Posts Tagged ‘China’

Big History View Of China, How It Relates To Hong Kong

August 18, 2019

How did China get united, 22 centuries ago? Under the rule of law. The state of Qin grew, over the centuries, from relentless application of the law, just like the other greatest civilization, Rome. This mood, of the rule of law being paramount, is why the generals of the First Emperor were able to conquer China… Very similarly to what the Roman Republic did, at exactly the same time, and for the exact same reasons: Rome won, and Qin won, because people accept to be ruled by law, if it is fair and clairvoyant. The Mission Civilisatrice is no lure: it wins wars. Superior war fighting capability comes from superior philosophy. Inferior philosophy brings extinction. 

In the end, the First Emperor slipped, and led China astray, for millennia to come, when he ordered the books of 100 philosophy schools destroyed. Right, records, science, medicine were preserved… So the disaster was not as great in China as the Christian generated destruction of the Greco-Roman heritage in the West. (Yet, in the West, the Franks, a minority, took over, and, as a minority, they had to be smarter, and thus domesticated Christianism, rendering it innocuous… for the next five centuries… before it rose its ugly snout again…)

However, that Qin instigated wanton destruction of higher thinking, and the respect thereof,  set-up in China a mood of embracing a lack of wisdom and tolerance for exotic thinking, which, in the end, had ethical consequences (and from there, social, economic, and ultimately, military). That mood of irreverence for higher thinking out of the box, prevented China to learn to treat individuals as well as they were in the West.

In Francia, in 655 CE, the government of the Imperium Francorum led by queen Bathilde, a former English slave, outlawed slave trading; this was imposed all around Europe. For example in 1066 CE, when the Franks conquered England… and freed the slaves, 20% of the population. As Aristotle pointed out, if one had no slaves, one would need machines. The Franks developed those machines. European visitors to China. around or before Marco Polo, were struck by the fact that cutting trees in China involved hundreds of people carrying those trees around… when similar tasks were accomplished by a few in Europe, thanks to various tech tricks. 

What Xi wants to be, when he grows up? Hopefully, the Present Masters of China Will Learn That This Is All Over Now: Xi Can’t be Qin Shi Huang!

(Huang, emperor, maybe, Shi, first, certainly not…)

Treating individuals better in the West, as was imposed under the Merovingians and Carolingians, brought up a technological, and even bioengineering explosion: human muscle and multitude had to be replaced by mechanical advantage or specially bred animals (for example hydraulic hammer to forge huge iron beams, hence the cathedrals… and, a bit later, field artillery). [1]

An indirect result of this tech explosion was Western military superiority, which was so great, even the Mongols left Western Europe alone (after conferring among each other about why their ancestors the Huns had been defeated in France, eight centuries prior). Thus Western Europe was unconquered, for two millennia, insuring independent ferocity of thinking and self-worth, spurring inquiry of the indomitable human spirit, with more freedom than occupied China.   

Indeed, in contrast, in the last millennium, China spent most of its time ruled by foreigners (Jurchen, Mongols, Manchus). Mongol generals even proposed to annihilate China, demographically (holocaust) and even ecologically (turning northern China into a steppe) The rule of law, intellect and science suffered in China, from this foreign occupation.

In the Twentieth Century, China reacted, mostly by adopting Western ideologies: rule of law, then Marxism, then the sort of mercantilist, tech led development leading Western powers, used in the Nineteenth Century; powers such as the USA, Germany, UK, France… even Japan (a new honorary Western power!)

So far, so good. 

However to lead, one needs to create ideas, not just mass produce goods. Western European supremacy was born out of human rights (when the Franks put back monotheism in its place, by replacing Christianism by tolerance and pushing back Islamism, after outlawing slavery). If China doesn’t learn to drive the rule of law from human right, it will just become one more dangerous super power, like Prussia, and the Second, and Third Reich of Germany.

Democracy and Human Rights are not just fair. Humanity in full, is made for fairness, and blossom fully that way. Democracy and human rights are how one maximizes mental creativity… And thus military superiority. Hence, should the Chinese dictatorship decide to crush democracy, once again, it is Chinese security that it is also crushing, long term.

Hong Kong is an irreplaceable gift to China, an antidote to Chinese intellectual and governmental fascism: it forces China to learn to become more tolerant to thinking outside of the particular box which pleases at this moment the present emperor (right now, Mr. Xi). [2]

Destroying that gift would instill an even more ignorant mood.

But ignorant moods are exactly what plutocracy loves.

Lack of construction for homes and dearth of living wages, have been a chronic disaster, throughout the West. It’s particularly bad in Hong Kong, but also in all top producing metropolises, such as Paris, San Francisco Bay Area, Tokyo, etc. Not only are homes unaffordable for the jobs at hand, but the economy suffers from the unaffordability crisis.

Then We The People, observing the collusion between plutocrats and government, revolt… by asking for more (real, that is direct) democracy. And that goes through decreasing the power of tycoons, so precious to governments. Ironically enough, what is Xi, but a super-tycoon, a super-typhoon putting equality to waste?

OK, Xi was an abused child, an abused princeling, abused by the Cultural Revolution. Xi suffered a past of violence. But that’s a diagnostic, not an excuse.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] The cognitively challenged friend of monopolist plutocrat Bill Gates, Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel; Collapse) didn’t understand any of this, that the husbandry of Europe over nature was not the product of chance, but human will, deployed over millennia (although in his latest book, Diamond shows flickers of progressing wisdom, as he ponders successful cases of government intervention… more or less mangled by his data management…) All the riches of Western Europe were greatly the fruit of will, indeed. The same holds for China (or Kerala)… But, as I point out above, and why, to a smaller extent. And the Beijing hysteria about Hong Kong is a case in point, that Chinese governmentalism, however glorious, fundamental and effective, can’t be the whole story:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/synthesis-found-governmentalism/

***

[2] France is another example where centralism, and the accompanying governmental, social and intellectual fascism has run havoc. Louis XIV, a bloody stupid monster, threw 10% of the French population out, so that it could better terrorize the rest, and please his fascist god. That was aggravated by his grandson, Louis XV, and Napoleon…

Zhōngguó, Central State, is the most common Mandarin name for China in modern times. The first appearance of 中國 on an artifact was in the Western Zhou on a ritual vessel. It is formed by combining the characters zhōng () meaning “central” or “middle”, and guó (/), representing “state” or “states”; in contemporary usage, “nation”. Prior to the Qin unification of China “Zhongguo” referred to the “Central States“; the connotation was the primacy of a culturally distinct core area, centered on the Yellow River valley, as distinguished from the tribal periphery. Hence the common mistranslation as “Middle Kingdom”.

The Chinese Riddle, & How To Keep It Nice

July 18, 2016

China is the other great civilizational center. The primary one being the Indo-European ensemble (which crucially incorporated Egypt, where a lot of what came to be known as Greek mathematics, was discovered).

To understand Europe, the last 500,000 years have proved necessary (Neanderthals started to burn coal, 80,000 years ago, foe example, and explored immensely deep caves, 165,000 years). In the case of China, the evolution of the last 5,000 years are crucial to understand how China became China.

 

China: A World Within The World, But Not Quite The Center Of Everything

China: A World Within The World, But Not Quite The Center Of Everything

China is the other great civilizational center. Much of what China uses as civilizational instruments was developed in situ, from writing, to the number system, to much philosophy. However, that philosophy was unbalanced, too much under the influence of Confucius (whose works have been under care from the same family inside the same city for 60 generations or more).

China developed an examination system which, in theory, enabled the most cognitively qualified to rule. Thus Mandarins and not aristocrats were in command. At least in theory.

This system, admirable in principle, was flawed in practice, as China got terminally invaded at least twice. The Mongol invasion came close to annihilation, when some of Genghis Khan’s generals proposed to exterminate the Chinese and change the ecology! (The generals knew they could turn much of China into a steppe similar to much of Mongolia, by cutting the forests and bringing massive herds of cattle, goats, sheep…)

The primary civilization center is the Indo-European ensemble (which crucially incorporated Egypt, where a lot of what came to be known as Greek mathematics, was discovered).

Now we have basically just one civilization, worldwide, so the misadventures of China are highly  instructive.

To understand Europe, the last 500,000 years have proved necessary (Neanderthals started to burn coal, 80,000 years ago). In the case of China, the last 5,000 years are crucial.

Now, granted all and any explanation can only be incomplete. What is important is to introduce new ideas, and that includes new hierarchy in what is more important, and what is not.

Right now, China seems severely influenced by the Germany of the Second Reich, and its incredible fast scientific, technological, mercantilist, and economic expansion… At the cost of a more general, more pacific mood. That uncanny comparison is quite a bit spooky. An evidence is the madness about the south of the South China Sea.

As in Germany, starting 165 years ago, increasing aggressiveness towards foreign powers seems to be the glue which increasingly keeps the dictatorship together. In the case of Germany, the increasing aggressiveness, which had started by attacking Denmark in 1853, went on with the catastrophic apotheosis, encouraged by the US presidency. of the savage surprise attack on the world of August 1914. Naturally enough, it was followed by the encore of Nazism. Yes, it’s not a reassuring comparison. But the same psychohistorical forces are in play. Psychohistory rules national moods and the actions they lead to (Isaac Asimov wrote a book on this; the real, live, historical case was the second foundation of the Roman Empire, the “Renovation of the Roman Empire made official by Roman emperor Charlemagne…). 

On the reassuring side, China adopted, and accepted to be guided, by a huge chunk of Western philosophy, a Franco-German contraption sensitive to the nastiness of great capital. That was a huge philosophical revolution, but it was made possible only by a great openness of mind (in part learned in Paris by the top leader of Communist China, such as Chou En Lai and Deng Tsiao Ping)

China used to rile against capital. Yet, who has the most capital under command in the world, after the USA? China.

Nevertheless, to accept a distant philosophy, extremely alien to China, China had to open its collective mind and eyes gigantically. And intelligence itself is something one can learn to acquire.

The kindest attitude with China right now may well be to show to it that its aggressiveness in the south of the South China sea can only lead to war, even a world war. And that China cannot win it. Australia has started to do just that by acquiring, with US help, a fleet of the best submarines in the world, made in France. (In World War Two, after the Americans learned to make torpedoes which actually exploded, their submarines were one of the main factors in closing the Pacific to the fascist Japanese military.)

The Han are dominating the Middle Kingdom as never before. One hundred nations are now submitted to them. Their languages are even disappearing. (My own daughter is learning Mandarin, BTW.) That’s all very good for the Han. They are now very much richer than before, not just from their considerable industry and genius, and change of philosophy, adopting instead European philosophy. Those increased riches also come from occupying Tibet and Xinjiang.

The Han should not push their luck with aggressive military and imperialistic distractions. Adopting just a piece of European philosophy and history, while ignoring the rest, plenty of Dark Side in full evidence and how to control it, can only lead to an unbalanced mind. And, from there, dangerous, irreversible courses of action… Of the sort Europe is all too familiar with.    

Patrice Ayme’

 

How Civilizations Go Down. Why There Is Hope

January 2, 2016

Gloom and doom go only that far. A number of commenters, or authors such as Machiavelli, entertained pretty abysmal considerations on humanity and its future.

