Systematic Plutocracy, Not Systematic Racism

So we are now supposed to be all excited by a wild goose chase, for the systematic racist. Did you meet a systematic racist recently? By the way, if he was so racist why did Chauvin paired up with a non-white cop? Actually he even looks like what is outrageously called “black” in the USA (where color is everything, and attributed absurdly). Chauvin’s wife, Kellie Chauvin, competed for the title of Mrs. Minnesota in 2018 with the hope of becoming the first Hmong winner. Does that sound like the choice of a white supremacist racist? (She is filing for divorce, change of name…)

Kellie Chauvin, wife of the officer charged with second degree murder, and vilipended around the world as a systematic racist… how many of you, vilipenders, denunciators of Chauvin’s alleged racism, are married to someone of another “race”?

On the face of it, the assassination looks more like a hit: let engage on a little flight of possible fancy. Chauvin wanted Floyd dead, because they worked as security in the same shady nightclub, and one of them, or both, had gone one deal too far… Hence the attempts by the officers to get the cameras turned off (they were only partly successful, yet threatened some spectators). In that case, it would be first degree murder, but that would require a careful inquiry, and the Police Department will not be anxious to go that route, as it would end up with four officers accused of first degree murder, or aiding and abetting such…

Torture was involved too… Hidden behind that car… too bad there were all those smart phones… Interesting those cell phones, they reveal lots of atrocities: as David Horn, a 77 retired black police captain, agonizing, live on Facebook, bleeding to death… He had been protecting a friend’s pawn shop… None of the spectators came to try to help him (say by compressing the wounds to slow the bleeding, which seems to be what killed him). There are better angels in our nature, but also abominable ones… And only the work of the latter is definitive. 

As it is, the four officers could get 40 years… Each.

The murderers of Mr. Floyd. How many races represented? Where is the “systemic racism”?

So much for the little, uncomprehending people. But the big guns have rolled out. 

Both W. Bush and Obama came out with statements accusing “institutional racism” or “systemic racism”.  They both were in the White House eight years… How come they couldn’t at least tell us what the institutions of racism where, and how that racist system worked? Show me the money as the saying goes… Oops, sorry, for revealing it all by accident. This is all about money. “Black” president Obama made 100 million dollars… So he wants to talk about “systemic racism”, instead of, say “systemic kleptocracy”.

Serious George and Barry: If one can’t even vaguely describe what an enemy is, how are we supposed to fight it? We will go into the bushes and thickets, looking desperately for all those racists, while you make millions a year, from selling the presidency? Tell me, oh wise owls. Two of the assassins of Mr. Floyd were non-whites. Are all the races conspiring to kill blacks in that “systemic racism” of yours?

Many mention the death of that lady in her bed. They forgot to mention that her boyfriend had a gun licence and fired at the three kevlar armored police officers, mistaking them for “intruders”… who returned fire. Yes they were intruding, but they had a no-knock warrant (because of drug suspicion). So here we see a mix of problems: no-knock warrants for drug trafficking, thus police-judicial violence, boyfriends sleeping with loaded guns, etc.  I doubt the color of the victims was analyzed in the dark… Just the flash of the boyfriend’s gun.

***

So the basic problem is not be racism, especially not “institutional or systemic racism”. But sheer violence. Or then, if institutional, what about Biden instigated “New Jim Crow” act of the 1990s. I know how hard that is. I contributed to getting Obama to reduce the sentence of the father of three condemned by Biden sponsored laws, to a life sentence, for carrying… a pipe. It took months of work for a top law firm partner… So who has come across a racist recently? If not ‘racism” then what is it? Simple: well-paid police are enabled to use brutality. To do what? To foster violence in society, to inure the population to the violence of the plutocratic system, one where the resources of the socioeconomy are leveraged, using the banking system, to create more than 600 billionaires, many of them loud on the “Democratic” side.

Not everything was negative in what Obama said: he urged people to “remember that this country was founded on protest — it is called the American Revolution.” Actually it was an outright war, complete with superpower intervention: without the French ammunition factories, and the rest, the US Revolution would have failed. At Yorktown, the British army had to surrender. The British army was besieged at sea by the French fleet (!), and two French armies had converged on Yorktown. When the British commander surrendered his sword, he offered it to the French commanders (Rochambeau and Lafayette), who redirected him to general Washington.

So the French revolutionary spirit, in evidence since the foundation of the French state by Clovis in the Fifth Century, was communicated to the American Founding Fathers, most of whom stayed years in paris, imbuing themselves with French “lumieres” (lights; enlightenment).

Obama also suggested what I suggested prior, that every cityhall in the United States review use-of-force policies and aggressively pursue an eight-point slate of police reforms that include mandatory de-escalation of conflicts, a ban on shooting at moving vehicles, timely reporting of violent incidents, and a ban on some forms of restraint used by the police.

Obama, sitting in front of a sparse bookcase, spoke Obamese, a strange mix of reality denied and wishful thinking imposed: “Chokeholds and strangleholds, that’s not what we do” . Well that’s precisely what police departments do. And not just in the USA, there is a notorious case in France, since 2016, with officers still uncharged…

“In a lot of ways, what has happened in the last several weeks is that challenges and structural problems here in the United States have been thrown into high relief. They are the outcome of not just an immediate moment in time, but as the result of a long host of things — slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and institutional racism.”

Well, he forgot to mention the “New Jim Crow” laws, long record supporting the war on drugs and mass incarceration instigated and passed by no less than Joe Biden, who is celebrating 50 years of his paid elected politician career in the USA…

Obama also systematically forgets to mention as a structural problem the sort of economic, religious, state and justice systems which made possible the extermination of many Native American nations…. Although that was a larger crime than slavery: a good slave was a live slave, but a good Indian was a dead Indian. From there flows much of the brutality of US society, especially as many powerful today profited from the genocidal trick of their ancestors, establishing great fortunes over the generations.

Racism is a consequence, now, of something affecting 99%, plutocracy… used as a coverup thereof. Any observant “white” will have witnessed police brutality, experienced plutocracy. So do something about the latter, instead of pointlessly accusing others of racism.
Patrice Ayme

 

 

Blair Bliar & The Islamist Hatred He Brought

The Commission studying the war crimes of Prime Minister Blair came up with scathing conclusions. Blair is culprit as charged by anybody who has studied the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even Donald Trump thunderously charged, speaking of Bush and his ilk: “they lied”.

The lie was that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a secular regime, had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Of course it did not. Blair claimed that he was sincere, July 6, 2016. Either he is lying again, or he admits that he was then, truly, a complete imbecile. There is only one weapon of mass destruction: the nuclear bomb. It was impossible for Iraq to develop one, because Iraq had no nuclear reactor (so no Plutonium), nor a (extremely visible, as they were then immense) isotopic separation factories (so Iraq had no Uranium 235, the one and only other nuclear explosive). In truth, Blair was an architect of evil. Being an architect of evil, and how to sell that to We The People, is a skill plutocrats are ready to pay top dollar for. Thus Blair became immensely rich, following the Bill Clinton model:

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Normal British and American people are ill-informed: their governments lied to their face, Hitler style, and they goose-stepped behind them.

The British Chilcot commission, recognized that, as a result, at least 150,000 Iraqi civilians died. 179 UK soldiers died, and more than 4,400 American soldiers (in truth much more than that, and several times that number were maimed, often inside their brains, from the accelerations of exploding IEDs).

Blair In A Few Words

Worse: the invasion of Iraq, this blunt, delirious, obscene, groundless attack against a secular Arab country showed to all Arabs, and now the whole world, that Islam was right all along. Thus the Islamist State mentality was born. Even worse: to the whole world, it was made obvious that the only way to oppose the West’s plutocratic drift, is on religious grounds (this already happened in the Seventh Century). And the anti-West religion par excellence is Islam (Islam was designed that way, explicitly, by Muhammad; Muhammad insisted that Islam was the way to defeat the Greco-Roman civilization and the Persian one, a Greco-Babylonian derivative). 

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

As The Guardian puts it: “Asked whether invading Iraq was a mistake Blair was strikingly unrepentant. “I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he declared. He argued that he had acted in good faith, based on intelligence at the time which said that Iraq’s president had weapons of mass destruction. This “turned out to be wrong”.”

