60 years after McCarthyism, basic decency is still in short supply in the USA. Obama said he would review the Rights of the Child, but he has been too busy playing golf with Wall Street fat cats, a habit he acquired in 2007.   

Rubin Bob: Ex CEO of Goldman Sachs, Sec. of USA Treasury, founder of Citigroup. Told Clinton that he would be re-elected if, and only if, he pleased Wall Street. Clinton used the F word, but obeyed, making him a good boy, thus insuring his fortune and lasting influence as a marionette.

Savings & Loans: Thanks to Summers Larry, a type of banks, the Savings & Loans, which loaned to homeowners, were deregulated under Reagan. The S&Ls were soon the object of massive fraud (deregulation made fraud possible, as Summers himself recognized: no watching, no conscience!) The entire industry disappeared. By the early 1990s, under Reagan and Bush senior, about 2,000 (two thousands) were nationalized and then resold. There were about 1,000 convictions for criminal acts.

The present financial crisis involves fraud on an incomparably larger scale.  By professor Black’s estimate as the regulator he was, by his estimates there have been exactly zero convictions and zero indictments. So, when Obama riles against Wall Street, it may have to be taken with a grain of salt. In truth why would he feel the urge to bite the hand that fed him, right from the start? That would be antinomic to his credo of (self) “navigation” as the ultimate good.

Schools: After the 2008 financial crisis, 250,000 teachers were fired and not replaced in the USA, although the school age population is increasing rapidly. In 1960, attending the University of California was supposed to be open to all those qualified, and free. Now it costs $31,000, a year, for college (and it’s more expensive for graduate school). The money to have a superlative school system pales relative to the money spent helping banksters.

Slavery: Outlawed in Europe by the Franks in 660 CE, under the government of Bathilde, an ex English slave girl purchased by a rich Frankish merchant, who escaped, and was later bought, freed and married by the future king. Slavery was reintroduced in the Americas by its colonists, first in the Caribbean, and a century later, in the American English colony. In a notorious bulle, a Pope, to please the Portuguese monarchy, had declared that black Africans could be enslaved.

Summers Larry: Arrogant nephew of two American Nobels in economics. Reagan adviser for economics, greatest personal destroyer of president Roosevelt’s financial and economics architecture. Great partisan of unregulated derivative finance. Made millions given by a hedge fund. Dazzled the naïve Obama with his facile brilliance. Sexist, caused the loss of billions in Harvard endowment with fraught investment policy in… derivatives.

Parroting the great economist John Kenneth Galbraith, out of context, Summers’ motto is that ‘conscience is the knowledge that someone is watching.’ In other words, Summers has none, and wants even less, as he imposed secrecy, as Secretary of the Treasury, time and time again, say in the so called “derivatives” industry (an occasion for him to insult Sheila Bair).

Supreme Court USA: Thinks corporations are people and should be allowed to contribute secretly to fellow plutocrats. In other words, it wants people to have no conscience, even in summers’ restricted sense. The USSC takes itself for a Constitutional Court, although that function is not described in the American Constitution (while it is in, say, the French republic). Among other exploits, selected as president of the USA the one who has the fewer votes, but the higher plutocratic credentials. Now is allowing corporations, and plutocrats to give as much money as they want to influence the electoral process, in complete secrecy, in a desperate bid to establish feudalism before the otherwise unavoidable revolution.

TARP: Transferring Assets to Rich People. Astutely presented as the main give-away program for big banksters welfare, to detour attention from the much more massive help of Quantitative Easing. TARP was “reimbursed”, with massive publicity, from other gifts of the government, or other programs.

Teachers: 250,000 fired in the three years after 2008, in the USA alone.

Terrorism, Financial: Arguably worse than Muslim terrorism itself. Although, true a handful of Muslim terrorists killed thousands, financial terrorism, standing behind the mighty military-industrial complex of the West, killed millions (see Afghanistan; the wars involving Iraq, to a great extent contrived by the west, also killed millions, especially when one counts the children killed indirectly).

The Twist: As Quantitative Easing came to be perceived as outrageous no strings attached help to the banksters, presto, the Fed changed its name into “The Twist“.