In the case of Machiavelli, pessimism was understandable: he rode two horses condemned to decline and fall, namely the Republic of Florence (which was turning into a plutocracy), and Caesare Borgia, Cardinal at 18 years of age, who later resigned his church position in an attempt to seize power in Italy, a place where Spain had invaded the south (freed centuries prior, by the Franks, from the Muslims), France was trying to hold onto Naples (but lost because the Spanish general in command was too good). Most of the peninsula was covered by forts and domains which had feuded for centuries.

Nowadays, we have grounds to be optimistic. I will explain why below. However with a caveat: history is now flowing extremely fast, as we are approaching a technological and computational, thus theoretical singularity.

We Already Have A Better Understanding Of What Brought Rome Down The First Time, We Can No Doubt Avoid It, The Second Time, With Even More Understanding

We Already Have A Better Understanding Of What Brought Rome Down The First Time, We Can No Doubt Avoid It, The Second Time, With Even More Understanding

There are three reasons why civilizations collapse: invasion, ecological collapse, plutocracy.

I use all the time analogies with Rome’s Decline and Fall, yet on a much grander scale than Edward Gibbon. I root firmly the Decline and Fall as starting in 200 BCE, with the rise of plutocracy. There are a lot of deep analogies between what happened then, and what is happening now.

Yet we also enjoy major differences with Rome. To avoid Rome’s fate, we have to cultivate these differences. (And our gaze turns towards the European Union.)

Rome was a quarter of humanity, and Roma was ALL the civilized, and Republican influence zone. Yes, China, India, Persia, and well before Egypt, were civilized. But only the only drowned and expired Sumerian cities could pretend to have a high Republican index: Sumer invented the bicameral system still in use today. Persia did not, China did not, and, as far as I know, neither did India.

But Rome, like the top Greek cities, was a Republic. However, most Greek cities crashed and burned within a century or so. Rome built a huge empire, and lasted so long, it’s not clear it ever stopped. Although it declined, and fell, it got up again, as the Franks engineered and observed. Thus Rome founded the present political system

Persia was advanced enough to seriously bother Greeks and Romans, it was only or equal civilizational level for a fleeting moment under Darius, and in the late Sixth Century (thus, 1,000 year later). (This is my own observation/theory, sure to rile up some out there!)

All the neighborhood of Rome was vastly inferior. Although the Celts were superior in ocean going ships and metallurgy, and even captured Rome in the Fourth Century BCE, their abominable religion was quite a drag.  Actually, it was such a drag, the Celts embraced Greco-Roman civilization even before Julius Caesar showed up with his ten legions.

The Persian religion, Zoroastrianism was very advanced, arguably more so than Christianism (which copied many of its elements, in particular the obsession with truth and the logos, thanks god). The Middle East got tied down by the instauration of “hydraulic dictatorships” all over. The Persian/Iranian/Mesopotamian ensemble was a vast military mess which never recovered imperially, thus politically, from the People of the Seas invasions.

Now the situation is quite different.

First, the USA is a EUROPEAN COLONY.Rome was not a colony; it was initially occupied by Etruscans, themselves one of the People of the Sea. But, at the same time, the Etruscans civilized Rome. Rome also got civilized by the “Magna Grecia”, the Great Greece of Southern Italy, stating in Nea Polis (Naples).

Second, the mother ship, Europe, gave birth to a gigantic empire. It’s not just that European colonies control the Americas and Australia. France, the USA and Britain Exclusive Economic Zones, EEZs, covers much of the world’s exploitable oceanic depths.

Although weakened by its own crazies (Prussia/Germany/Nazis, Mussolini, Franco, Lenin/Stalin and their subordinates), plus major American plutocratic maneuvering, and in a bad state presently, Europe not quite done yet. After all the good guys (French Republic and British pseudo-monarchy) won. Now the French Republican systems, and monarchies to the same effect, cover Europe. Germany is sister republic to France, in particular.

Third, the Roman Republican system spread way beyond Europe and her colonies. China and India, and most of the rest of the UN have actually adopted (and adapted) many of WESTERN civilization’s better sides. However, China is still a dictatorship, and (partly) India a mess.

Another difference with Rome starts with a similarity: Rome got in a huge ecological crisis, starting around 100 CE. The Romans could not understand what was happening. They said:”The world is getting old”. Well, what was happening is that Romans had exhausted the soils, and the mines. However we know what they did not: tremendous technological progress can enable to change exploitation regimes.

Thus, the fourth difference with Rome; a huge CO2, GHG, Climate Crisis is incoming, but everybody knows about it, and fixes are in sight. A crisis is an opportunity as the Chinese would say.

Hope? People have to learn from history, and that means, the real history. Hyper maneuvering by USA plutocracy happened in much of the Twentieth Century, and is still ongoing right now. People can’t understand that, as long as they don’t realize that, without American plutocracy, Hitler just won’t have happened. At least, not happened as catastrophically as he did.

But there is hope that people, thanks to the Internet, realize that they have been manipulated in both what they know, and what they can hope to achieve. In particular, Direct Democracy is in the best position to succeed ever. The Athenian Republic found difficult to achieve Direct Democracy, because it did not have the Internet. The average Athenian voter was one day’s travel away from the voting booth. Nowadays, the average voter has her, or his hand on the voting device, namely the smartphone. No more excuses.

Objections can be raised. The preceding was a partial answer to several commenters on this site, John, Aaron, GlouconX, Eugen… The latter jumped on Machiavelli to object to Direct Democracy; however, Machiavelli was not just an author and philosopher. Like Plato, and especially Aristotle, he was a vested ACTOR of the disasters he described, and thus deeply biased, all the way to the greatest depths of the human soul. People who have interest to be stupid, will be stupid. Be it only to forget the fools leading us by the nose. Direct democracy is the answer to stupidity.

However, there is snow outside and further comments will be delayed until enough snow will have been mastered by the imperialistic author of these lines. Hey, it may be the last snow ever, let’s enjoy a cold El Nino, while it lasts! Non-Linearity is ready to ambush us. Let’s build memories while we can, be it just to be melancholic later… being of many minds is what intelligence is about.

Patrice Ayme’  

Israel & the China Man

October 26, 2015

What do Israel and the Chinaman have in common? Fundamental biases dislocating a correct vision of reality which all lemmings ardently share, thus finding themselves very smart.

Once there was an English student in Scotland, enraptured, with his friend Lyell, listening to the discoveries of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck a research professor in Paris’ Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, pertaining to the immense age of the Earth, demonstrated by the evolution of microscopic features in fossilized mollusks (the family of mollusks was defined by Lamarck’s senior competitor, research professor Georges Léopole Chrétien Frédéric Dagobert, Baron Cuvier).

Lyell’s, and other geologists’ field studies, mostly in France and Germany, showed indeed that stratigraphy and fossils confirmed Lamarck’s view. Darwin grew up, and later honorably tried to parrot in the Galapagos the work of Lamarck, with turtles and birds. However, the Galapagos are recent (maybe as little as nine million years), so speciation is weak: the birds are so little different, that there is a debate whether some of them are different species. Darwin did not have the good luck of Lamarck, studying really different, and extremely numerous mollusks.

In any case, the British Empire, in its wisdom, realized that Jesus Christ was becoming less of a bedrock of  the splendor of said empire, so it switched to Darwin, proclaiming him the creator of evolution, and thus multiplying further the aura of the British ways. It worked: the head of state of Canada is still the Queen of England.

Trudeau: My Son Will Learn From Me How To Manipulate The Stupid Out There

Trudeau: My Son Will Learn From Me How To Manipulate The Stupid Out There

In related news, China gave the “Confucius Prize” to the dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Mugabe has reigned over the country for 35 years. This makes sense: Confucius was all for oligarchy, not to say plutocracy, as these regimes brought (apparent) peace. Confucianism as the default mode of China has been its main problem for twenty-six hundred years: the same family is in charge of Confucius for 26 centuries. Mao understood this, and that is why he used as an excuse to launch his “Cultural Revolution”.

But back to that other pillar of empire, Darwin. Darwin had decided that man came out of Africa, so that truth having been established, as Charles had replaced Jesus, it has been repeated ever since. The fact that there was no proof, it was even better, as it was an occasion to cultivate the celebrity/superstitious muscle. Celebrity and superstition go well together, as both assume that concept or creatures who cannot be observed, are up there, and to be “believed” in. Cultivating one or the other pertains to the same mood, so they reinforce each other.

It’s harder to find fossils in China. The climate tends to be much wetter than in Africa, and cycles of great heat and deep freezing, in the north, are not friendly to delicate corpses, either. However:

Teeth from China Reveal an Early Human Trek out of Africa

“Stunning” find shows that Homo sapiens reached Asia around 100,000 years ago. [Nature, October 14, 2015.]

These 47 human teeth, dated to 80,000-120,000 years ago, were found in a limestone cave system in Daoxian, China. Those teeth from a cave in south China show that Homo sapiens reached China around 100,000 years ago—a time at which most researchers had assumed that our species had not trekked far beyond Africa.

“This is stunning, it’s major league,” says Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist at the University of Oxford, UK who was not involved in the research. “It’s one of the most important finds coming out of Asia in the last decade.”

The teeth are unquestionably those of H. sapiens, says María Martinón-Torres, a palaeoanthropologist at University College London who co-led the study with colleagues Wu Liu and Xie-jie Wu at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing. Their small size, thin roots and flat crowns are typical for anatomically modern humans—H. sapiens—and the overall shape of the teeth is barely distinguishable from those of both ancient and present-day humans..

The team used calcite deposits, stratigraphy, and Uranium and Thorium datation methods.

“This demonstrates it was not a failed dispersal,” says Petraglia, who has long argued for an early expansion of modern humans through Asia on a southerly route. “This is a rock-solid case for having early humans—definitely Homo sapiens—at an early date in eastern Asia.”

Why were they Homo Sapiens Sapiens in China for 50,000 years, at least, before they appeared in Europe? Simple: stronger, smarter Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis were in the way.

That Homo would thrive in Asia is not surprising: it represents a huge amount of inhabitable warmish land. More such land than in Africa arguably. Neanderthals also occupied North Africa, so the Sapiens Sapiens would have had to sneak through. Maybe they did not sneak through, because Sapiens Sapiens is just the tropical variant of Homo, so was represented on both sides of the tropics equally. As I argued, once Neanderthals wore pants, .they may as well go tropical too, and revert to the more delicate, smaller, thus more prolific version of Sapiens.

In any case, this shows that turning scientists into gods is an insult to science: Einstein had no reason to believe in local reality, except that he had been conditioned (= fabricated) that way. The Einstein-robot just repeated mechanically what he knew by rote about reality. Fine. What’s not fine, was to make that into a religion. Same for some of Darwin’s pronouncements.

Some will say that’s just science, and surely politics don’t make the same mistake. Yet a beautiful example is the case of Israel. Netanyahu dared to go outside of official script, by pointing out that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a sort of Muslim Pope, took part in the extermination of the Jews. This is factually true.

Yet as all the deepest truths of World War Two, it’s no good to proffer it, if all you want is peace, in your little world, or, more exactly, torpor.

So what of Israel? Exasperated by Jewish rebellions which turned into full blown wars which killed many legionnaires, Rome outlawed Israel, threw the Jews out, and called the place Palestina.