Blair’s two-hour press conference came after Chilcot, a retired civil servant, published his long-awaited report, seven years in the making, into the Iraq debacle. In the end, “it was a more far-reaching and damning document than many had expected. It eviscerated Blair’s style of government and decision-making.“

It also revealed that in a private note sent on 28 July 2002 Blair promised Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.” Is it just the love between two men, or the love of greed, and power, overwhelming all?

Thus now Islam, and its social equality message, poses as the great answer to the ravages of plutocracy. That is why Islam is gaining, even in Brazil.

How to stop all this? Well, first things first: the war criminals, those who conducted a war of aggression thanks to huge lies, should be indicted for war crimes.

At Nuremberg, Joachim Von Ribbentrop was condemned to hang (slowly, it turned out), for “war of aggression”. By this was meant the attack on Poland. France (and its British poodle, safely removed on its island) declared war to Germany three days later.  

So France was not viewed as the aggressor, although the Nazis accused France to have started World War Two. Why? One needs judgment: the aggressor were the Nazis, not the French Republic. And this is exactly what is needed now: judgment. Judge Blair and Bush. And their criminally behaved poodles. At least, if you want to avoid We The People to turn to Islam to stop what has become a criminal way of managing government, and getting away with it. For all to see.

Sex is strong. Hatred is stronger. Pushed to its limit, hatred makes killing the enemy what gives sense to the world. Hatred makes oneself divine (or very close to it). As the Qur’an explicitly says. This is the new world of mood Bush and Blair mightily fostered (part of a US tradition of using Islam as it always had been meant to be used, ever since the Fourth Caliph (Uthman): as an instrument of subjugation) . All those who don’t want to punish Bush and Blair for fostering mayhem, Islamization and subjugation,  contribute to it.

Patrice Ayme’

Doomed Dems

So Donald Trump will be the Republican committee (;-)) for the presidency. And Trump will, probably, be elected US president. Why? Because people want change, and they did not get it. Instead they got more of the drift down, after the reign of the teleprompter reading president. Average family income is DOWN $4,000 since (“Bill”) Clinton’s last year as president. According to a FOX News poll, 64% of Americans blame Wall Street. Meanwhile in a vast report in the New York Times, Obama celebrates, in May 2016, the alliance he said he made with Wall Street in 2008.

Obama Can Make All The Excuses He Wants: He Gave Money To TBTF Banks, Not To We The People. And Here Is The Result Of This Wall Street President.

Corporate profits have been rising, and wages have been declining. The following graph is from the FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data). Since the mid 1970s, wages have gone down 7% while corporate profits went up 7%. The average board member of an S&P 500 company works 250 hours, and gets $250,000 (more than $800 an hour).

Wages Are Going Down, Because Pluto Profits Are Going Up. And Other Pluto Policies

[Profits and Wages are as function of GDP above. Wages in red, corporate profits in blue. Notice the huge jump of corporate profits after Obama became president, and while he and the demonic Dems had total control of the US Congress, and the US Senate. Obama and his Dems can accuse the Republicans all they want, they are accusing reality. The reality is that they, and not the Republicans, did it.]

Warren Buffet is a hero, for many Americans. He bought Heinz (using money from Brazil’s 3G Capital: did you hear about corruption in Brazil?), and fired 600 workers. Then Buffet merged Heinz with Kraft, and another 2,500 workers got the axe. Buffet made ten billion dollars out of these two operations, 3,000 workers lost their livelihood. However, trust him, Buffet will give it all back, after he is dead (so he clamors to all MSM propaganda outfits, which religiously repeat that, as if it were the word of god).

But back to our other hero, the one who feels unappreciated. President Bush called Candidate Obama, and told him to come inside the White House, to take his orders from Secretary of the Treasury Paulson. Obama, feeling honored, obeyed, and did just like Paulson (ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, and a possibly brain damaged professional football player) told him to do.

Now Obama feels underappreciated, although he should be appreciated, he insists, because he exhibited such great “bipartisan”.

But that is precisely the point: Americans are starting to appreciate less Wall Street and its servants. Americans are getting tired of “bipartisanship”: half professional politician, half Wall Street. Soon average Americans will even see that multigenerational Harvard families are the problem. It feels to them increasingly like a conspiracy is going on, just like Trump says, again and again:”the system is wrong, I know, I was part of it”. And you know what? It is.

“I know a lot of Americans are angry about the economy, and for good cause,” Hillary Clinton said, February 11, 2016. “Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years.”

So why not Trump? After all, the great leaders of the Democratic Party are often incomprehensibly wealthy (with fortunes in the hundreds of millions of dollars: the Clintons, Pelosis, Feinsteins, Bowles, etc.). And their financiers, those who tend to finance them and are explicit supporters, are among the planet’s richest people. Most of them are more or less involved in government for their business (for example, here is the latest: NASA is now giving help, for free, for Elon Musk’s Space X to go to Mars: it will be interesting to see if Trump pursues these policies of tapping public institutions for making particular plutocrats and their corporations ever wealthier).

Trump got rich from inheritance, and then building things. The plutocrats connected to, or inside, the Democratic Party seem to be rather into other sorts of deals: Feinstein’s husband set-up deals in China (wait until Trump gets on that blood trail!)

In other words, people who vote for the Democratic Party have been trumped. (Originally, in the 1500s, “trump” in English meant exactly what it means in French to this day: lied to.)

People already voted for change eight years ago (when they selected Obama over his conservative rivals). Unfortunately, all the change Obama brought was none at all. (Very recently Obama started to do little progressive things, like taxing the rich a bit more, or his clemency project: too little, too late.)

The big picture with Obama was conservative, not progressive. Obama pursued what Bush did: giving money to the biggest banks. I am not saying it should not have been done, but what was needed is what Hoover (yes, Hoover) and Roosevelt did in the 1930s: a massive stimulus program (instead Obama did a short, small stimulus program; the stimulus of the 1930s extended, overall, for more than 25 years, as it extended into WWII, and then into the “Cold War”.

Under president Hoover, masterpieces such as the Chrisler and Empire State Buildings, and the Hoover dam (across the Colorado, and still watering Las Vegas) went up, some of them in a matter of months. Roosevelt ordered the construction of an unbelievably massive armament program, the construction of 24 fleet carriers (Japan would start a world war with 10).

Obama, long an admirer of Reagan in economic matters, reduced the taxes on the hyper rich by 20% in his first mandate (then brought them back up, the rather trite story of the arsonist who douses the fire later, while posing as a great hero…) The idea was to stimulate the rich, so they stimulate you.

All what We The People Who Vote are going to feel increasingly like, is that Obama was Bush III, or Clinton III-IV. Indeed, where was the “Change We Can Believe?” Yes, none at all. It was all the way down further.

Meanwhile a friend of mine went to Yosemite ten days ago. She told me she could not believe the devastation of the forest. Most of it is fiery red. It is devastated by the Pine Bark Beetle. To kill the Beetle, one needs twenty days well below freezing. However, this hard freeze is now a memory. So the Beetle invades, and kills forest. Treating tree by tree is hopelessly expensive, and futile. Yes, the forests will burn soon, adding to CO2 in the atmosphere. And it is all the way like that to Alaska.

Fort McMurray, Alberta may not have seen the worst of a devastating wildfire.

Massive walls of flames prompted authorities to order the evacuation of all the city’s more than 80,000 residents last night. The blaze has been caused by un-naturally high temperatures. Such giant fires are our immediate future. Nobody said the Greenhouse crisis was going to be nice. More evacuations coming.

These are not normal times. Ever since the universe was seen expanding, and, like the all-seing eye, we have contemplated possibilities we never dreamed of, we have come to realize that the world was in our very large hands (even larger than Mr. Trump’s hands…). Obama had very small ambition. Just like the Clintons, he surrendered to Wall Street, preferring big bucks to come to the dreams of his father. Now Charles Koch, the notorious fossil fuel multibillionaire, and great influencer of US politics, is saying he may support Hillary Clinton (instead of Trump). All plutocrats sucking at the public teat, are scared stiff of Trump. As Trump himself observed, in his boldly introspective style: “They say, what is he doing? We can’t buy him!”.