“Too Big to Fail”: See below. The idea is that if big banks were allowed to fail, the economy will break. This is what happened in 1930s in the USA.however this forgets the point that individuals are insured up to $100,000 nowadays, by the FDIC. And similarly in Europe. The simplistic idea of “Too Big To Fail” also neglects the distinction between banks (the thing with deposits, ATMs, cashiers and advisors) and the bank holding corporations. One can fail the latter, while keeping the preceding intact. Actually the FDIC does this several times a week. With smaller, less political influential banks. 

Too Big To Jail: Also known as “Too Big to Fail”. The idea is that, when one has enough influence, and one has become part of the Connivance network, one is above the law. It’s important that this principle be respected at all times, so that the members of the connivance network can act boldly, decisively. For example by inventing banking losses the vulgum pecus is then asked to pay for.

Wall Street: As the Suskind’ book, “Confidence Men” reveals, Obama was Wall Street’s secret candidate. and financed him massively, allowing him, Obama, to beat Hillary Clinton through money attrition (although, full disclosure, the present author did help Obama relatively more, especially during Obama’s nadir of November 2007; however, had I known the massive support of Wall Street for Obama, I would have still supported him. However, within a year it became obvious that Obama wanted to join Wall Street, rather than exercising an independent judgment he may have been unable of, many of the issues being technical, he had to turn towards his closest advisers, creatures from the depths such as Summers, obsequious servants of Hades).

Xenophobia: would not help anybody, as plutocracy is a worldwide conspiracy, plot, network, and conniving connivence. Thus plutocrats help each other, in their brotherhood of evil. For example, Bush and his CIA cooperated with their brother in arms, Muammar Qaddafi. A less well known example is that the American plutocrats who had helped Hitler so much, kept on helping the Nazis during the entire war, and even after the war.

Confronted to a worldwide conspiring jet-set, those who the plutocracy oppresses have to stand united too, and help each other. The plutocracy knows this, and will try to evoke ever more xenophobia.

Too Big To Fault

December 27, 2009


“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” Mr. Obama said.

But still, as Sherry Jarrell points out (Dec 27, 2009): "Now, the Federal Reserve is paying banks to hold excess reserves.  They are paying banks to not lend, while President Obama scolds them for not lending!  Either he doesn’t know about the Fed’s new policy, doesn’t care, or doesn’t understand. I frankly don’t know which is worst."

Sherry, a finance professor, usually loves profits, for her profits define the economy, she sings on every hilltop, and profits banks are making, thanks to various devices that have nothing to do with the real economy. So why so upset?

Why should the private banks lend to private individuals, indeed? As I pointed many times before, getting money at 0% from the Fed and then putting it back with the Fed to earn 3.5% beats anything: zero work, zero risk, potentially enormous profit if the Fed send trillions. As it seems it did. But we don’t know all the details.

Secrecy and discretion are of the essence among the mighty. Ever since the central bank of central banks, the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS), founded in 1930 by the plan Young, did very dirty business with the Nazis, it is safe and traditional to not ask too many questions to central banks.


Nazi Architecture (picture by Richard Janssen). BIS building, Basel.

The BIS building above (one of two in Basel) is complete with hospital and nuclear bomb shelter. Initially the BIS had been funded to reorganize Germany financially, in May 1930. Hence its weird name. In January 1933, Adolf Hitler was made Chancellor. It is the BIS that has organized the archipelago of tax heavens for the world plutocracy, so precious to the rich, famous and arrogant.

The BIS was not audited in 1945. That would have been interesting. All top financiers know this, and thus know that really big banks are not just too big to fail, they are too big to fault. Top financiers are great wizards, they can get away with holocausts. Thus, today’s top financiers act accordingly.

That is why it would be a democratic progress to audit the central banks. It is even a democratic necessity. If central banks and their associated private banks could get away with financing Hitler, and this is never even questioned, we have a serious problem with our democratic facade.

As it is, with a reserve requirement of 10%, the private banks can expand the monetary supply from the monetary base (what the central bank gave) through the multiplier, ten times over. That money they are supposed to lend to the real economy. Such is their fiduciary duty, because, really, private banks operate at the behest of the government, through the central banks.