225 years later, the philosopher-emperor, Julian, having studied in Athens and been elected in Paris, decided that the punishment had lasted long enough, and ordered the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and the return of the Jews. However Julian got killed, and replaced by Christian fanatics even worse than the ones before.

So here we are.

The “Two-States” solution will never work (long story). The facts, on the ground, is that Israel is not just occupying, colonizing, but invading the “West Bank” (60% of it).Denying this, and that the forces at work are so colossal, they can’t be stopped, is being a partisan of the present situation, the slow eating of Palestine by the Israeli boa.

What’s the only solution which can work? The One-State solution: one state, secular, rights of all critters, respected. That is the Israeli government has to respect the human rights of minorities.

Meanwhile Ivory Coast voted for president, for the economist turned president who had been barred, after being PM, from the Ivorian citizenship (for having not all his ancestors Ivorian). Ouattara got to power, thanks to some judiciously placed French rockets which landed his all too dictatorial predecessor in jail.

Some grumbled it all reminds them of “France-Afrique”, the connection between business interests, and the military help France provides with. Yes, sure, but as with Darwin or Israel, one has to look at reality: “France-Afrique” is bad, but the alternatives,  USA Africa or Africa, Idi Amin Dada, or Mugabe style, are worse roads to plutocracy.

France cannot keep on making war on the behalf of all Europe, plus civilization, without finding a way to pay for it. And the same holds even for the much richer USA.

Canada elected heir, and hair apparent, Trudeau son of Trudeau (see above) has promised many things, including the Keystone Pipeline, something that not even Obama supports (Keystone is an attempt to make Canada even more filthy rich from filthy oil tar, while melting the permafrost up north). Weirdly, everybody is applauding, although, not satisfied with smothering the biosphere, Justin Trudeau has made many pro-Islamist utterances (the way he sees it, it just brings him votes).

Training to recognize reality can be done best in science, but what is learned has to be brought to politics. If you want progress, for real, stick to truth, for real.

Patrice Ayme’

From Nasty Moods, Nasty Wars

June 3, 2015

Who Is In Charge? A Calculus Of Nasty Moods?

Under the tables, tensions keep on rising. Long encouraged by the tolerance of the USA, China is engaged in a dangerous game on the South China Sea. China ought to pay more attention to the weather: foul weather and a tornado on the Yang Tze sank a luxury boat in minutes, killing more than 620. Accidents happen. Meanwhile, the Korean dictator piles up nukes, and so to the Islamists, in Pakistan. And Putin chuckles a lot.

Under The Mongols, China Went All The Way To Indonesia. Back Into That Mood?

Under The Mongols, China Went All The Way To Indonesia. Back Into That Mood?

***

What The USA Calls Corruption Overseas, It Calls Business, in the USA:

In the USA, a few billion dollars for the selection

Of the “Commander-In-Chief”

Is business as usual, and no mischief

One calls it a presidential election

In the USA, when from the wealthiest, universities receive

Billions, plutocrats in your face do not deceive

In the USA the public buys plutocrats stadiums

This is no corruption, but the proper medium

Yet when under some tables, circulate a few millions

Learn! Only the USA decides who needs the billions

For its own banksters and greedy minions

To incite some countries to build soccer stadiums

A crime it is, for the USA, FBI, IRS, no tedium

Anything else against Washington Empire a crime

It is, and back deep into the grime

You of the whole world belong

Serving our USA plutocracy you should, all along

If you want a fortune in millions

American politics serve, Bushes and all Clintons

***

A Mood Of Nasty Outrageous Force Growing:

Of course the Russians see these methods being used. They see it works, they see it worked: Switzerland used to be number one in money management for wealth. USA law enforcement indicted Swiss High Finance, and now the USA High Finance is again number one, as it should.

So Putin decides 88 persons cannot enter Russia, including the French philosopher BHL, and European MPs. He just does not like the way they think. Never mind that BHL had an invitation for a debate on Russian TV.

Of course the Chinese plutocrats see these methods, and think: why not us? Why don’t we do something similar? Use our force, and the outrage we can muster. So they build outrageous islands in the South China Sea (“Reclamation”), and claim they own it.

The Philippine president, visiting Japan, compare China’s expansionism to Nazi Germany’s.

Fundamentally, Nazi Germany was doing what it thought the USA wanted it, or enabled, or allowed it to do (the Nazis were financed, fueled, and diplomatically supported by American plutocrats).

At this point, the People Republic of China has pretty much got a green light from the USA too. And the FIFA, or Swiss sort of prosecution have only showed China that the proper way is the outrageous usage of force and mass hypocrisy.

On the face of it, politics, in the USA is as corrupt as possible: it is actually legal to spend billions to elect officials, all the way up to the president… So called “representatives”, “Senators”, etc.

Tens of times, very officially the president went to sleep at plutocrats home, and people paid hundreds of thousands, if not millions, a day, to be in the presence.

But that’s not corruption, just American style politics.

***

If You Want War, Prepare A Mood, Say A Mood Which Rewards Aggression:

The Romans said: if you want peace, prepare for war. History says: if you want war, prepare a vast mood, conducive to it. Thucydides concluded his history of (part of) the tragic Peloponnesian War by said it originated from a mood. Similarly, the First World War, and the Second World War were driven by a mood reigning in Germany at the time. And guess what? Both in the First and Second World War, it was egged on by the USA.

By not bringing the spirit of the laws to bear on its banksters, but on the game the rest of the world plays, the USA is playing a dangerous ball game. And that may just be what many officials of the USA, maybe egged on by the plutocrats they talk to, are financed by, dine, play, and sleep with, are exactly doing at this point. Between two rounds of golf, they go FIFA hunting, while civilization is smoldering. Not that they can smell anything funny. Evil is best operated by the clueless.

From nasty moods, nasty wars and naughty profits, chuckle the plutocrats. Yes, sometimes. And sometimes not.

Patrice Ayme’

 

ADDED VALUE IN THE XXI CENTURY

March 9, 2015

PRODUCING SUPERIOR THINKING TO IMPROVE NOT JUST WORLD SOCIO-ECONOMY, BUT SURVIVAL:

Capital Exponentiate, Decapitate Wealth To Feed Minds:

Piketty’s “Capital In the XXI Century” argues that the return on capital is greater that that on labor: r>g. All economists from the pseudo-left fell on their knees, astounded by the depth of that observation. They obviously never studied history, let alone archeology.

In truth, Piketty’s big deal inequality, that r>g has been known for 12,000 years, as I have emphasized in countless essays, for years. I have even explained the mathematical-psychological reasons why r>g. Piketty has smirked that he discovered r>g when he wrote the book. (A case of arrogant ignorance buttressed by colossal stupidity: that r>g ought to have been the first law of economics. That it took centuries for economists to discover this cannot possibly be a matter of stupidity, but of the will, on the part of economists of not understanding how the masters who fed them got their power from.)

So Piketty claims he just discovered that r>g: maybe economists are not idiots, but they play some on TV? (Some are bound to think that Piketty should be my ally, and thus I should be nicer to him; however, correct philosophy tends to be done by being only friendly to truth.)

Homo Thrived In This Cold Climate For 2 Million Years (Georgia, Tusheti NP.) Thanks To Science & Technology

Homo Thrived In This Cold Climate For 2 Million Years (Georgia, Tusheti NP.) Thanks To Science & Technology

It was so well known, that the return on capital was higher than that on income, r>g, that all reasonably sustained societies had colossal, decapitating taxes on wealth.

By law, hook, or crook. And when this was not the case, when wealth became hereditary in an exponential way, disasters happened. Generally invasion and destruction.

This happened to all the plutocratically corrupt Chinese empires when Genghis Khan’s Mongols came down.

The peaceful variant is revolutions such as 1789 (for twenty years the king had been meekly trying to make the aristocracy pay enough taxes).

When a great Native American, or great Viking chief died, much of their possessions (it could thousands of horses) would be redistributed.

Time to re-learn the wisdom of the ancients.

***

SUPERIORITY OF THE WEST?

Why did the West become so superior? Or China, for that matter?

Technology. Superior technology. Coming from superior thinking. Both the Greeks and the Chinese had colossal contempt for barbarians. (In both cases it went so far that the Greeks lost everything, and the Chinese came very close to annihilation).

Around the year 1000 CE, the Vietnamese (it seems) invented new cultivars of rice, which could produce an entire crop, twice a year. The population of East Asia exploded accordingly.

A bit earlier, the Franks had invented new cultivars of beans. The Frankish Tenth Century was full of beans. Beans are nutritious, with high protein.

Homo is scientific and technological. Thus, two million years ago, pelt covered (tech!) Homo Ergaster lived in Georgia’s Little Caucasus, a pretty cold place in winter. And the population was highly varied genetically (showing tech and travel already dominated).

***

A GREATER OBSESSION WITH FREEDOM MADE THE WEST SUPERIOR:

Here is the very latest. Flour was found in England, in archeological layers as old as 10,000 years before present. It was pure flour: there were no husks associated. The milling had been done, far away. How far? Well the cultivation of wheat spread to Western Europe millennia later. The flour had been traded, and brought over thousands of miles. Most certainly by boat. Celtic civilization, which would rise 5,000 years later, was expert at oceanic travel.

What’s the broad picture? Not just that prehistoric Englishmen loved their flat bread, no doubt a delicacy. Advanced technology has permeated Europe for much longer than is still understood now by most historians. Remember that the iceman who died in a glacier, 5,000 years ago, was not just tattooed, and had fetched in the lowlands a bow made of special wood. More telling: he carried antibiotics.

China and the West diverged, because the philosophies of the Franks and the East were different. The Franks had outlawed slavery four centuries before the great divergence started. This helped freedom, especially the freedom to think of new technology and science.  (Frank = Free.)

The more enslaved a population, the less inventive. It is not just a cultural-psychological phenomenon. It may be epigenetic. The Franks were more ethologically correct, and that enabled to unleash full human epigenetic.

(Being endowed with full human capability, is perhaps why G.W. Bush was incredibly brazen when he became president, going to invade Iraq, whereas Obama was subdued, and just worked, under Summers’ orders, to save the established plutocratic order, like a little boy, obsequious servant of the great white masters; OK, Obama did not descend from slaves, yet he was exposed to the black slave culture, throughout, and somewhat clueless about it.)

The Germans had been obsessed with freedom since ever, and, since in particular, their first contacts with the Romans. All that Germanic freedom led to population explosions, and invasions of Greco-Roman lands, which, for centuries, were systematically cut down by hyper-disciplined Roman armies.

All this was brought into one mold by Consul Clovis, who, as Roman Imperator, and himself son of Roman Imperator Childeric (also elected king of the Salian Franks), made the soldiers of his army understand that they would have to be extremely disciplined too, under the penalty of death (Roman style, a revolting notion for free Germans).

Militarily, the Franks by combining freedom and discipline, were an undefeatable force ever since (the Mongols knew this all too well, thus did not send their scouts west of Croatia; then allied themselves to the Franks to capture Baghdad and Damas).

Free peasants had no slaves, but they needed help: domesticated beasts and mechanical advantage were thus evolved by Frankish society. When Europeans made it to China, they were astounded that people did everything, without using machines or beasts.

So not too many children, but then communal living: Middle Ages villages in Europe were commune-ist regimes. Exploitation of property was divided according to how many could work.