At least, through all the smokes and mirrors (in which Obama admires himself), this has the merit of clarity. By choosing Hillary Clinton, the Dems will choose business as usual. But this is not business as usual. And, increasingly, through all the smoke and mirrors, people feel that way, all around the most advanced countries, from Siberia, to California.

Change means Trump or Bernie Sanders. Clinton will surely bring only doom, as she did, ever since she and her husband helped fellow traveler, and implicit mentor, president Ronald Reagan with Iran-Contra…

Patrice Ayme’

Considering Evil: Prince Charles & Lord Keynes

A plutocrat much revered, thus most evil, Lord Keynes, created in his famous pamphlet, “The Economic Consequences of Peace”, what would become one of the Nazis’ main theories, complete with outrageous racism. Keynes is viewed as the pillar of the “Neo-Liberal” economy, revered and promoted by the Main Stream Politicians of the West. Increasingly many view the “liberal” economy just a tool to increase inequality, build plutocracy. It is enlightening to realize that the main and first proponent of the Neo-Liberal economy also spawned Nazism. 

Plutocrat Prince Charles, Following Plutocrat Keynes, Rewrites History, just as well:

Prince Charles connects climate change to the Syrian conflict and terrorism. In a sense, this is obvious, and I have been saying as much, since ever: the massive change of climate enfolding will result in billions of people dying potentially, so they will not come down without fighting. Yes there was a drought, yes Syrian peasants took refuge in the cities… Yet, it should not be hereditary plutocrat Charles’ position to come to the rescue of fellow London invested hereditary plutocrat Assad. A bit of decency and decorum, please! We know who you are, don’t flaunt it!

The Egyptians had to leave the desert when it became desertic, and settled in the valleys. So it was all around the Middle East. Lush landscape, lakes and rivers, from the Mauritanian coast on the Atlantic, to the Gobi desert, through Arabia, turned into Mars (but with air and torrid temperatures).

In reaction to desiccation, civilizations became much more organized, engineered, and, thus fascist (“E Plutibus, Unum”). Or as great historian Fernand Braudel called them “hydraulic dictatorships”. Indeed hydraulics enabled agriculture, because much of the area has the good fortune to be endowed with very high, rain catching mountains (but less so the Sahara, which had to be 99.9% evacuated). The problem was to carry water from rocky mountains to fertile land (hence the first dams in Yemen, or extensive canals in Oman, Persia).

Lord The Racist Keynes Wanted Poland Occupied By Germany Indefinitely Because Poles Were An Inferior Sort & That Was Best For The Economy

Hundreds of thousands of often Islam befuddled Syrian refugees are rushing to Europe, all too often not because they love Europe but because they want to survive. That’s a problem for all concerned.

Let say in passing that Europe should put in place assimilation structures which discriminate between those who want to learn to love Europe for real, and the rest, The USA has such structures in place. But the American ways of forced integration have escaped detection by naive Europeans. Right now, interviewing locals in Hawai’i, I can appreciate them anew. Locals don’t give a hoot about Barry Obama. what matters to them is the local football, or basketball star, then thriving: they have been completely de-politicized, all they love is greasy sugarized food, and sports, as imposed by Main Stream Media (thus their own islands are, or have been, stolen from them).

Those Syrian refugees who do not want to assimilate should be turned back. Violent? Yes. But turning back hostile refugees is a matter of survival, the same logic which animates the refugees themselves. In Islam, Europe used to be called, in the sacred texts, the “House of War”. Those who still think it is, should be imposed their own insult.

Dar al-Harab (Arabic: دار الحرب “house of war” is the term, in the foundation of Islam, referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force, in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and dhimmis. It is unclean by definition. The House of War, Europe, will not become clean until it is annexed to the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam, دار الإسلام‎ ) Its denizens are either to be converted, killed, or. Allah being most merciful, taxed exorbitantly if, and only if they are “People of the Book” (a matter of interpretation depending upon the Caliph, or the local Emir).

As the attacks in Paris show, a few fanatics with modern weapons can kill or injure 500 (and using biological and, or chemical weapons would kill much more: ISIS uses neurotoxic gases). But back to the congenital plutocrat, Princes Charles, heir of Great Britain.

In an interview with Sky News, red-cheeked apparent alcoholic Charles, said there was:

“Very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land because water ran out, their crops failed and so on. And increasingly they came into the cities, already full of Iraqi refugees. And this combined created a very difficult situation.”

He then called on the public to deal with climate change “because the conflict very often comes from movement of people as a result of not being able to survive”.

The hypocrisy there is colossal, the lying expert: the British elite, not to say “plutocracy”, engineered the Iraq War which destroyed Iraq, spawning ISIS, in part with debris from Saddam’s army. By ignoring this major fact, plutocrat Charles is lying. It is a LIE BY COLOSSAL OMISSION.

If Tony Blair’s government had joined France in opposing the invasion of Iraq by the USA, and the attendant destruction of the Iraqi State, the latter by itself a massive violation of the Geneva Convention, war criminal Bush would not have been able to proceed. Instead British plutocracy joined Bush to visit war crimes on Iraq. Where was rosy-cheeked Charles then?

The Iraq War is still enfolding. The greatest enemy of George W. Bush and his lackeys’ aggression with that idiotic war was the French Republic which singlehandedly prevented the USA to get a resolution of the United Nations authorizing war.

The USA, with the help of many in its plutocracy (including Hilarious Clinton, then a war mongering senator from New York) proceeded nevertheless, while organizing a French hating campaign. However, opposed France WAS, the situation has degenerated so much that France has now been dragged in the war she opposed (and so is Obama, who opposed the Iraq War then, albeit with much less power than Clinton had).

War is complex. Differently from the crazed psychopath Qaddafi, busy raping teenage girls, one could negotiate with Saddam who pointed out correctly that he could not understand why the USA and Britain attacked, since “we had good laws”. (Similarly, one can negotiate with the son of Qaddafi. who is much smarter, and less psycho than his dad.).

When talking about war, violence, conflict, aggression, the primitives cannot handle the complexity, and their discourses bring nothing to guide action. War is, arguably, humanity’s most complex activity.

Thus wars deserve complex descriptions (even wars such as invasions by Attila, the Avars or Genghis Khan were very complex, as the Mongols themselves were first to recognize, hence their successes in the latter case).

***

Lord Keynes’ Racist Complaint Against The Versailles Treaty, & How It Spawned Nazism:

All and any biased, partial description of war brings further conflicts. A very good example is the abject way the Anglo-Saxons and their lackeys describe the Versailles Treaty, following closely the atrocious racist, Lord Keynes, an Anglo-Saxon imperial icon.

Nazi Keynes described the Poles in the abominably racist ways that the soon to be formed Nazis were going to adopt. So it is correct to view Keynes as Hitler’s mentor, and always a big thrill when self-absorbed “Jews” such as Paul Krugman, adulate Keynes, Auschwitz’s grandfather.

Lord Keynes’ big economic trip was that as the Poles were hopeless lazy cretins with immoral habits congenital to their race. Europe, now deprived of its grandiose German imperial leadership, insisted Lord The Racist Keynes, would sink economically. Lord the Racist Keynes called that “The Economic Consequences of Peace”. American plutocrats and their universities cannot laud enough that piece of trash propaganda in learned guise. As Lord The Racist Keynes is anti-French, in learned, hypocritical guise, it is a bonus: one is never careful enough with these Sans-Culottes, Marseillaise singing types.

The meta teaching of Lord The Racist Keynes is that, if one sounds detached enough, one can make the credulous swallow whatever concepts are crucial to foster plutocracy. This is exactly what the future Owner of Britain insisted on: climate change caused the war in Syria, the support of the British elite for plutocrat Assad and his immensely rich family, or the invasion, and destruction, of Iraq, has nothing to do with it.

Let little people gobble this, from Australia to British Columbia, London to Singapore, South Africa to Wall Street, and Dog save the Queen (she is going to need it!) Ultimately, this sort of fables, repeated ad nauseam, become the official truth (as Hitler explained in detail).