Except that, apparently US private banks have decided now that they are the government, with the help of, um, the government, as described above.

Another "socially useless" way banks use the money they are allowed to create, is by investing in derivatives. (The expression “socially useless” was used by the British finance minister, December 2009.)

This derivation of the money supply through derivatives is not a small problem. The private bank JP Morgan, let by Jamie Dimon, that Obama called "his friend" has a 80 trillion dollars derivative portfolio. World GDP is about 50 billions, namely, less.

All together the derivative market is at least 16 times world GDP. That is as much money supply that will not make it to the average entrepreneur, worker, retired person, or sick, uninsured patient, or renewable industry, high speed train networks, universities, and other activities to provide good handsomely paying jobs in developed countries rather than China.

An even more ominous possibility is that the derivative trading is rigged, as the government, and its pet, the Fed, could easily telegraph the correct trades to their friends (see the use of the concept of friend, above.) Another reason to audit the activities of the central banks. Obviously since many at the White House, or in Congress, have been, and will be feeding at the trough of private banks, their motivation for violating the sacred trust of the People is obvious.

It was risky of government to engage in fractional reserve banking. The theory was actually started in France, in the eighteenth century, by the physiocrats (the teachers of Adam Smith). It is high time for the French to denounce their own baby. (Ironically, Great Britain used private bankers and the multiplier , through the house of Rothschild, to finance its wars against France, winning the first and third, but losing the second, the one that gave birth to the USA.)

Profits do not just an economy make. Profits are just rewards for what an economy does not really need. To make an economy requires heart, mind, and wisdom. If profits have devoured those, you can kiss your civilization goodbye.


Patrice Ayme


Annex: Incriminating order: Release Date: October 6, 2008, 8:15 a.m. EDT:

The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced that it will begin to pay interest on depository institutions’ required and excess reserve balances. The payment of interest on excess reserve balances will give the Federal Reserve greater scope to use its lending programs to address conditions in credit markets while also maintaining the federal funds rate close to the target established by the Federal Open Market Committee.


January 24, 2009






Abstract: The entire financial system has to be nationalized right away. Then many of its rules have to be changed, so that the tail will not wag the dog ever again. Delaying either nationalization or extensive regulation, is playing in the hands of plutocrats some more, as if they needed money some more, same as with the guys before. Both Mr. Reich and Mr. Krugman agree with me, and are extensively quoted. A question is asked as to who is really doing the thinking.

There is this small matter that hundreds of billions of dollars were sent, without supervision, to the plutocrats that caused the problems, and, lo and behold, the problem is still here. And has, hmmm, got worse. It was amazing: instead of acquiring what they paid for, the American People, after throwing money at it, gave it right back to those who had just destroyed it. And now they have destroyed it again, the always giving American people will throw money at it again, and give it back again to those who are ruining their country. 

People familiar with this blog will know that this eternal return of the same thievery was predicted and decried stridently, many months ago. This included in particular the essay called: “IF YOU WANT LEVERAGE, NATIONALIZE”. But “nationalize” is the new n-word. Little people in the USA are conditioned that way. They pay for it, and others own it.

What we have below our eyes is the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich since the Goths of Alaric sacked Rome (410 CE). That was meant to be funny.

In an essay on his blog, “How America Embraced Lemon Socialism” (Jan 23, 2009), Robert Reich observes that:”It’s called Lemon Socialism. Taxpayers support the lemons. Capitalism is reserved for the winners.”  Reich, an economics professor (UCB), was Clinton’s Labor Secretary, was, and is a partisan of real economics, with real infrastructure, and was the total enemy of Robert Rubin, one of the creators of Voodoo economics, a believer of money-knows-best, and the more money, the more knowledge. Rubin is apparently the esteemed godfather to the Obama economic team. Reich also observes that: “Put it all together and at this rate, the government — that is, taxpayers — will own much of the housing, auto, and financial sectors of the economy, those sectors that are failing fastest.” Reich does not insist on the fact that the old plutocrats are still left to profit from that stealthy nationalization, viewed as a gift, that leaves them on top, in command, and as…owners.