The end result was strong philosophical pressure for ever more advanced technology. Although China was ahead in some tech, as soon as Europe heard of it, it captured it greedily. That philosophy permeated all of Western European society. Peter the Great, emperor of Russia knew this so well, he went to study incognito as a worker in Dutch naval shipyards.

***

AMERICAN ECONOMIC DISCOURSE: A TROJAN HORSE

Does the drive to advanced tech dominate now?

Not as much as it used to.

Why? American plutocracy. And the “Nobel Prizes” of a whole army of obsequious plutophile servants thereof.

Because the spirit of all-conquering technology has been displaced by Capital in the XXI Century. And more specifically its USA monopolistic operators (such as the insufferable Bill Gates, and cohorts of financial operators). Technology is, and will stay, of course, the main and ultimate capital of humanity. That’s how Homo colonized the Caucasus, two million years ago.

Piketty, in his book, brushes technology off. Absurdly, he believes that tech can provide only a 1% return. That’s thoroughly stupid: inventing full Quantum Computers, for example,  would have tremendous consequences, as any device could be made hyper intelligent.

Yet, this sort of attitude makes Piketty an object of admiration in USA Academia.

Why? Because USA Academia is plutocratic through and through. Piketty’s ideas do not threaten plutocracy. Quite the opposite: they will allow it to survive. Diminished, true, but alive. My ideas would destroy plutocracy. Let alone the fact that it would take a long time to implement Piketty’s scheme. My schemes, being multi-dimensional, could be implemented faster, and start to bite right away.

(I do agree with several of Piketty’s propositions, such as a world cadastrum, and progressive taxation on capital: I have advocated them for more than a decade!)

***

PLUS OULTRE:

However, a European solar plane just took off from Dubai. It will go around the world on solar power alone. The main force behind this project, the inventor and pilot, the engineer Picard (scion of ancestors just like him) asserts that the global adoption of such technologies would lower energy waste by half.

Europeans, following the Europeans who had migrated to North America, were the richest, most powerful, better nourished people in the world, for five centuries, because their economies produced more ADDED VALUE than any other economies (in particular, better guns).

To re-establish relative riches, Europeans need to focus on what produced that superiority in added value production. That means technological superiority, and this is fed by a more educated population. More educated scientifically, and thus philosophically.

Philosophy, done in a humanly ethologically correct way, is the metaphysics of science. It all fits together. Anything else is an amputation of the possible. Of the humanly possible.

China understands this very well. At least the science part. (Not too sure about the philosophical part; without it, China may well follow the path of fascist Germany. It’s going that way, with a military budget bigger than France, Britain and Japan combined: $145 billion.)

How to do this?

How to add so much value from mind that superiority is re-established?

Well establish the correct philosophy, put it in power, teach it, finance free maximum quality education, free at all ages.

Pay by taxes on wealth, and large incomes, fortunes, in such a way that there would be a practical cap on wealth, as the Roman Republic used to have, when it really worked.

Decapitating wealth is important for the youth: it will show youth that material wealth to excess is such a bad thing, it had to be made unlawful. It will replace mind at the apex of what youth ought to aspire to, and be programmed by.

***

KEEPING A CIVILIZATION GRADIENT WILL SAVE BILLIONS:

Billions of lives, that is.

The usual partisans of insignificance, nihilism and masochism will no doubt whine that Euro-American economic ascendency is a bad thing. They prefer to be haughty slaves than responsible masters.

European scientific superiority led to a reasonably stabled world order. (Except for some populations of the Americas who got exterminated, thus clearing the lands for Europeans.)

In a world where everybody has the same weapons, and ecology is collapsing (still not raining in California, fourth year in a row, in the greatest drought in several millennia), it is to be feared that disorder will express itself as it has in the past: the sort of massacres that make entire populations disappear. That is what Netanyahu is thinking of…

So defining properly Capital in The XXI Century is not just economically and socially important. It is morally important, in the apocalyptic sense of “moral”.

Superior mind is the ultimate capital. Obviously hardly a notion that comes naturally to economists. As what is called “economics” is mostly a fake science, and famous economists are mostly people who have learned to lie about that fact.

When Piketty claims he just discovered r>g, 10,000 years after most of our ancestors, he demonstrates that. More generally, the same critique can be directed at entire fields such as most of theoretical physics and even mathematics, as funding from plutocrats has become ubiquitous. By buying the hierarchy, the plutocrats bought the thinking. That’s what they wanted. Thinking to be directed incorrectly.

We have see this before: this is how Aristotle, or more exactly his sponsors, nearly destroyed civilization. The difference? The stakes are much higher now.

Can I be more specific in my critique, give a hint of what is wrong with Academia? Most thinkers in Academia are too specialized. Right, much science requires hyper-specialization. Say when one is studying Pluto’s atmosphere (the Solar planet not the god of planet finance). One needs hyper-specialized science. However, there is also the science, and the thinking, about big questions. In those fields, hyper-specialization, unguided by the broad picture, can lead to error: look at much of theoretical physics, much of philosophy, much of economics.

It is precisely because Thomas Piketty is obviously pretty ignorant of history, that he believes he just discovered r>g. After 10,000 human societies made the  notion central to their cultures. It is also why economists do not even know that, during most of humanity’s history, money creation was not farmed out to private individuals (the bankers). So they cannot even feel that there is anything wrong with the present money creation system.

Ignorance allows the devil to hide in the details.

Patrice Ayme’

Geo-historical Civilizational Logic

September 15, 2014

Abstract: Geography can dominate history. Examples abound. Civilization cannot just clash: it has to be defended by the sword, and by ideas which are even sharper than steel. Unfortunately plutocracy hate to see force, physical and intellectual, in command of We the People. This betrayal from class interest is how top civilizations go down: when plutocracy gnaws into civilization as the gangrene it is. The death blow is then given by the savages who are sure to come circling like hyenas. The latter is a symptom of the former.

Such hyenas brought down the Roman and Chinese state. Lest we be careful now, the Union of Savages and Thugs, with big titles, like president of Syria, or Russia, or the “Caliphate”, will engulf civilization. Let’s crush them when we still can (the “Caliphate” is only 20,000 strong, so could be literally exterminated, at this point). But we will crush them better if we also extinguish our plutocratic form of government.

Not Conquering Germania Magna Was The Proximal Cause Of Rome's Failure

Not Conquering Germania Magna Was The Proximal Cause Of Rome’s Failure

THE TEUTOBURG FOREST DISASTER:

The plutocratized Roman republic (aka “Principate”) suffered a psychologically shattering defeat at the Teutoburg Forest in 12 CE (just left of the G in Germania above).

Rome, as a real republic and democracy, had suffered much worse, even terrifying, defeats. However it was then, being a direct democracy, of a much stronger, much clearer frame of mind, and it rebounded with astounding efficiency.

Instead the Teutoburg defeat marked and accelerated an irreversible decay, as the Roman polity was taken in a pincer between exterior enemies and interior plutocrats. An army led by “princes” is much less effective than an army by the people, for the people… As the conquest of Germany required.

Some will object that the Franks, who conquered Germany after 507 CE, were led by kings. Right. But those kings were elected (more or less by the people). Nobody elected Augustus. Moreover, Frankish society was submitted to the equalitarian principle: the richest Frank was often elected king, but there was, or ought to be, no “nobilitas” notion among them; that point was made to the Pope around 740 CE by the son of Charles Martel, Pepin Le Bref.

Notice that the traitor (he had been a Roman officer) Arminius and his German army chose the location and time of the battle (which lasted three days). The miserable rain hindered the usage of Roman artillery; a swamp and a rise, the Kalkreise, prevented the maneuvering of the legions.

The treachery of it all (the legions were trekking back to their winter quarters) took Varus’ army was complete surprise.

GEOGRAPHY IS HISTORY:

The steppe which goes from Manchuria to Hungary allowed the Mongols to spill at least three times, in nine centuries, all the way to Central Europe (thus, having gathered immense power, they were able to build a giant empire, all the way to India, Japan and Indonesia).

Isolation from the Afro-Eurasian hyper continent, or, should I say, cesspool, meant that the Americas were not going to win the biological war between the former and the later. And so on.

I explained that a lot of the effervescent mentality which has festered around the place presently known as France has to do with the three giant trade routes between Southern and Northern Europe. The Alps and Carpathians, mighty mountain ranges, extend to the east over a thousand miles, blocking the way. Until the crisscrossing of wide rivers in the Ukraine-Russian plains. That, also blocked civilization’s penetration until the Vikings (“Rus”) used the waterways to enable profitable trade between Scandinavia and “Rome” (meaning Constantinople).

Nowadays, we are confronted to an old fashion modern Genghis Khan, Vladimir Putin, playing fast and loose, in a calculus where human lives are nothing. Putin has said a great number of things which should be taken literally: that Kazakhstan was not a state, that the Baltic countries had been a gift to the West, that the disappearance of the “Big Country” (USSR) was the “greatest tragedy of the Twentieth Century“, etc. His agenda is clearly to reconstitute the empire of the Czars at it maximal extent: he said as much, he will keep on coming for as much as he can get. This is not the “Cold War“. This is not a drill, either. This is war.

HISTORY AS A STAB IN THE BACK:

Scotland’s push towards independence from the London plutocracy is related to the struggle of Ukraine against the age old, vicious mentality in Moscow. That viciousness is how Moscow grew against, but also thanks to, the occupying Mongols (aka “Tartars”, or “Golden Horde”). Now that viciousness needs to be destroyed, as it is only compatible with a world war.

As facts of preceding centuries, even millennia, determine the flow of psycho-history, looking forward, it’s important to find out what those facts exactly were. In particular the exact history of the giant Greco-Roman republic-empire and its innovative successor, the “Imperium Francorum”-Renovated Roman Empire, is paramount.

Exactitude reveals that things could have turned completely differently, from small details: that’s known as the butterfly effect. From the flapping of a butterfly, a hurricane started (that’s probably impossible, for Quantum reasons, but let’s ignore that).

Out of the many penetrations by sharp objects which put an end to Julius Caesar’s life, only one was lethal, said his personal physician. Had Caesar survived, the history of Europe, and, probably, the world, would have been very different. Caesar had been on his way to a very ambitious military campaign which, knowing him, and his army, the best Rome ever had, may well have succeeded. The anticipated result was the extension of Rome over Persia, and all of Europe, west of the Caspian Sea.

THE MORE EXACT HISTORY, THE MORE FASCINATING:

Here is Eugen R Lowy, commenting on my site along these lines:

“The tragedy of Europe was caused by its two major rivers, the Rhine and the Danube. Since The Roman times it divided the Continent. Charlemagne was the first to unite Europe across the Rhine. Unfortunately it was not long lasting. The next one who would try to do it was Napoleon. But he was too eager to fight wars. Unfortunately at the time bungee jumping did not exist, that could potentially have pacified him.

The 20th century brought three unification experiences, the WWII of Hitler, then the Soviet- Stalin ( SS ) experiment, and the last one, the EU. Fortunately this one was the only successful one.

Let us hope that this time the [European] unification will thrive in spite of all those short sighted, petty minded but loud speakers.”

Eugen has it right, at least as far as the conclusion is concerned.