Thus it comes to be asserted, that the Versailles Treaty, Anglo-Saxons insist, now followed by quite a few French anxious to please their Anglo-Saxon masters, caused Nazism. An abject lie, useful to plutocrats in so many ways, they are nearly intoxicated on it, it sucks all the bandwidth, they have been repeating it ever since. And one of the ways that enormous lie caused Nazism was, and is, precisely by killing the spirit of inquiry: it’s so obviously clear that the Versailles Treaty caused Nazism, as Lord the Racist Keynes said, and the plutos and their helpers confirm, that the subject is not worth studying: this is common wisdom among the educated, doctorate equipped elite, and those noble parrots go around repeating Nazi lies invented by Keynes, self-congratulating about how wise they are.

Thus it is that little minds learn to NOT even to ponder complex issues. (In that case not that complex: the submission of many nations of Eastern Europe to imperial Germany should be considered now as something as revolting as slavery, because it’s all what it was.)

***

I must admit that Paul Krugman has made efforts to exhibit how knowing better the history of the Twentieth Century enlightens the present fatal systems of thoughts ruling economics.

My own Mom is exasperated by my enthusiastic brandishment of the word “plutocrat”. She looks down on explaining so many phenomena with the notion (which even the mythical Jesus used, without naming it). There is something to it, in the sense that we need variety in life. I know some of the individuals around Obama, saw them transformed as they got a whiff of power. They were too stupid, or too moral to exploit it, so they came short on the satanic side of things (small “Pluto” factor). Yet, they were clearly intoxicated, as everybody around the White House is, by power. Fortunately my fertile imagination comes to the rescue to qualify those herds of slaves who serve, or aspire, and thus valorize power: CRATS.

“Crats” has the correct etymology: that of those obsessed by grabbing power, smelling power, basking in power (Greek “kratos” for power). It also reminds one of “rats”, animals so obsessed with cheese they would die for it, and the insult the French used to throw at fascist Germans of yore: Krauts. Let there be crats, those whom power obsesses, as they already exist, in all but name. We need to name what ails us.

Patrice Ayme’

War Versus Direct Democracy

When We The People decide to go to war, it can be an excellent thing; to wit, many a revolution, including those which gave rise to the USA, the French Republic, the Republic of China (OK, OK… There were two…). However, when an oligarchy, or a plutocracy, decides to go to war, it is rarely a good thing. Most often, it is an atrocious thing. The war the USA launched in Mesopotamia, as one of its principals, if not the principal actor, one way or another, has not been a good thing for the Middle-East (although, lo and behold, it has been an excellent thing for the domestic oil industry of the USA. Any rapprochement between these facts is sheer coincidence, and no animals were hurt during the making of this movie).

So the so-called “Islamist State” captured Ramadi, a large city just west of Baghdad. The next day, it captured Palmyra, in Syria, 200 kilometers from Damascus.

Mine Is Bigger Than Yours. Islamic State/Daesh Captured Thousands Of Tanks

What does that have to do with Direct Democracy? Everything. You see, the Iraq War is a family affair. It was essentially started by one family. No, not the Hussein family. Those were just a convenient excuse. The war was started by one American family, or, at least, under its watch. The Bush family. It was convoluted enough a story, and the Main Stream Media was so embedded in it, that the reality of what happened has escaped the befuddled crowds.

The picture above was taken after the capture of Mosul. Within hours of that joyous event, the Islamic State was flying combat helicopters, meaning that it employed Sunni elements of Saddam Hussein’s old army. In other words, lo and behold, the “Mission” was not accomplished. Saddam, or rather his punching power, was back. The same topo was reproduced after the capture of Ramadi. Columns of tanks flying the Black Flag could be seen on IS videos. (Yes, I have strange pastimes…)

War has a life of its own. Once started, it is hard to stop. All the more since it is quickly sympathetic to the worst actors. Thus, even making peace with war does not work. One cannot just rise the white flag, and surrender. Just giving up on war, surrendering to those who lead the war successfully, once it has risen its ugly snout, often means giving up to very bad guys.

The day after capturing Palmyra, Daesh (the Arabic insult France and Arab states hurl at the IS) dashed out of Mosul, ten kilometers towards the Iraqi capital. France and the USA have officially a few thousands soldiers on the ground in Iraq, not enough to stop Daesh. Air strikes have been hindered by a laudable effort to limit strikes to military targets. In most French or American sorties, bombs are not released.

It seems as if the Franco-American led strategy in the Middle-East is not working (in spite of more than 5,300 air strikes, and president Hollande of France attending the Gulf Defense Council in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). How come? Or, more exactly, what is going on?

Well, it’s called the Iraq War, and it was started under Bush Senior, long ago (if not even earlier, when Iraq was encouraged to attack Iran, with the same Western actors, well represented).

What would we do without Bushes? Would we even have had “enjoyed” Hitler (who called Prescott Bush his “most important” collaborator, at some point).

And this brings the big question: would the People of the USA have authorized the attack on Iraq, in a referendum?

No.

There would have been a debate, and undisputed example of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction would have had to be produced. First.

Some are sure to sneer that I am naïve, and that the We The People of The USA would have been manipulated into war. OK, let’s suppose that. Then what? The We The People of The USA would have egg all over its silly face, and, at least, would have learned something, namely to check its sources more carefully. For next time.

In a referendum, there is no doubt that an attack on Afghanistan, after 9/11, and an ultimatum, would have been authorized. Thus it’s probable, actually, that, once it had been exposed that Saddam Hussein’s secular regime was an enemy of Islam Fundamentalism in general, and Al Qaeda in particular, the We The People of the USA would have disagreed to attack a, de facto, ally.

Right, the Athenian Direct Democracy took lousy decisions during the war between Imperial Athens, and other rather oligarchic, if not fascist Greek city-states, led by a degenerating Sparta, financed by the giant Persian plutocracy.

Yes. This was then. A tough learning experience we can learn from now.

The fact is, one family got us in the Iraq War, for the last 25 years, and We The People of the USA, or We the People of Europe, did not vote for it.

Although at first sight it does not look like it, I have documented the causal chains between the mess in the Middle East and Western plutocracy, and the institutions it created. The Great Bitter Lake conspiracy, initially a manoeuver to push France and Britain out, and the USA in, is a case in point.

Kuwait itself was a conspiracy (it’s only natural that Mesopotamia would have access to the sea! Always had, before the British messed up with it).

The USA Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (August 2, 1990). Glaspie’s statements that “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts” and that “the Kuwait issue is not associated with America” were interpreted by Mr. Hussein as giving him freedom to solve the problem of Kuwait (which he alleged was using horizontal pumping in Iraq’s oil fields. Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with a United Nations Security Council resolution.

University professors specializing in the question concluded that:”…The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.”[ ^ John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (Jan–Feb 2003). “An unnecessary war”. Foreign Policy (134): 54.]

Some don’t believe in Conspiracy Theories. However, beside the law of unintended consequences, history is mostly made with these. (To know this, one has to study history beyond the headlines.)

It is easy for one family, such as the Bush family, to conspire. When only a few men take all the decisions, their wildest dreams and most secret perversions can be enacted, and enabled.

Yes, conspiracies are impossible to organize in Direct Democracy. Thus, those who heap spite on “conspiracy theories” are actually asserting that We the People control our destinies. Evidence to the contrary is in plain sight. A few thousands individuals control most of the world’s wealth, and even fewer, most of the world’s power.

To remedy this, a few conspiring to kill millions, just one way: Direct Democracy, as much as possible.

Patrice Ayme’

Torture Denies Brotherhood, Reason: Plutocrats Love It

Rejecting Torture Is Torture To Those Who Refuse Civilization. Let’s Torture Them That Way:

The government of the USA, fully duplicitous:

The Bush administration decided that Middle-Ages tortures (such as immersing a face under water) were not torture, when ordered by the government of the USA. This official policy of the USA got a further twist under Obama. Obama pontificated that “Torture is contrary to what we are”.