The Obama team, plus Congress, could find very little money for public transit (including light rail and high speed trains), while finding plenty for the Reaganophile method of cutting taxes (I am not against lowering income taxes, but I am for rising users’ taxes, especially the sins taxes on poisons such as CO2). It is true that Congress has not been helping. (As it is only 5% to 10% of the recovery plan is for infrastructure).

Simultaneously, in another excellent editorial [NYT, January 23, 2009], 2008 Nobel Laureate Krugman points out that: “Everyone hoped that President Obama’s Inaugural Address would offer some reassurance. But at least on matters economic, the speech was too conventional.”

Camping outside of the Obama administration, as Krugman does, has the obvious advantage of being able to choose a mountain top, with fresh and clear air, and to look down in the smoggy valleys where pathetic minds choke on power… We agree so much with our latest Nobel Laureate, that we will quote him more:

“Mr. Obama did what people in Washington do when they want to sound serious: he spoke, more or less in the abstract, of the need to make hard choices and stand up to special interests. That’s not enough. In fact, it’s not even right. Thus, in his speech Mr. Obama attributed the economic crisis in part to “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age” — but I have no idea what he meant. This is, first and foremost, a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. And if we failed to rein in that industry, it wasn’t because Americans “collectively” refused to make hard choices; the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a great idea.”

Then Paul Krugman quoted Obama some more, in a lofty passage that unfortunately: “was almost surely intended as a paraphrase of words that John Maynard Keynes wrote as the world was plunging into the Great Depression — and it was a great relief, after decades of knee-jerk denunciations of government, to hear a new president giving a shout-out to Keynes. “The resources of nature and men’s devices,” Keynes wrote, “are just as fertile and productive as they were. The rate of our progress towards solving the material problems of life is not less rapid. We are as capable as before of affording for everyone a high standard of life. … But today we have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand.”

“But”, pursues Krugman, “something was lost in translation. Mr. Obama and Keynes both assert that we’re failing to make use of our economic capacity. But Keynes’s insight — that we’re in a “muddle” that needs to be fixed — somehow was replaced with standard we’re-all-at-fault, let’s-get-tough-on-ourselves boilerplate.”

Yes, there was too much, in the economic part of Obama’s speech, of that old puritan tactic, that we sinned, it is all our fault, we did not beat our backs enough with chains. Instead, of course, the truth of what happened is that the plutocratic wolves have guarded the sheep, all too long, and now that they have run out of sheep, they howl to get more, and more sheep bleat, and come their way.

The sheep will only survive in the future if they understand that the wolves have been in charge, and still are, because only the wisdom they invented still rule the land, and their howling is all what the sheep listens to. The only safe only way out is something like the Resolution Trust Corporation, a total nationalization of the financial sector. One cannot just nationalize a piece, for competitive reasons. (Yes, in the Scandinavian financial crisis at least one giant private bank opted out of nationalization and survived, but this, now, is different.)

Nationalizing all of finance as it is, of course will not be enough. It would be a momentary measure, but the system needs to be changed long term. we cannot just fix the patient, and then let her get in the same accident all over again. New laws will have to prevent: 1) the malignant growth of derivatives [to demented proportions as now], 2) way too risky investing motivated by excessive personal greed of financial manipulators, 3) excessive trading and bonuses [which, besides sucking money from the real economy and leading to plenty of inefficiency, not to say outright fraud, give a very bad example and motivation for the whole socioeconomy, leading the later to excessive, greedy, useless behaviors, by mimicry]. A whole arsenal of new tools could allow to do this [detailed rules on derivatives, that should be restricted to those officially authorized, with tuned leverage, worldwide; a transaction tax; higher taxes on short term cap gains, lower on long term ones].

The future financial sector should be of assistance to the economy, but no more, and have a fiduciary duty of keeping capital in trust, and have some leeway to invest according to tight regulations [a system that basically used to exist in the thirty glorious years of economic expansion, 1945 to 1975]. The idea being that never again should the financial tail wag the economic dog. At the limit [see comrade Stalin], a powerful economy can operate without finance; but what we have here now is a situation where a rogue financial system is strangling the real economy. Rogue waves exist in the ocean, on a regular basis: they can be 100 feet tall, when other waves are only 15 feet tall [they sink hundreds of ships a year]. What we have here is a rogue wave so bad, we will have to change the ocean.