But the devil is in the details. Napoleon was tough: he charged at the head of his troops when his plan against the invading British was enacted at the siege of Toulon (1792), and was severely wounded in hand to hand combat. Later, as self proclaimed “emperor”, he took great risks, and had horses killed under him no less than 19 times.

Real history is often all too different, from what legends have it: the Romans were established across the Rhine, for centuries. As the Salian Franks were from one of the zones the Romans controlled (more or less), one could argue that they never left.

But, indeed, the (lack of) junction between Rhine and Danube was a huge military problem (especially as it extended the “Fulda Gap”: go ask Putin what it is, he knows!).

The Franks, three centuries before Charlemagne, had already united most of Franco-Germania, across the Rhine. What Charlemagne did was to mop up the last resistance in the most distant part of Germany, among the Saxons, and to push the frontier of Europe as far as (much of) the present European Union to the East. That made the European frontier short and defensible, stopping indeed Genghis Khan’s Mongols (the Central Asiatic invaders penetrated Poland, and Hungary, but collided there with united European forces, and, although they won in memorable battles, suffered unsustainable losses).

Calling WWII and Stalin “unifications” is farfetched: they were standard occupations and not the nicest. The situation with Napoleon was more complicated. Although he was a scum, he did not get the catastrophe started. Even greater scums, such as the pseudo-philosopher Burke, got the ball rolling.

WHY DID ROME NOT EXTEND MUCH INTO GERMANY?

The first Roman to cross into Germany was Caesar. He build a bridge across the Rhine, and went in to punish the Germans for having raided Gaul. He did this twice. However, the perpetrators tended to flee deep inside the immense forests.

Caesar thought about it, and rightly deduced it would never end. So he decided to catch the Germans from behind. A conspiracy of corrupt, idiotic plutocrats inside the Senate decided otherwise. 300 years later, the Goths were at the gates of Roma, the city of Rome herself (they finally conquered Roma another 160 years later).

Caesar’s grand-nephew and heir, Augustus, went back to the unimaginative method of the slow grind. The Roman penetration extended well beyond the Rhine, and even Danube. When three legions (18,000 elite legionaires, plus the supporting army) were annihilated by Arminius (“Herman”), they were going back to their winter quarters, and that trek back, along a narrow path, was in extreme Northern Germany, exactly were the hills met the immense swamp which preceded the North Sea. Over three days, in very bad weather, hindering Roman artillery, and a geography that prevented their maneuvering, the legions fought, until they met a final trap. Those survivors who had not escaped or committed suicide, were assassinated in human sacrifices.

So what happened after that?

Three things:

1) Augustus plunged into a nervous breakdown, losing his composure completely. He butted his head on the wall of the palace, begging general Varus to give him back his legions (Varus died at Teutoburg).

Against all common sense, Augustus counseled his successors to not try to control all of Germany. Yet, Germanicus (grand nephew Augustus, nephew and adoptive son Tiberius) knew better. He overruled the recommendation of Augustus to stay on the Rhine. Beyond the orders he got, he drove deep into Germany, with eight legions, and defeated Arminius for years. However, Germanicus was poisoned (by Sejanus; that was revealed only 15 years later, although widely suspected at the time, making Tiberius the object of hatred).

2) Increasing plutocracy in Rome meant ever less power for the army: that was evident by Marcus Aurelius’ reign (180 CE), when new German nations tried to break through the Danube towards Italia. Soon pieces of the army, starting with the Pretorian Guard, behaved increasingly like occupying and plundering bodies: this was the situation after the demise of the Severus dynasty (“Barrack emperors” period).

That enfeeblement, in turn, made the Germans ever bolder. By 250 CE, the Franks were raiding from ships, Viking style, throughout not just Gaul, but Spain and even North Africa, where they struck the populations by their appearance of blonde giants.

At the same time, the Goths commandeered a fleet of non-sea worthy ships, and rampaged for years all around the Euxine Sea (Black Sea), and even all the way down to Athens (which they plundered and burned).

3) Why were there so many Germans? Obviously agriculture in the North was getting more and more productive, allowing to support more and more people. At the same time, exposition to the Greco-Roman empire had partly changed, and militarized the German savages, and they yearned for civilization and the wealth of Rome. Spectacular victories over the Roman army inside the empire persuaded the Germans that the empire was richer, and weaker, than expected. The Persians deduced the same simultaneously, invading Mesopotamia and Armenia.

***

WE ARE ALL ROMANS NOW:

It’s nice to philosophize about the demise of the Greco-Roman fascist plutocracy known to itself as the republic. What is the morality of all this, looking forward? Two main things:

1) The strength of Rome was its republic, its direct democracy, before the lamentable Augustus tinkered with it to transform it in a military dictatorship. The real, original republic, was a direct democracy.

2) Vladimir Putin is much more dangerous than the Europeans realize. Not just because of himself, the quickly expanding forces at his command, and the will he has proclaimed to establish a much larger empire all over Eurasia (which he calls the “Eurasian Union”). But also because he demonstrates to the world that Europe is much richer, and much weaker, than it was thought to be. And it makes the entire world, including the Europeans, used to this idea.

Fortunately some in Europe understand this vaguely: the French sent to the Kurds very effective, easy to use armor piercing weapons, that were used very effectively by the Peshmerga. French military advisers are on the ground. The Americans, who were not exactly born yesterday, are in the lead this time (differently from the Saturday when Obama made an about face about bombing Assad, while French pilots cooked in their cockpits).

A question is what can the USA do to help rise the bellicose spirit of Europeans?

The answer is to advantage the French Republic and loudly cooperate with it, for all to see. When the Germans and other neutrals realize that France is getting rewarded because of her effective role in defending civilization, they may be keener in following suit.

There is also no way that France can play an important military role while being held back by the 3% deficit Eurozone spending rule (the USA turns around the deficit through Quantitative Easing, a stealth nationalization of much of the economy that does not augment the deficit, technically, while having the same effect, under another name, balancing the Fed’s books).

Ultimately, who decapitates whom at will, is what history is all about. Facts don’t have to be nice, they can just stand there, impervious.

It will be European Unification, under a superior philosophy, or it will be war, under superior barbarity: Putin knows this, and opted for the latter. That’s how professionally trained assassins tend to be.

One may ponder why it is that Augustus took the wrong turn. First he wanted peace and control. Second, he did not have a grand plan (as his reaction to the Teutoburg massacre showed).

Institutionally, Augustus decided little besides making Tiberius his heir (under (one of his wives) Livia’s influence). That was informal, and for many weeks which dragged by, after the Princeps’ death in 14 CE, nothing was done about the exact status of the Roman Republic: a nervous Tiberius, although the top general did not dare say he was taking command (“of the Senate”: Princeps), before he was begged to do so by an official delegation.

Some historians have suggested the obvious: the (informal) Roman Constitution was made for the City of Rome, not an empire with a fourth of humanity. The only way for the empire to go on was to militarize and dictatorize the Republic as much as necessary, as Augustus did.

That’s not true. The empire actually morphed in a galaxy of local cities and provinces which were rather free. The central Roman administration was very efficient. However, when the central state could not pay for the armies, trouble ensued (and this was true by 150 BCE). The armies did public works, not just defense. Augustus did not fix the problem of paying for a Republican army, instead he instituted a moral decaying dictatorship.

That moral decay presided the fall of Rome is not just my opinion: emperor Decius, in the Third Century held it, and asked the Senate to re-establish the office of censor: Valerian got the job (Valerian became emperor later, and made history by becoming the first and only captured Roman emperor; he was rumored to have become the stool Sasanian emperor Shapur I used to mount his horse).

FREE AS A PEACEFUL BIRD:

On the positive side, the strength of Rome was local self-determination, and the ensuing peace: before the Goths rampaged in the central empire (Illyricum, the present Balkans, and Greece), the region had known three centuries of peace.

This is why letting local nations (Scotland, Catalonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Kurdistan) being free is important: it was one of the ingredient of the Roman success. Notice also that the Franks duplicated that regionalization later. Yet, the Franks did the latter to excess: regionalization got so extreme, that it led to alienation, nationalism, and finally, war.

This is what the European construction wants to correct: a millennium, or more, of alienation. But it will not happen without weapons. Intellectual weapons, but also, against thugs such as Putin, real weapons.

Intellectual weapons are the most powerful: when Bush’s USA destroyed the Iraqi republic of Saddam Hussein, it fostered the sort of thugs that now reign there (the expression “Iraqi republic” is similar to the one, “republic”, that the Greco-Romans used to qualify the Greco-Roman state for centuries after Augustus). This was highly predictable for anyone with enough of a brain.

Republics work, but only when they can strike in their defense. Nowadays, whether know-nothing Americans, and half boiled Europeans realize it, the republic has no borders, it’s all over the planet.

It’s easy for Germany to be tired of the French deficit (4.4% predicted, whereas Germany is at 0%). Germany’s fate, and course correction, was determined by bombs, not deficit.

Work works, but, in the ultimate cases, war is irreplaceable.

Consider the invasion of China by the Mongols over 60 years. The Jin dynasty, Western Xia, the Dali Kingdom and the Southern Song (which fell in 1279 CE) worked hard, and were on the top of civilization (the Xia was the most powerful Buddhist state ever). Their successive defeats were not caused by lack of industry, but by lack of military skill caused by the asinine stupor a lazy plutocracy prefers in the People they subjugate (that observation was made by Mongol generals themselves, again and again).

That, in turn, was caused by the wrong ideas all over.

Wrong ideas are all over nowadays. Examples: the fact that children should be less educated in the West than in Shanghai; that the Qur’an is a book of peace; that international law does not apply to Moscow (or George Bush), and that’s not a civilization threatening event; that we are not at war with Putin; that there are (military) borders; that banks are not public utilities, that the fractional reserve system is not a subsidy to plutocrats; that Quantitative Easing is not communism for the wealthiest; that greed will solve everything; that Earth’s biosphere is not in the greatest crisis in 65 million years; that the parliamentary system in most of the West can be called “democracy”. And so on.

All these very erroneous ideas need to be beaten into shape.

Without getting the right axiomatic first, we won’t know where, or even why, to strike. This was the problem Rome had after Augustus. This is why most of Europe is supine, as threats add to injury. That’s why Obama admitted he had “no strategy” in Iraq and Syria.

That was, at least, honest. Let’s give him a hint: hit the enemy in Iraq and Syria, while extending peace feelers to the ex-supporters of Saddam Hussein’s regime (thus splitting the enemy). That’s the most moral thing to do.

The most moral thing to do, is always the best strategy.

Patrice Ayme

Liquidate The Liquidator

September 5, 2013

In an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro a few days ago, Dictator Assad pretended that, “In the beginning, the solution should have been found through a dialogue from which political measures would have been born.”

That was a lie: he shot peaceful secular demonstrators demanding an end to his tyrannical hereditary plutocracy, when protests started in 2011 (no other Arabic speaking dictator did this so massively). Then Assad repeated for the Figaro his refrain that 90% of the rebels are Al Qaeda. “The only way to cope with them is to liquidate them,” he said. “Only then will we be able to discuss political measures.”

First kill, then negotiate. Assad feels like Bruce Willis in the “Fifth Element”.