Thus the Obama administration did not prosecute torture advocates and torture administrators: surely we cannot be prosecuted for the opposite of what we are. Leon Panetta, CIA head and Defense Secretary wrote in “Worthy Fights” that, summoned to the White House by Obama’s chief of staff (now the mayor of Chicago), Rahm Emanuel “got ugly”. Says Panetta: ‘The president wants to know who the f**k authorized this to the committees,’ Rahm said, slamming his hand down on the table. “I have a president with his hair on fire and I want to know what the f**k you did to f**k this up so bad.”

Obama Facing Torture, Dec. 10, 2014

It’s “contrary to what we are”, said Big Brother. So it cannot possibly be. And that sure infuriates Him.

Hitler used to tell the highest Nazi Party officials, that exterminating the Jews was out of the question. When asked about that much-emphasized position of the “Guide” at the Wannsee Conference, SS General Reinhart Heydrich bluntly said that it was what Hitler would keep on saying, if asked: thus the necessity of the Wannsee conference to make explicit to the highest officials what the real policy of the Reich was.

So what’s the real policy of the USA?

Now that the Democratic Party is in the last few days of its control of the Senate of the USA, Senator Diane Feinstein released a heavily “redacted” (= censored) report of CIA torture (over objections from the apparently pro-torture Obama administration). Feinstein is apparently keen to leave a trace beyond her own personal greed for money. She is suddenly interested by truth.

An aside: another Senator, Mark Udall, a Democrat from Colorado, who is in office for another few weeks (he lost re-election), said on Thursday that: “The CIA unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into Senate intelligence committee computers. This grave misconduct is not only illegal but it violates the US constitution’s requirement of separation of powers.”

Funny all these pseudo-progressives trying to wash their souls in their last few days of power…

***

Why not to engage in torture? The answer was found by the Roman Republic:

The Republic outlawed the torture of citizens. Why? Well, first, because it was not needed. In a coherent, cohesive society of peers, peers don’t torture peers, because peers never engage in some conspiracy so dastardly that only unbearable suffering is the only thing that will get them to confess.

So engaging in torture meant precisely that hatred, not fraternity, ruled.

France, the ex-Francia Occidentalis, had developed, by 1300 CE, the modern police state. (Proof? All Templars were arrested at the same time on the same day, all over; also the Pope was arrested in Rome by French Special forces headed by a lawyer, and died in custody.) By then torture was very scientific, and delivered results.

However, by 1600 CE, police methods were so advanced that torture was found to be counterproductive. The subtlety of having an informant networks was found much more efficient. During the famous “Affaires des Poisons”, a gigantic, mind boggling conspiracy of poisoners, greedy wives, sorcerers, plotting socialites, plutocrats, mistresses, duchesses, and the like, careful police work was more effective than torture to obtain (too much, said the King) information.

(That does not mean that burning alive some miscreants who had killed up to 2,000 children did not have a salutary effect on the public! Torture for punishment, and torture for intelligence are two different things… Observed a winged devil who passed by…)

So one can say that employing torture is a testimony to a non-cohesive social situation. Apparently, during the Battle of Algiers, French paratroops, confronted to amateur, but deadly bomb makers, were able to extract, through torture, crucial confessions under extreme time pressure, as bombs were literally ticking.

However what torture gains in military efficiency, is more than lost in the propaganda battle. To this day, the cogent reasons for paratroops to use torture in that very peculiar situation, are drowned by the jeers of those who wanted the Algerian society deconstructed.

Torture Is Contrary To The Brotherhood Of Reason Known As Direct Democracy, Our Ideal:

When the civilized West is confronted to barbaric fanatics, Muslim or not, it’s of its essence to not exchange nature: the West has to stay civilized. The West does not have to stay civilized at all and any cost, but close to it.

The aim of the war of civilization against barbarity is to establish a brotherhood of reason.

So we have to enforce both brotherhood, and reason.

It goes without saying that plutocrats like neither. That’s why they love torture: it contradicts both brotherhood, and reason. Instead it extolls the rule of cruelty, brute force, and extermination, it brandishes torture as an achievement, and gives it another name. (Just as Christianism did.)

Hence it was not a coincidence that torture became the official policy of the USA under Bush’s plutocratic government. Because it was not just the CIA. The CIA acted under order from the Bush government, and several torture lawyers such as Mr. Yoo (who made the mistake of inviting me to his home).

Now Obama is trying to hide all this, by saying that “true patriots” got panicked after 9/11. Says he:” “We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened.”

We? Maybe you understand why it happened, but you are trying to say the CIA and others did it all, whereas they obeyed orders by plutocrats from above. And their obsequious servants down below, from the gutter.

Mr. John Yoo, the lawyer, is a Berkeley Law Professor of pure Asian genetics, and who saw an occasion to make a name for himself in plutocratic circles with deviant legal reasoning in his famous “TORTURE MEMO”. Yoo was Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States.

It was signed in August 2002 by Assistant Attorney General Bybee, now an all-powerful Federal Judge, also a denizen of Berkeley. The memo advised the CIA, the DOD, and Bush and his goons that torture was legal. (So probably is slavery if you call it something else!)

So Obama, once again, is covering-up for the forces of evil. And the message is: if you, little mongrels, get out of line, and rebel against the powers that be, remember torture is contrary to what we are, and we get away with it.

You can escape the judgment of today’s pundits. But not that of history.

Patrice Ayme’

Obama, Neo-Con

About this title: Obama enabled maximally prominent Neo-Cons to represent and govern the USA. When I asked Silicon Valley cognoscenti what it meant for a supposedly “democratic” presidency to nominate maximally prominent neofascists, I was told: “They represent the HIDDEN government of the USA.”

For years it was incorrect to point out that emperor Obama had no clothes, that all he had was playing with his brown skin. That observation was called racist. Yet, it has been made recently, loud and clear, by leftists of renown: president Obama has been incompetent, and a sell-out. As Thomas Frank puts it in Salon:

“Right-wing obstruction could have been fought: An ineffective and gutless presidency’s legacy is failure.

Yes, we know, the crazy House. But we were promised hope and change on big issues. We got no vision and less action.”

Change? Skin Color

Within days of Obama’s accession to power, banks were given public money without any counterparts. This was an outrageous theft of public money. I advocated it was “Time for RICO“. I may as well have told the mafia to summon the police.

Just as Reagan-Bush 25 years ago, and Sweden later, after 2007, the UK and Germany nationalized giant banks such as Northern Rock, RBS, Hypo Real Estate, when they had to give them hundreds of billions to save them. Instead in the USA, the banks were given trillions, without so much as a change of management; the fact the banks were given money was hidden by the simple device of TARP, then giving plenty more to banks through Quantitative Easing, to reimburse TARP…

To the great applause of conscientious, politically correct “liberals”, such as drummer boy Krugman.

This has world consequences: it made American financiers rule the world, more than ever; GE, saved by Obama’s $60 billion, just bought a French giant competitor, Alsthom. This is the Faustian deal of the USA: its plutocrats may rule the USA, but they also rule the world, and that increasing empire profits average Americans.

The dying Roman Republic went through a similar Faustian bargain with its increasing militarization: the resulting empire profited the Populus Romanus, while killing the Republic. The most insidious corruption corrupts the souls.

Real Change: Beggar In Chief

[Profitable presidency: Obama spent at least 400 day raising billions from the richest plutocrats.]

Then, unbelievably, Obama kept on saying he could not do a thing without Republican’s approval (never mind that he had 60% of the votes in the Senate, and a strong majority in Congress). It was, Obama explained disingenuously, a new way of doing politics by consensus. The savages opposing him rejected it, Obama’s fanatics informed us, thus making him a failure.

In truth, Obama had such strong control of all the government and the legislative, he could easily have imposed “Medicare For All“.

I have said all of this in the past, but, from another pen, my point of view comes out stronger. Thomas Frank again:

“America should have changed but didn’t… [how] to explain an age when every aspect of societal breakdown was out in the open and the old platitudes could no longer paper it over—when the meritocracy was clearly corrupt, when the financial system had devolved into organized thievery, when everyone knew that the politicians were bought and the worst criminals went unprosecuted and the middle class was in a state of collapse and the newspaper pundits were like street performers… for an audience that had lost its taste for mime and seriousness both. It was a time when every thinking person could see that the reigning ideology had failed, that an epoch had ended, that the shitty consensus ideas of the 1980s had finally caved in—and when an unlikely champion arose from the mean streets of Chicago to keep the whole thing propped up nevertheless.”