A last point about brain power. : most of Obama’s power will be into making speeches with great ideas, and he has to learn to trust the force of his intelligence. Instead as Krugman put it:”…one wishes that the speech writers had come up with something more inspiring than a call for an “era of responsibility” — which, not to put too fine a point on it, was the same thing former President George W. Bush called for eight years ago… The crisis will require the temporary nationalization of some major banks. So is Mr. Obama ready for that? Or were the platitudes in his Inaugural Address a sign that he’ll wait for the conventional wisdom to catch up with events? If so, his administration will find itself dangerously behind the curve.”

This leads us to question another American Institution, the “speech writers”. Who elected those? OK, it’s traditional to have little paid gnomes in the background doing the thinking while the US President dances and socializes. But there are limits, it’s a question of honesty, one cannot just regurgitate the thinking of an unelected twenty something, and make it into the word of the presidency. In the case above, as Krugman showed in his essay, clearly, the speech writers fell on Keynes and half regurgitated him, and that was passed along, to be regurgitated some more, while losing the main economic message on the way.

The professional speech writers of the American presidency allow a traditional, but unfortunate canning of the mind. Professional speech writers are like lobbyists for the common mind, rewarded with money to think common thoughts. Nothing that a soaring imagination can blossom from.

Patrice Ayme

P/S 1: Some well conditioned US citizens are bound to declare that there is no reason to trust the government to be able to run the banks better than the banks themselves run the banks. But that is confusing banks and their management and owners. British PM Gordon Brown was “angry” this week because he discovered that the Royal bank of Scotland had invested in one dangerous little subprime outfit in the USA in a leveraged fashion, losing an enormous amount of capital. That sort of mistake was done by only a very few individuals at the top of an otherwise excellent establishment. So, when the government fully nationalizes banks, it takes momentary possession, but it does not “run the banks”. Government cannot do that. What the government does in cases like that is to FIRE the old, corrupt, decadent, erroneous upper management, and replace it by other, more honest, prudent and capable bankers with lower salaries, watched by public servants specialized in financial matters. Also, another thing that happens is what is done in Venture Capital funding rounds, namely the old shareholders get wiped out.

P/S 2: At the peak of the latest financial madness, the total of all derivatives, worldwide, was valued at 600 trillions. BUT the total value of the world [all real estate, plus all market caps, etc…] is only around 100 trillions. That is why those who are talking about buying the “toxic waste”, piecemeal, are talking complete insanity here. The US GDP is less than 15 trillions, so it would take 40 years to just equate the derivatives with GDP. It’s useless to keep on throwing good money in the 500 trillion dollar hole of values that obviously do not exist. The only hope is to wipe the entire slate clean, otherwise the real economy will die from lack of a functioning banking sectors doing the basic things banks have to do so that we can have an economy.

Ah yes, because you see, many of the banks are bound to have “invested” in this 600 trillion dollar black hole of money that does NOT exist [60 trillions of them are “credit default swap”, which are highly sensitive to the collapsing real estate market]. So many of the banks are probably highly insolvent [because from the “mark to market” rule, as some derivatives will be found to have no value whatsoever, some bank capital will disappear like snow on a lava flow].

Another amusing aside is that it is said that, once again scared of the “mark to market” rule, banks have been holding out of the real estate market about 70% of foreclosed homes [in the USA], and, thus, when they bring them to market, the real estate market will tank plenty more, depressing further whatever value may be left in some real estate connected derivatives. And that will kill banks’ capital some more.

In the second phase of resolution of the crisis, the nationalized banks will be separated from the toxic derivatives, and the government would be free to declare that the value of entire classes of derivatives will be reduced to zero.

Although some semantics and details can vary, all and any of the solutions pass by: 1) take out the managements; 2) wipe out share holder equity; 3) transform debt into equity at pathetic levels; 4) declare that the toxic assets are without value (and unlawful looking forward). Procrastinating will only augment the devastation of the global real economy.

(The Royal Bank of Scotland declared that Britain’s biggest banks were “technically insolvent”, probably from the mechanism described above: holding a bit of the monopoly money of the derivatives.)