Assad should know: he is a liquidation specialist. “If you and Chirac want me out of Lebanon, I will break Lebanon.” Assad told Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri in 2004, a few months before two metric tons of TNT (seven Tomahawk missile warheads!) blew Hariri and dozens of other people into small bits. Hariri had been Prime Minister a total of ten years, and was the most prominent Lebanese politician. He and French president Chirac were pushing Assad’s occupation army out of Lebanon.

Why aren’t you worried about the Islamist rebels? They seem cruel and demented.

They are cruel and demented. The Assads made them so.

The Assad dynasty is about the worst of the worst. Smiles hiding criminal fury. It single handedly caused the Syrian civil war. Instead of  “liquidating” his countless enemies, an easier alternative, to reach appeasement, is to liquidate him.

As the sedate NYT puts it: His violent reaction to the uprising led what was once a proudly secular society into a largely sectarian conflict between the majority Sunni Muslims and his small minority of Alawites, an obscure branch of Shiite Islam.

“For him there is nothing to lose,” a Damascus-based analyst said, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He cannot compromise. He has to see this through. He cannot rebuild; he cannot reconcile. He is stuck. He can rule over a pile of rubble — that is the best he can do.”

The New York Times ran the following day a report on the execution of 7 soldiers…

I read it, and send the following comment (the NYT censored nearly all my comments on Syria, something that makes me suspect a lack of neutrality on their part):

I find unbalanced that more than 95% of the NYT “pick” comments are statements using an irrelevant brutality to justify not punishing a crime against humanity by a government.

Now for the naive ones out there who are inspired by the years of infamy of the USA in 1939, 1940, when the USA refused to fight Hitler: the Assad family created that mess, and most of it, deliberately.

Although I strongly condemn Islamism, and wished the laws of war would be respected, in the case of an insurrection, it’s difficult to keep prisoners alive. Guerillas don’t run prisons. Besides, that the executions of those seven soldiers related in the NYT were brutal, and apparently unjustifiable, does not mean they were unjustifiable (the rebels claim those soldiers had committed war crimes, and recorded them in phones). The whole story was related by one of the rebles, who disagreed violently with the execution. 

A rush to judgment is rarely a rush to intelligence. Thinking is harder than sinking.

Notice that when three USA divisions were engaged in the Second Battle of the Marne, in July 1918, they made nearly no prisoners. One of the reason? The American divisions, although victorious, suffered so many casualties, they were taken out of combat after a couple of days. American GIs, confronted to immense ferocity, rose to the occasion, and replied in kind.

Most probably, Syrian rebels are doing just the same, answering massacres by massacres, after decades of massacres.

End of my (probably unpublished) comment to the NYT. 

(The GIs were also inspired by the Senegalese division by their side, which made zero prisoners, as the Senegalese knew full well that the Germans killed them racially like vermin! This sort of racial extermination went on in 1940, under Rommel’s 7th Panzer; however, by 1944, Marshall Rommel had realized that being a war criminal was not a good idea, so he ordered the arrest of the SS das Reich officer responsible of Oradour sur Glane!)

You see nothing good about Assad?

I share his official distaste for the Muslim Brotherhood. He can be amusing. As when he protested that comparing the Islamist dictator Morsi to a donkey was “an insult to the animal“. When he got to power, observers hoped that he would break away from his father’s dictatorship.

Yet, he became worse, as the Hariri assassination shows. Assad came to depend upon the Islamists to justify his own, much older terror. Terror will never end, as long as he is around. If he is not put out of commission, millions will die, and that’s the least of the problems that will arise.

Sec. of State Kerry derided common Americans as “Armchair Isolationists”? Makes you happy?

Kerry mentioned the liner full of German Jews that was turned back from the Americas, and sent back to Hamburg, and they all died. That was polite. I don’t have to be as polite as Kerry.

The USA plutocracy and its pet government, plus their honored homologues in the UK, formed the Deus ex-Machina that enabled Hitler.

You are obsessive. Plutocracy this, plutocracy that. What does plutocracy have to do with it?

Plutocracy is the rule of the Dark Side. That’s exactly what it means. Instead of the reign of Ahura Mazda, it’s the rule of Angra Mainyu. Plutocracy in that sense is more general than Jesus’ condemnation of wealth, it covers all the bad aspects of Satan as found in the New Testament and the Qur’an. Plus more.

Assad is a plutocrat in the worst senses of the term. Sometimes it’s a parody: his spendthrift wife was an investment banker in London. She is much admired there, a sort of Lady Di of Syria, rail thin.

Assad is expert at the dark art of an extremely rich family that killed hundreds of thousands to stay on top of the heap. He released thousands of Salafists to drown his legitimate secular democratic opposition, now he is whining that they are winning. His only future is death.

Assad’s plutocratic connections is why he is so popular in Britain. It’s again the same story with Britain, a semi democratic plutocracy, as in the 1930s, with Hitler and Mussolini: the plutocratic temptation. The men (and occasional women) who invented and financed Hitler were all plutocrats (as my uncle, who was in the know, told me when I was six).

Without the help, financing and investment of Anglo-Saxon plutocrats, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Franco would not even have fuel to move their tanks.

Stalin and Hitler hated each other!

They came to hate each other. But first they were allies. Even earlier, before Hitler, Stalin had helped Germany re-arm in violation of the Versailles Treaty. German generals trained in the USSR! That’s why they thought they could invade it successfully.

Britain did just the same, starting in the 1920s. There were very nasty exchanges about stealth German re-armement betwen Churchill and the French Republic, as early as 1929 (so pre-Hitler!). Without plutocrats from the USA, Nazism would not have been, and Stalin could not have developed his oil fields (thanks to pillars of the Democratic Party of the USA!).

Stalinism and Nazism were global phenomena inside which Anglo-Saxon plutocracy played a crucial role.

Can you be a bit more specific?

There is room for a 10,000 pages treaty. Not strangely, that treaty does not exist. Harvard forgot to study the subject (that Nazi songs were modified Harvard songs is a hint why!)

Jew hater Henry Ford massively financed Hitler in the early 1920s already. That’s how Hitler was able to constitute a well equipped private 5,000 men army by 1923. JP Morgan’s man was Schacht, the biggest man of the Weimar Reich; Rockefeller financed Nazi eugenics, etc.

Until 1924, Hitler was essentially an American propelled phenomenon. Some of these billionaire plutocrats, such as the Warburgs, were even Jewish. French intelligence at the time tried to expose all this, but it backfired and caused more hostility against France by those in the know in USA business circles. While the masses did not understand that they were manipulated by extremely vicious characters who had hedged themselves so that, whichever way World War Two would turn, they would profit from it.

Why would Jews support Hitler?

Just ask the peaceniks who support Assad. The head torturer Nazi Marshall who conquered Norway for Hitler was a pure Jew (Hitler then made him a “honorary Aryan“). Nearly 200,000 German Jews served in the Wehrmacht.

As Nietzsche insisted, the Will to Power tends to rule minds.

Fritz Thyssen, a top plutocrat, author of “I paid Hitler”, explained all this in great details (including later, the American plutocratic connection, with the USA government doing exactly what the hyper wealthy supporters of defunct Nazism told it to do). Don’t be surprised that Thyssen’s book is out of print, and out of reach of commoners.

Why do you always mix up the 1930s with today’s world politics?

For two main reasons. 1) The descendants of the bad actors of the 1930s and the institutions that supported them are still pretty much in power, and they use still the same highly conspiratorial methods. A method is to create, or support, very bad actors, such as Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco (in that order), and then leverage the mayhem they cause.

For example a casual look at how Egypt used to live like in the 1930s show a huge progression of Salafism Islam since. That can be traced back to the fact Roosevelt and his minions, to arrange ARAMCO and company, made a pact with Ibn Saud that involved the Muslim Brotherhood. As Roosevelt had just given half of Europe to Stalin, at Yalta, that all made sense as a great work of Pluto.

Eight years later, the CIA used Khomeini and his Shiites to throw down the democratically elected Mosaddegh (later assassinated).

2) The fact that some bad actors got away with, and leveraged themselves thanks to, crimes against humanity in the 1930s was noticed by other bad actors, who did the same. That danger is much greater now.  The stakes are much higher.

Why are the BRICS so opposed to enforcing International Law?

Obviously because they intent to break it themselves. Several of them face huge rebellions in their own empires. About half of the PRC’s empire would be in outright rebellion, if not for heavy preemptive terror. India has lost control of a huge territory. Putin used huge brutality in the Caucasus, and is afraid to lose it all. Meanwhile he made the local Christian superstition into a state religion again.

What would you tell Hollande and Obama?

That they should hint to Putin and Xi that they have got it good, controlling giant territories not historically under Russian or Han control. Russian spans eleven time zones. That’s very good.

But Russia does not need to spread its military control in the part that used to be the core of the West, the Eastern Mediterranean. Same observation for Mr. Xi: he can keep on playing on the other side of the Himalayas.

Others, worldwide, ought to be told that it will be human rights, one way, or another. When the UN was formed, the obsession was to avoid war between nations. Now the obsession ought to change into avoiding the sort of decomposition one observed in the 1930s, a mix of fascism, plutocracy and destruction of human rights.

As the movie 2010 had it: “Europa is not yours, don’t attempt a landing there.” If Putin and Xi want a cold war, they will not win it any better than Brezhnev and Mao.

In general, the BRICS became what they are, because of capital flight towards them, from the West. Financial and intellectual capital. Embraer won’t be much, without Airbus’ help and the Western market.

If the BRICS threaten the core of the West, the West can fully reel back its plutocracy. To start with, the West controls at least two-third of the world’s GDP (Euramerica alone controls 55%of world GDP).  

Considering the state of the planet, if order does not come to reign, it will have to be imposed. Auschwitz was secret, so the immoral ones could claim they did not know.

Instead Assad is loud and blatant, making the immoral ones who hide behind peace into obvious co-criminals. Damascus is not a swamp in a deserted part of Poland (as Auschwitz was). Damascus is the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. The rebels Assad gased there, are secular people fighting for survival. Assassinating their children is a crime as great as any crime known to humanity.

When the Second Cuban division invaded Congo in May 1978, the French did not ask the UN for authorization. France dropped paratroops, the 2e Régiment étranger de parachutistes over Kolwezi, and that was it. Cuba and France are in good terms now, precisely because France just said no, when it was time to say no.

Why do you say the West may have jurisdiction over Syria?

It’s a long story, and I should write a specific essay about it. However, in light of the G20 meeting, let me give a quick synopsis of the argument:

Syria was never really a nation, until it became a Roman province and reached its apogee under Rome. It was illegally seized in 636 CE by the Islamist invaders, using horendous methods. Looking that far back in the past may sound ridiculous, but the unlawful demolition of Israel by the Romans after the Second Judean war (explicitly recognized as illegal by emperor Julian around 360 CE) is the legal basis for the existence of Israel, as far as I am concerned.

France is the successor state of Rome. The Imperium Francorum is actually the fifth state of Rome, after the Monarchy, the five centuries long Republic, the Principate (starting with Augustus), and the Dominate (starting with Diocletian, around 300 CE).

Europe was officially a “Renovated Roman Empire” by 800 CE. Thus the states Francia spawned, not just France, and Germany, but Italy, Spain, Britain, actually all of Europe and its entire diaspora, are all successor states of Rome. That can be seen by looking at the Capitol in Washington and the (Roman!) law, all over.