As early as 2009, it dawned on me that Obama was neither incompetent nor a sellout. I said so on some leftist sites, and was promptly thrown out, as a “troll” and a “Neo-Con”. Obama was a Neo-Conservative from the start and was chosen for that, by the higher-ups of the “democratic” party: they gave him a keynote speech, and their top master operative.

Obama practiced Dick Morris and Bill Clinton’s theory of triangulation — basically the democrats do the republicans’ work for them: democrats deregulated, balanced the budget, and unleashed the financial markets of the USA, while allowing huge corporations to pay no taxes. Clinton declared that the “era of big government is over.” Big banks, small government.

All of this covered by noises to the contrary while the notorious weasel, Dick Morris, chuckled. Weasels are somewhat below apes in the evolution of evolution. Not to worry, French judges never heard of Dick Morris, and he is white, in any case.

Nearly all American leftists, including myself, did not see early enough that Obama was a Neo-Con with Martin Luther King’s mien. We got manipulated by his speeches and rhetoric. His King-style voice rhythms sucked all back to the nostalgia of the progressive 1960s.

We were blinded by political correctness. I recovered quickly, in the first few weeks of Obama’s administration: it was clear Obama was all in rhetoric, and no action.

Obama claimed he could not do a thing, because the “Republicans” blocked him. In truth, fifth generation plutocrats such as Max Baucus, a major democratic senator, were the excuse Obama evoked, in democratic circles, to say he could not a thing. (That Max Baucus lather authored “Obamacare”, is pretty telling.)

I wrote, on this site, about the commonality between Obama’s behavior and that of the “boys” who used to serve white masters in Kenya. Some in my family wrote to me I had trampled on their hearts, and had no common decency. I replied my decency was uncommon. (No doubt it made their stays at Camp David less comfy, so they have hated me ever since.)

Obama is a far more competent Neo-Con than Bush Jr., or even Reagan, ever were. Those had opponents. Obama got collaborators, all over. No banana peel shaking for him. No need for French judges.

The two Bushes generated a backlash and really could only rule in secret, or though devious means. Obama instead pushed the agenda of Wall Street Banks, USA corporations, and the CIA/NSA much further than Bush ever dreamed of, by going public about it while carefully misrepresenting the truth.

For example, Obama officially clashed with Netanyahu. However, below that surface of enmity, extensive cooperation developed, say on anti-missile systems (the fact I like those systems is irrelevant). Such systems were crucial to allow Israel to not negotiate with the Palestinians.

Clinton was the best president the republicans ever had. Under him Franklin D. Roosevelt’s revolutionary reforms of finance and banks were completely undone; Rubin, that is Goldman Sachs and their followers were solidly in command. Clinton, while officially at war with Newt Gingrich, was actually doing the work the Republicans could never have done, had Bush Senior still been president.

As the Republicans got all they wanted, the debate switched further to the right. When the democrats acquired control of Congress in 2006, they went right. Pelosi and company accepted to give all the money banks and shadow banks wanted in 2008. Without any counterparts. Obama became the best president the Neo-Cons could dream of.

Obama once convoked all the top bankers to the White House. He announced, triumphal, that the Obama team was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks”. He delivered. Thanks to political correctness, nobody important dared say that the emperor had no clothes. That, would, indeed, have deemed to be racist. Still is. But not for long.

The picture that will stick with Obama is the one I observed six years ago: a black boy, serving the white masters. and not for brains: under Obama, the share of scientific publications by the USA has collapsed. Why? Under Obama, plutocratization has jumped (as I said, because of the treatment of finance). So it has in academia. But money has deleterious effects on research (if nothing else, it creates the wrong mood and obsession).

Obama ran his first campaign as “change you can believe in”. Yes, none at all. Obama, at best consolidated Bush’s Neo-Con rule. At worst he is still the engulfing lie that appearance is all what reality is about.

Patrice Ayme’

USA’s War Crimes

It is completely obvious to all people of good faith that the government of the USA, and much of the oligarchy of the USA were culprit of activities punished by the Nuremberg Tribunal, when they committed in Iraq:

Crimes against peace:

(A) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (A).

[Thanks Dominique Deux for the reminder.]

George Bush Dodges An Imaginary Torpedo

When the “Jihadists” of ISIS conquered Mosul, American made helicopters started to fly in their support. Obviously, they were piloted by ex-officers of Saddam Hussein’s army… Supporting the “Jihadist” army. Thus the present battle in Iraq is a direct counter-attack against the fascist dictatorship installed in Baghdad by Bush and his ilk. Bush’s war is going on. And the USA is not winning.

By brandishing the name “Bush”, for an aircraft carrier, the USA’s oligarchy has chosen to flaunt one of its plutocratic symbol: the Bush’s dynasty.

Yes, George Bush is now an American nuclear carrier: American carriers used to be named according to Revolutionary, or otherwise democratic battles (Yorktown, Lexington, Midway, etc.). Now the carriers are named after American plutocrats, and a pedigree involving collaboration Hitler (Bush), apparently even better, being president without election (Ford… Or is that for helping Hitler?) is best.

American plutocrats play very hard on the international scene…In their own interest. They don’t hesitate to impose internal American law worldwide. The same American law that makes the USA into the largest Tax Haven for Plutocrats, in the universe, by far.

See for a recent example the usage of American law against the giant European bank BNP. On June 5, Obama claimed that American justice was independent, and that it was not the case in other countries. Here is Obama, with characteristic Washington hypocrisy:

“I do not pick up the phone and tell the attorney general how to prosecute cases that have been brought. I do not push for settlements of cases that have been brought. Those are decisions that are made by an independent Department of Justice… Perhaps it is a different tradition than exists in other countries, but it is designed to make sure that the rule of law is not in any way impacted by political expediency.”

When U.S. attorneys make final decisions, Obama said, “I’ll read about it in the newspaper just like everybody else.”

However, in 2003, the violations of International Law by the oligarchy of the USA were extensive throughout the leading society of the USA. Media such as the New York Times fabricated evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Applying a country’s own law to violate International Law is grave.

The USA, in a revealing act, is sending the giant nuclear aircraft carrier “George Bush” into the Persian Gulf, in apparent support of Iran. George Bush! Got it? USA sends carrier USS Plutocrat to Persian Gulf! Guess what? American companies got the green light to prepare for sanction busting with Iran.

While BNP is sued for doing just that.

Conclusion?

BNP: Indians, Red Skins, best when dead. American style Justice, in the highest, most efficient, free market tradition. Department of Justice and U.S. Cavalry, hand in hand.

American plutocrats, tax dodging USA corporations, plutocrats: good guys.

***

Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.

Introductory note: Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to “formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal.”

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle Vl

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

A) Crimes against peace: 

1) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

2) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (1)

B) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

C) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

***

AMERICAN “JUSTICE” IS A CRIMINAL ACCOMPLICE:

A large portion of the leading oligarchy of the USA committed the crimes in bold above, either in preparation, during, and consecutively to the invasion of Iraq.

Moreover the Department of Justice of the USA, that Obama’s mouth is so full of, is certainly, by not pursuing these crimes, an accomplice under the Nuremberg Trial principles, as described above.

***

IDIOCY IS NO EXCUSE FOR A WAR CRIME CONSPIRACY:

When Obama speaks about the independence of the Department of Justice, he sounds like someone who believes only idiots listen to him. Why does he think that President Kennedy made his own brother Attorney General? Because the oligarchy of the USA was, at the time, pervaded with various satanic principles, such as institutionalized racism (school, voting, laws),  mixing it up with the mafia (as in Cuba), and a state solidly held by people who had enabled Nazism (such as the Dulles brothers, ex-employees of Bush, Harriman and company, who held State and the CIA).

Well, sorry, too much thinking is obviously against the best interest of Obama. Some are just obsessed by their skins, not the highest principles.

This is exactly why those with the highest principles have to come to the fore. Be it by just stating the obvious: by refusing to prosecute criminal individuals of the highest order, the USA is in danger of flaunting the highest criminality as the highest principle.