After the First Crusade, Roman power was back in the Middle East, including in much of the green part of Syria. Legally, I do not see why it could be seen as having ever left. Call it the long arm of secular law.

That the successors states of Rome have jurisdiction over Syria is easier to explain than the presence of the Chinese or the Russian states over giant expanses they never controlled before (although Chinese armies were in Central Asia in 750 CE, after the Franks had destroyed the Damascus Caliphate). Something Putin and Xi should be made aware of: they behave as if they can mess up the historical core of the West. So why should no the West mess up with their empires?

Before and during World War Two, imperial fascist Japan generals conducted more than 2,000 gas attacks inside China. This was ignored by the world for years. But, as it turned out, not safely ignored. The act, and ignoring it, was a sign of collapsing ethics, worldwide.

There is No Hope but Hope. And Human Rights prophecize it.

***

Patrice Ayme

History: The Enemy Of The Chinese Dictatorship

February 4, 2010

 

Abstract: The "People" Republic of China is the most powerful dictatorship that ever was. Global plutocracy has made China stronger, and uses it pretty much as it used (mostly German) fascism up and during World War Two. As a device to exploit the world further. Time to wake up to the danger at hand, relative to which, cavemen reading the Qur’an literally, are nothing but quaint critters.

Cracking down on the Chinese plutocratic complex ought to do wonders to reinstall the most advanced, bountiful economy where it belongs, in the most advanced democracies.

***

THINKING BY ROTE, OR WHY FASCISM FALTERS:

I sat on a chairlift in the Alps a few days ago next to a young, pretty woman, of Chinese ethnicity, richly dressed and made up. Lin had flown from England that day, with a British friend. She had spent six months in England already, studying economics and international relations, sent by the People’s Republic of China. It was her first time out of China, but her English was perfect. This is one of the world’s tallest chairlift, so I had plenty of time to ask her what she thought of Europe in comparison to China.

She did not bat an eyelash, haughtily declaring that she could not talk about Europe, because she knew Britain, and Britain had absolutely nothing to do with Europe, it was a completely different system. Perhaps obfuscated by this weird statement, the lift stopped, and she screamed. I can understand the proud and powerful lift: more than half of the skiers in French ski stations are British (which means they are truly British ski stations, a jolly entertaining paradox: the French’s worry is that the British, impoverished by the crisis, and the sinking pound, will evacuate the continent, and return to their fog shrouded island).

Her friend tried to reassure her, as we balanced away, one hundred fifty feet off the snow below. He explained to me that it was her first time on a chairlift. Yes, it’s my first day in Europe, she confirmed. Her boyfriend was slightly embarrassed, he suggested delicately that the United Kingdom is often viewed as part of Europe by Europeans. She looked at him as if he was an uncomprehending insect. Two systems: Britain and Europe, like China and Hong Kong. No doubt completely different she had learned by rote, back East.

Now, of course, Britain is part of the European Union, and, however hard the pirates in London finance want to believe that they are from another galaxy, the fact is, British citizens are European citizens, and Britain is just a country within the Union, just as Texas is a state within the other Union (in neither case is there an exit procedure, to the chagrin of some tribal types).

Millions of Brits live mostly in France (an old tradition: Richard, the Lion Hearted, king of England, born, married and dead in France, spent only 18 month in England: he was basically a Frenchman with part of his kingdom on the other side of the Channel).

But back to our Chinese butterfly. She was an excellent representative of the Chinese problem: young, very competent in some ways, completely foolish in others, and seemingly incapable of imagining that there were such concepts as doubt, second opinions, and extremely complex situations.

In contrast, Europe has by far the world’s most intricate political system, the exact opposite in complexity of the simplistic "communist" "People" "republic" in China.

Verily, to believe that France and Britain have completely different systems is less true than believing that Northern and Southern California have completely different systems, because the later two do slightly different things, whereas France and Britain do not.

Countries such as France and Britain are basically undistinguishable except for the climate (as I just pointed out, the old Francois is being displaced by the even older Anglo-Normand, aka English). The reason is that Britain and France came from the SAME most progressive polities, long ago, and have chosen to form another once again in the last two centuries (at the very exact time, 1815, when the British monarch renounced his rightful claim to the French throne).

Already well before Caesar decided to pay a visit to "Britannia", Celtic states thrived on both sides of the Channel, parts of the same Celtic nation, sharing the same language, religion, political system and advanced technologies (in particular tall ocean going ships that neither Greeks nor Romans ever had, obvious ancestors of the ocean going ships of the European Middle Ages, 13 centuries later).

The situation is completely different in China, where completely different ethnicities have been united by the most brutal force.

No terror forces the Europeans together: they belong together naturally, as people do in a big family, united in all ways, now that fascism is out, and social democracy reigns, and plutocracy keeps low enough a profile.

The happenstance of China is completely different. After adopting Marxism, a particularly strident Western European philosophy, and hooking up with global plutocracy, an opposite philosophy, China, balanced between these tow extremes, using both these anti-democratic philosophical engines for propulsion, has come to play a central role in the new world order.

***

PLUTOCRACY LOVES FASCISM SO MUCH, IT BRINGS IT ALONG:

China’s GDP has been increasing by leaps and bounds. Last time we saw this blossoming of apparent wealth it was called Nazi Germany, or Stalin’s Soviet Union. The Nazis stole from the Jews, as some will say that China steals from Tibet (which is full of expensive rare elements crucial in the latest technology).

Although both of Hitler’s and Stalin’s realms were fascist regimes, their origins were completely different. One was more of a cause, the other more of a reaction.

What happened with Stalin was simple: the "Man of Steel" had persuaded his colleagues they had ten years to get ready to resist a war of extermination. As the events proved, he was completely right on that most important point.

So Stalin put the USSR on a socio-economic war footing, and even imposed a military dictatorship, with the most extreme emergency powers. His colleagues grudgingly agreed, except for the chief of the Red Army, Trotsky, who got rewarded with an axe through his skull.

Trotsky was a great general, but Stalin had been the bank robber in chief of the Bolsheviks, for him, killing and stealing people was business (or more exactly "revolutionary contribution", as was the euphemism).

To whip the Soviet Union into shape, Stalin killed even more Soviets than Hitler (at least so he said drunkenly to Churchill, according to Churchill). Since the official Soviet losses in WWII are now up to 28 million dead, this is saying much. No doubt that the Gulag killed more than ten million slaves… But many of these slaves, with their little hands, built great things; canals through the north, roads through Siberian mountains…

The ferocity of the Soviet regime left the Nazis haggard. To hold the front at Moscow, "blocking sections" of the NKVD shot on sight any retreating Soviet soldiers. Prisoners were considered traitors (that meant the death penalty). Officers in the Red Army had the right to shoot their subordinates, no questions asked. Some soldiers were Soviet women, even in the tank forces. Thus motivated, much better than by the profit motive, workers at Stalingrad hopped on tanks they had just built, and rolled into combat, from inside the same factory.

Hence Stalin saved the USSR by half killing it, in his waltz, and lethal embrace, with German fascism. Stalinism was really a special case.

Nazism is therefore of more import, as a cause, in the sense that Stalin was a reaction to the extermination threat that German racism and fascism posed, and was not the origination of the threat.

There was also another factor, subjacent to all the preceding. The Soviet Union had been attacked at birth by plutocrats.

As soon as the USSR was created, the Franco-Anglo-Americans, fresh from their victory over German fascism, helped the "White Russian" army attack the communists. After a few years of this, they failed. This, nevertheless helps to explain the paranoiac nature of the USSR. As far as the Soviets were concerned, they were under plutocratic attack.

Before WWI, the French people had invested enormously in newly democratic Russia, which developed amazingly fast (helping the paranoia of the Prussian generals, who decided upon war in 1912). Understandably, little French savers wanted to recover their investments. That was one of the reasons to throw down the Soviets, who refused to honor this debt (Russia looked into it 70 years later).

In any case, the Soviets felt as if global Western plutocracy was out to get them. And they succeeded to block it, as they took control of the entire Russian empire (and more).

After being blocked by the Soviets, what was global Western plutocracy to do? Was it going to fade away? Hell, no. It is not named pluto-cracy for no good reason: the lord of hell itself is its soul.

Well, Germany was an obvious target and playground for hyper rich plotters. At this point, 1919, a split occurred in plutocratic ranks: France expected a return of German fascism ("in 20 years", Clemenceau had prophesized).

What France wanted was the reconstruction of North-West France, that the retreating imperial German army had devastated, flattening Middle age castles and factories, downing power and telephone lines, flooding the mines (some miles deep), etc. The German fascists refused, preferring to cause hyper inflation, and whine to Anglo-Saxon plutocrats that the big bad French, with their big bad black soldiers were raping them.

As the duplicitous Germans did not send enough telephone poles (!), France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr.

Next the Anglo-Saxon plutocracy intervened, proposing, and enacting, several plans with several American and German individuals who were going to be the greatest promoters of Hitler (the later was on stipend from Henry Ford). The basic idea of the plutocrats was to use Germany to go around the American anti-monopoly laws enacted by Teddy Roosevelt. Nazism was born as a trick to escape American law.

***

DEMOCRACY HAS TO CHOSE WAR IN A TIMELY MANNER:

Global Anglo-Saxon plutocracy built itself a kingdom in Germany, and later pushed for Hitler to lead it. The relationship of France with the USA became terrible by 1934, when it became clear that the USA would support Hitler, come what may. France rearmed massively, and prepared grimly for war, penalizing her economy under the weight of the military effort.

After 1936, French diplomacy succeeded to wrestle Britain progressively out of its Nazi embrace. (It was a long process, because the King, and even Churchill, had been pro-Nazi; the king was abdicated, and Churchill changed his convictions, waking up to his inner French soul, and giving up on Mussolini’s considerable charms).

***

PLUTOCRACY, OR HOW THE AMERICAN CENTURY CAME TO BE:

In 1939, France was at war with the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and American plutocracy. Britain was scrambling to build an army, but was too late. Asked formally to help, the USA refused, pointing at France as an enemy combatant of sorts. A particularly low point for the USA, which brought 70 million dead, a rich price to be paid for the so called American Century.

The American Century was that period when American plutocracy, having getting rid of the British, German and French ones, manu military, was sole owner of the world, but for the impoverished USSR and Maoist China. The American People profited from its so called century, of course, so was not too keen to understand how it all worked.

A renascent Western Europe, under Franco-German leadership, soon started the European Union, and the other part of France, Britain, had to join. When Germany reunited when Eastern Europe freed itself from the Soviet dictatorship, France (Mitterand) requested the Euro, and Germany (Kohl) accepted. A big Germany was OK with France, as long as it was a bigger France.

And here we are. The financial crisis of 2007 was long time coming. Differently from, and more severely than the Great Depression, it was announced by a faltering of the augmentation of real income per capita in the USA (real means once headline inflation, the CPI, and a fortiori real inflation, is taken into account).

***

PLUTOCRACY HAS COME BACK FOR MORE:

Now the spirit of the history I recapitulated above is not found in history books: the global plutocracy makes sure of it. It is actually hilarious how they clean up Wikipedia. But, even for the common, uncurious People, the events of 2008-2009 were revealing: the very rich individuals who had caused the crisis were sent trillions of Dollars and Euros. Normal people were told that there was not enough money to pay for their modest unemployment checks.