But what else to expect from a country that claims to be a democracy, while naming a carrier after a president nominated by Richard Nixon? What about the USS Al Capone, as we are at it?

Morality, often, albeit not always, wins. Or let’s say, it’s one of the largest weapons in any army’s arsenal. It could be a vile morality, such as the one of Saddam Hussein’s regime: it worked, better, for Iraq than the murderous chaos Bush replaced it with. Or it could be that  Genghis Khan’s imposed on Mongolia, so efficient, wars were won, one after the other.

When Gbagbo, the Ivorian president, had turned into a bloody dictator, Mr. Obama, the one who does not interfere with Justice, so he claims when it’s convenient to him, proposed Gbagbo a golden exile in the USA, complete with “Visiting Professorships” (in the fully appropriate Plutocratic universities).

Bush is more than a vicious man, or a plutocrat. He has become a supremely hypocritical moral principle, and symbol, that plutocrats can get away with anything, including mass murder, and deliberate mass lying to wage a war of aggression. As long as Washington takes their orders.

(The evidence for mass lying is now to the fore: the head of British intelligence reported to PM Blair that Bush, as early as September 2011 wanted to attack Iraq, and was actively doctoring intelligence, thanks to “weasels“. The memo was published by the Times. So why is not Blair on trial?)

The problem is that infernal morality has no bearing on physics, or chemistry.

Along 1500 kilometers the Pacific coast of the USA, it was just announced that acidifying waters are dissolving the shells of tiny sea snails. War against the Earth: what could go wrong?

Why don’t we dissolve the fundamental cause of this, the plutocratic morality, instead? Judge Bush.

Patrice Aymé

Fix Iraq? Judge Bush

The war started by G.W. Bush in 2003 is still on-going. The quick gains of 11,000 Islamist warriors, routing a much larger “Iraqi” army is explained only by the support of the Sunni population and of many of those who made Iraq work, before Bush destroyed it.

That Jihadist army is an international body headed by Iraqis (of Al Qaeda obedience, in the past), financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, sprinkled with some of Saddam Hussein’s generals and even some French (!) and Chechen. After the rout of Wednesday, Iran immediately rushed military “advisers” to the Shiite power in Baghdad. (Iran hated Saddam Hussein, and hates the Sunnis, all the more as the most sacred Shiite sites are south of Baghdad.)

Our Leaders: Greedy Mass Murderers

The mistake the USA made was to dissolve the 700,000 strong Iraqi army and the Baathist, secular party that held Iraq as a civil society. That mistake was actually a crime, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention outlaws the destruction of a state. That the state was deliberately dismantled by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld is beyond question: so thorough was the dismantlement of the state, that all-important Iraqi museums and archeological sites were left defenseless.

Thus Bush and his ilk attacked not just Iraq, but all of humanity, not just by the atrocious examples they gave, but by the destruction of humanity’s memory.

Bush used to repeat: ”Saddam Hussein killed his own people.” Right, and Bush killed many times more. During the Iraq-Iran war, a war the West perhaps instigated, and, certainly actively supported and collaborated with, 5,000 civilian Kurds got chemically assassinated. Hussein and “Chemical Ali” were judged for this, and executed.

However, the number of Iraqis killed, after Bush’s attack, and consecutive to it, is of the order of 500,000, or maybe much more. So:

Saddam: 5,000 killed. Hanged.

Bush: 500,000+ killed. Painting.

Blair: 500,000+ killed. Still an authority of the EU, loudly praying for more bombing of Iraq.

Now the old Baathist and old Iraqi army are counterattacking. And there is nothing the USA can do: the counter-offensive is mixed with the (Sunni) population, so aerial strikes are not an effective, nor moral, option.

All there is to do is watch. If one wants to help, maybe one could put Bush and his accomplices on trial for war crimes. That would impress the Iraqis. That would build some real clout. But will the USA have the guts?

Let me explain slowly: the respect of law comes only from the fact all men, and children, know early on, that all are the same as far as the law is concerned. The lower moral types, those obsessed by the market, those who claim all the time that anything can be fixed through buying and selling, those who claim we are living in a globalized world, those tiny critters who rule, have to be treated the way they advocate.

They have to understand, with their tiny minds, that the market is nothing without the government, and the government nothing without an army driven by morality.

If it’s a global market, then, it’s a global morality. That means, a global law.

It’s high time for the USA to judge its war criminals. As France judged her own. How difficult is it to write a warrant of arrest for a guy who, by his wanton, cruel, and vicious acts, brought the death of hundreds of thousands of people?

And don’t forget Blair the Liar. Unbelievably that murderous Bliar, a plutocrat with more than eight residences, and an enormous fortune made as a payment for his satanic activities, is the “European Peace Envoy to the Middle East”. He is of course advising to commit more murderous bombing in Iraq.

Blair said he could not be judged for his war crimes (whereas Desmond Tutu and many other prestigious personalities advised that he should be). His argument was that the United Nations allowed the attack in Iraq. That’s actually false. What’s true is that a vote authorizing the attack did not happen.

The French Republic warned Bush that any attempt at the UN to allow for an attack would result in the exact opposite, namely an explicit interdiction of such an action, and that France had the votes in the Security Council.

So there was no authorization vote. The EU ought to be ashamed to use Blair in any function except as the main attraction in the International Criminal Court. Instead, Laurent Gbagbo, an Ivoirian president who allegedly used undemocratic means to stay in power too long, is going to be judged.

Gbagbo, in the worst possible case, was co-responsible of the deaths of few thousand people.  Blair, at least half a million (Bush would not have gone to war without Blair).

Gbagbo versus Blair: now, that’s true racism. Blair is just white, a plutocrat connected to the highest leading circles, and a pseudo converted Catholic (Blair cynically used that religious calling to say that he won’t have done it without the Lord’s agreement; so, on top of everything, the creep is straight out of the Crusades!)

The British and USA government officials deliberately lied to the United Nations. That sort of manipulation, by itself, to justify a war of aggression, is a war crime (the legal precedent being Von Ribbentrop at Nuremberg). Von Ribbentrop was hanged, as deserved. But then why are Blair and Bush still free to run around?

France executed around 40,000 Nazi collaborators in the 1944-48 period. Including an ex-Prime Minister (Pierre Laval)… And some authentic World War One heroes. Sometimes, recovering one’s honor, hope and human rights, let alone a Republican, Democratic Constitution, requires some work. And some courage. Can the USA step to the plate?

The Jihadist army is propelled by the prestige attached to fighting the bloody mass murdering tyrant Bachar Assad, scion of Assad. Thus the action of the USA and Britain, by  not striking the monster last summer, contributed to the Jihadist cause.

Ladies and gentlemen interventionists, you want to help Iraqis? Show them what democracy is about. It starts with justice. You want to help Iraq? Judge and condemn those Westerners who threw it into murderous chaos. They are easier to arrest than Ben Laden. And they killed much more people. And they are a much graver case. They are to civilization what a tumor is to a brain. Shall I repeat their names, or you still don’t get it?

Patrice Aymé

Emotions Are Not Free

People say: ”Oh, we are free to think and feel as we see fit!” But this is not true in several deep, even brutal, unavoidable, ways, many of them hidden. Elites have always known that hearts are the core of what needs to be controlled. On this their power rests, since before there were pyramids, and they stood.

Only 7,000 Gestapo agents watched 80 million Germans. Hitler could not have held Germany with them alone. So how did Hitler do it? With very strong emotions.

Pascal famously said: “Le Coeur a ses raisons que la Raison n’a point.” Those reasons of the heart deserve to be known, not just because they are reasons, too, and not just because they dictate to rationality itself, but also because they can be manipulated in ways that ought to be, and are already partly, made unlawful.

Instead of denying that there is spiritual and emotional control out there, as the meek insist, I propose to embrace control… be it only to dissect it with gusto.

Throughout the reigns of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, “progressives” and “liberals” have been played like violins. It has not been much better in Europe.

In both cases, the People was persuaded to engage in public service by forking public money to private banks so that the hyper rich could stay hyper rich (it was done with semantic smokes and mirrors. To this day, most of We The People understands nothing to what happened).

How was We The People made so blind? To start with, even indignation was in short supply.

Pulling at their heart strings of We The People just so, enabled ever increasing plutocratization. That’s done by hammering continually the fallacious association between bad economy, and deficits. And thus impregnating the emotion, in the public, that public spending is bad (and thus implicitly that the rich ought to go tax-free).

How hearts can be bent out of their natural shape.

A well-known saying is that one person’s freedom ends where another nose’s starts. But that’s not so easy: after all, just threatening to hit someone else is an assault. Also what about public nose, public space, etc.? Are plutocrats not infringing on everybody’s public space when they made society so that only their money is endowed with power?

In any case, all and any law controls actions. However, controlling emotions and thoughts is just controlling the origin of actions.

The best minds of the (French) Republic, after a monster fight to death with racial mass murdering fascism of the demented type, in the period 1914-1945, were confronted to a paradox: Germany was, in 1900, the most literate country in the world. However enough of the German population got maneuvered into beastly madness to make their nation the tool of monstrosity.

What went wrong? The heart. German hearts had been taught wrong. Nietzsche screamed this from every roof top, by 1888, and before. A teenager such as Einstein fully agreed, and fled Germany (Einstein the rebel, later did enough discoveries for 4 or 5 Nobel Prizes in physics, most of them for work in… Quantum Physics).

German hearts had been bent out of shape by the plutocrats who owned Germany (enabled by a somewhat self-destructive alliance-symbiosis with various Anglo-American plutocrats).

Starting even before the World War was finished, many medium level intellectuals in France deduced that an example had to be made, to strike the hearts even more than the certainly grandiose, but somewhat suicidal, Republic’s attack against Hitler in September 1939.

So the French Republic executed more than 40,000 Nazi collaborators, with a judicial ferocity that even republican Rome never knew. But not just this. Anti-hatred laws were passed.

Some will object: ”Wait, they execute all these collaborators, and then pass anti-hatred laws? Is not that self contradictory?” No. You see, the collaborators were guilty. Those they killed were innocent. Anti-hatred laws are against the killing mood. Killing killers is also a way to kill the same killing mood, especially for future reference.

So let’s recapitulate: the criminal insanity that gripped Germany, a pure product of plutocratic control, was a case of total manipulation of the deepest heart strings. The same happened in places such as the USSR, where dozens of millions were killed because of the emotional deformation of common moujiks.

One could see something similar in the USA when G.W. Bush launched his legion in a war of aggression in Iraq. It was a time when most citizens of the USA goose stepped behind Bush, just because an employee of the CIA, Bin Laden, had killed .1% of the number of individuals that the actions of Carter had killed in Afghanistan. Of course that made no emotional sense: the USA had started it all, and pursued it all, and taught Bin Laden the nastiest ways. Instead of marching to Baghdad, justice ought to have marched to Washington.

Yet, just as German hearts had been taught it was all the fault of the Jews, and Russians, that of the Capitalists (whatever that is), the Americans got emotionally persuaded that it was all the fault of Bin Laden’s enemy, Saddam Hussein (whatever “it” was).

So hearts are already getting manipulated. It’s high time that justice gets to see how lawful those manipulations are. It’s all a question of manipulating hearts for the best. As it is already done, all too often, for the worst.

For example the fossil fuels plutocrats have made the public in many Anglo countries (USA, Canada, Australia), hysterical CO2 deniers. How? The fossil fuel maniacs spent enough money to incite heart manipulators to teach the right notion. Hence a new religion, climate denial. A religion made to serve the likes of the Koch brothers, mighty plutocrats them all.

As long as the emotion that there is nothing wrong with fossil fuels, and CO2 reigns, it will be hard to do anything serious against the CO2 mania. How to feel right about it? Well, maybe by realizing that spewing CO2 is a form of hatred. And there the law can help.

Hatred is an emotion, but it is not a free emotion anymore. It is an emotion under watch, that can be struck by the law.  

Hate speech has become criminal, even in the USA. The fact such laws were duplicated from France does not make them any less American. Total freedom of expressed emotions is already a thing of the past, and rightly so.

I have no problem doing the same at the United Nations, and even using anti-hate laws as a ram against customs that I don’t like (such as circumcision, or regimes that are too satanic). So it’s a matter of legislating my superior taste… ;-)!

Some, such as Tom Alex, a contributor to the comments on this site, have objected that: “How can feelings be criminal? This is absolute totalitarianism, where the state -and actually a FOREIGN state- believes it can and should have a say and furthermore control and penalize feelings through some judge. Plutocrats would absolutely love that. Been fired and have hard feelings towards your ex-boss? You’re a hateful ****, and should go to jail. Posting against plutocrats? You’re spreading hate.”

The origin of Tom Alex’s worries were my approval of the indictment of Bob Dylan for “public insult and incitation to hatred”, for comparing (existing, innocent) Croats to (dead) Nazis, and justifying a hatred (existing) Serbs are supposed to “sense” when exposed to their “blood”, the usual recital of those who want to justify hateful antagonistic atavism.

A few points: one can have all the feelings and thoughts one wants. The problem is PUBLICLY EXPRESSED hateful emotions, of the UNJUSTIFIED type.

Thus, the devil is in the details. I am going to come out with a stridently hateful (some will say) essay against (the hateful gross and mass murdering friendly leadership of) Japan. I don’t mind, it’s the exact target of that mental torpedoes volley. What I will publicly say is both true and justified. That makes it completely different.

Zola went to jail, big time, during the Dreyfus affair for the famous “J’Accuse!”. In it, him, and other top intellectuals, accused publicly the elite of the French Republic of a criminal conspiracy. Well, they were right. Ultimately, everybody got exonerated, starting with Captain (later Colonel) Dreyfus. More than that: anti-Judaism in France got lethally wounded (this is why most Jews in France survived WWII’s Gestapo, whereas nearly all Dutch Jews died).

If I suggest that French and Croat Nazi collaborators of the worst type ought to have been executed. Well, that’s OK, because those were terrible people doing horrendous things. A trial would determine that those people ought to have suffered the worst treatment, indeed. In this spirit, Norway, the Netherlands, and others, re-instituted the death penalty against Nazi collaborators after WWII, just for them. Fine.

Having strong anti-UNJUSTIFIED-hatred laws will help the search for truth.

And that’s what we need. You want to hate KGB’s Putin, or Tojo-loving Abe? Be my guest. And do it publicly, and question why Russia and Japan need to humiliate themselves that much, while, implicitly, thanks to the brutality they deploy and worship, threatening us all.

The calculus of hate and aggression needs to be refined. Because justice and progress need to be armed and stronger than the alternative.

For example GW Bush ought to be prosecuted for war crimes. Among them, war of aggression, a hate crime.

Attacking North Korea, even preventively, would not be a war of aggression, as North Korean leaders already threatened the USA (and others) with nuclear strikes (!). Similarly, France’s unilateral attack of Hitler in September 1939, was not a war of aggression, whatever the Nazis said at the time. Indeed, the Nazis had repeatedly attacked civilization and human rights first.

Hating hatred for real requires justice to be involved. One cannot leave plutocrats, be they the Kaiser, Stalin, or G.W. Bush to be free to mold, knead and brutalize hearts as they see fit. As civilization progresses, and becomes ever more intelligent, just as a matter of survival, so justice has to.

Patrice Aymé

***

Notes: On French trans-national jurisdiction. There is a common European citizenship. It’s entirely in the realm of French justice to react when citizen of the same polity (Europe) are hated by whoever, be it a citizen of the USA.

Moreover, for questions of Human Rights, French justice tends to apply worldwide.

On the USA’s indifference to the plutocratic obscenity, a learned emotion: Watch Obama meeting, twice, with all the plutocrats he could find, in December 2013. First with the health care crats. Just six of them, around the table with their crat in chief, made 100 million dollars, in the preceding few months. One could see the problem of USA health care, just there: the filth of riches.

Then there was the meeting with the high tech spies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc.): how can we manipulate the truth? By flaunting his associations to the hyper rich he regularly begs for money like a pigeon hungry for crumbs, Obama has taught everybody in the USA a weird, twisted, masochistic, debasingly insane emotion, gratification by plutocratization. A new sort of bully pulpit. Call it the pigeon perch.