Obama, having offered trillions to the richest, most culprit of the rich, informed the baffled people that health care costs had to be contained for the future (when president Palin wants to invade Uzbekistan, and needs plenty of money for that, apparently). Thus, the enraged people of Massachusetts elected some guy even more good looking and naked than Obama was.

As it turned out, the financial crisis of 2007 revealed a great breathing together (con-spirare = together-breathing). Worse: a great synarchy, the greatest synarchy that ever was, came into view.

Indeed, it became clear that the same plutocratic networks and organizations, or even families, that supported German fascism after World War One still pulled the same strings.

One of the most blatant case is the Bush family: Prescott Bush was one of Hitler’s most important collaborators, as he managed, for Hitler, the most important "defense" cartel of Nazism, the American-Silesian corporation.

That was, of course fine as long as American plutocrats were busy stabbing democracy in the back. But, 8 months after Hitler had declared war to the USA, it became an embarrassment. Thus Prescott Bush was made a senator. Now Wikipedia points out that Prescott Bush was never a Nazi. And why would he have become a Nazi? He did not need to become a Nazi anymore than Stalin, long Hitler’s ally, did. Hitler’s was Bush’s employee, not conversely (banks and Wall Street played major, precise role, bringing Hitler in the service of Bush).

***

TRADING WITH FASCISM OUGHT TO BE VIEWED AS HIGH TREASON:

Trade with the Nazis later made the Nazis extremely strong. Without this trade the Nazis would have had nearly no weapons, no fuel, no rubber… and no friends.

Although the Nazis were very friendly to their Anglo-Saxons plutocrats and dictatorial friends in the East (Polish colonels and Stalin, among others), France’s strenuous opposition put them off balance, as she persuaded Britain to return to her roots, as Britain finally understood that she was malignantly manipulated from inside by plutocrats of the fascist type.

China does not have a dedicated country as an enemy, as the Nazis had in France. But it is even worse: the enemy of the Chinese dictatorship is history itself.

China is not a democracy. If China encounters internal trouble it will be tempted to do exactly what the fascists did in Germany in 1914: create an exterior war. Notice: Germany had a figurehead parliament at the time, in 1914, but China presently does not even bother with this fig leaf. It is even more naked than Scott brown (the naked white Obama from Massachusetts).

What does that mean, not being a democracy? It means most people, and their opinions, do not matter. People do not have a mind of their own, on important subject, just as Lin above.

People, instead of being an assembly of varied minds, become just one mind. All ideas are lined up in rows, goose stepping behind a few big ones, and the most important of them all is that the leaders are always right. This idea is explicitly in the Qur’an, and was the key idea of Nazism. Hitler called it the Fuererprinzip/ A double concept: principle of the guide, and guiding principle.

***

WHEN ONLY AN OLIGARCHY DOES THE THINKING, IDIOCY REIGNS:

Hitler was crafty like a fox; but, like a fox, he could be hunted. By late 1940, it became clear that he would not be able to defeat Britain.

An important Soviet delegation was in Berlin, November 12, 1940. It had to flee, with the entire population, in underground shelters, as British bombers shook Berlin, convincing the Soviets that the Nazis were seriously weakened (the Nazis had lost 50,000 elite fanatical soldiers and engineers, just in the Battle of France, and more than 2,000 planes).

This is the central weakness of fascism: a few do all the thinking, others obey and think only according to the thoughts the few on top have determined to be correct. By November 1940 those who thought in Germany could have seen Germany had already lost the war. Instead, Hitler ordered to plan the invasion of the USSR, and the obedient, brainless ants got busy doing so.

So our young Chinese is told that Britain and Europe are two different systems, and she repeats that with utmost seriousness, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. By that token, Tibet, Taiwan, Eastern Siberia, and why not Vietnam were always part of China, and especially the oil of the so called South China sea.

Plutocracy has of course seen in China its new fascist Germany. It uses it in a similar manner.

This time, though, the West has nothing to lose to enforce its civilization and ethics, in a timely manner. It can learn from history, the same causes having the same effects.

If China wants war, better now. Waiting that fascism feels ready to attack is not the optimal approach for democracy.

***

THE TIME TO FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY IS NOW:

In 1914, the fascists felt ready, and attacked. Only the semi miraculous battle of the Marne saved civilization (whatever naïve, plutocratic and aristocratic Bertrand Russell said). In 1939, Britain and France short-circuited the uncanny alliance of Hitler, Stalin, and some powerful American plutocrats; if they had not done so, then, Nazism would have won (the Nazis intended to arm themselves with sophisticated weapons and attack five years later).

Now, of course, it did not happen that straightforwardly. As Hitler formally allied himself with the Soviets, to get supplies he needed, such as oil, he expected to scare France. As far as Hitler was concerned, to reunify the Great 1,000 Year German Reich with Eastern Prussia was only satisfying the legitimate wishes of oppressed German minorities, part of whose heartland was occupied by the inferior Poles. Hitler did not want a world war: he was not ready yet. Five years later, maybe.

But France had no choice. France knew that Hitler was getting all sorts of supplies, even weapons and oil, from the American plutocrats. Attacking the Nazis had been delayed for years, to allay Anglo-Saxons sensitivities and interest. It was either attacking in1939, or waiting until the Nazis were ready to attack, as happened with the Prussian generals in 1914. The Nazi Reich was becoming ever more powerful every day, greatly thanks to its American plutocratic friends.

We are getting to similar crossroads with China: everyday China becomes physically stronger, but indications have been recently that, not only its intellectual progress is not keeping pace, but it is going backwards.

Paul Krugman, now followed by others, including Larry Summers, has argued that the Chinese currency is deliberately pegged to the US Dollar, and since the US Dollar is too low, so is the Chinese currency. Fair enough, but it is mostly the Europeans who ought to complain.

More troubling was China’s circus in Copenhagen, when Obama was treated as a little boy and Europe superbly ignored about doing something against overheating and acidifying the planet.

This was very strange: China is the number one polluter, and decided to make a huge effort in renewables, so it ought to play along. But maybe some of its plutocratic sponsors whispered in the appropriate ears of the Chinese oligarchy that green progress ought to be stopped (how else to explain China’s 180 degrees turn, reminiscent of those that Hitler boasted he could do, since only him took the decisions).

When democracy plays with fascism, it plays with fire. With the negative effects of "globalization" getting uglier everyday, maybe it is time to concentrate trade on the democratic countries (that includes all the Americas, except for Cuba, and all of Europe, apparently all the way to Kamchatka).

But then again, a firm hand could be just what China needs to see the light in a timely manner.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama mentioned that the USA "invented the automobile". How does that relate with the preceding?

This statement is blatantly not true. The first (steam powered) automobiles dating from 1769, as part of a French army program (several were built, and the first car accident occurred). In 1806 a Swiss invented the internal combustion engine (hydrogen-oxygen). In 1895 Peugeot fit the first rubber tires, and Michelin invented the pneumatic tire.

It would seem that the first American automobiles appeared in 1902, made by Mr. Olds. It is hard to find anything having to do with automobiles which was actually invented first in the USA. But it feels good, so the president says it, stoking the jingoistic fires.

Now what is the difference with monolithic thinking from China? Well, the USA is still a democracy, and one can protest when blatant lies arise. Piling up little lies (such as the USA invented everything, say) is mostly grave because it tends to lead to big lies. But big lies can be stopped in a democracy.

For example, the American People got exasperated by all the lies, or unreal craziness of the Obama administration. Lies or craziness such as sending trillions to the banks’ criminals, right away, not questions asked, no strings attached, meanwhile proposing that cost control panels (aka "death panels") should scrutinize Medicare, to save a few measly "billions", in the future. Perhaps. Real harm, savings for President Palin. 

Confronted to this craziness, what did democracy do? Well, it elected the naked white guy in one of the most left wing states of the union, as a calculated insult of the collective subconscious.

Democracy works, fascism does not, and the day fascism understands that, it attacks.

***

Carbonize Mercantilism!

January 1, 2010

 

Abstract: Some American economists whine about Chinese trade, but China is actually making fun of the USA being hoisted on its own petard. The best way out of it all is more enforcement of intellectual property, and a worldwide carbon tax, sparing naught…

And of course, deep down below, it’s all about the world (and American) plutocracy, anyway and China is being played, like every other state. The worldwide carbon tax will allow for some more worldwide Colbertism, just what the doctor ought to order.

***

Paul Krugman sees 2010 as "the year of China, but not in a good way".

Our "New Trade Theory" expert, Nobel Prize winner mostly for that, and whom I have accused of rabid globalization in the past, has changed quite a bit: "Chinese mercantilism is a growing problem, and the victims of that mercantilism have little to lose from a trade confrontation… China has become a major financial and trade power. But it doesn’t act like other big economies. Instead, it follows a mercantilist policy, keeping its trade surplus artificially high. And in today’s depressed world, that policy is, to put it bluntly, predatory."

Mercantilism is a theory that holds that the prosperity of a nation depends upon fighting other nations economically rather than anything else (see Annex 1 for the definition and related concepts, including the fact that China practices more Colbertism than Mercantilism, and the fact that Colbertism is not intrinsically bad, and just what the USA needs at this point).

Basically China engages in this "predatory policy" by, um, clinging to Uncle Sam’s cotails… How embarrassing, my dear Krugman.

Well, it is ironical that the USA, which has practiced a mercantilist policy of making the US dollar as weak as possible, would complain that China is doing the same with its own currency. How dares it? Is China stealing the USA by parroting the USA? It is even more funny than that: China has pegged its currency to the Dollar, so as the USA tried its usual mercantilist trick of debasing the Dollar, the Chinese currency went down with, well, the Dollar!

Before giving lessons to China, the USA ought to give lessons to itself. Debasing the currency does not work. It is not just a question of looking at what happened to say, Argentina.

After a sorry episode, in the 1930s, with way too strong a Franc, when everybody else left the peg with gold before her, France had decided to never been caught in that trap again. But the French politicians had slightly misunderstood the problem. The problem with the gold standard, the same that imperial Rome already experienced, is that it did not bring enough money to the economy. The other problem too was that, as all other powers debased spectacularly their currencies, after the USA introduced 50% tariffs on all goods, French trade collapsed. (This, of course, was a minor problem relative to the one of the explicit alliance between the USA, Great Britain, and Hitler, fully visible as early as 1934, and which made the French deeply distrustful of America.)

Now France was fully familiar with mercantilism, having practiced it for centuries, until the new economists known as the physiocrats came on the scene, and advised King Louis XV. The physiocrats later taught Adam Smith. They threw mercantilism through the window, arguing that more trade was better for everybody. But still the mercantilism current of thought argued back, and has always been present in the French economic debates. France has a tremendous economic history, complete with huge ecological problems in the Middle Ages, and strong measures to correct them, and deliberate massive stimulus programs, as practiced by King Henri IV by 1600 CE.

So, fresh on her sorry experience of the 1930s, France debased the Franc relative to the Deutsch Mark in the 1960s and 1970s. Alas, France discovered that did not work either. Priced out of the cheapest products, the Germans concentrated on higher added value items, and the German economy persistently outperformed the French one. So, having observed her obvious mistake, next, France switched to a Franc that would be as hard as the Mark, under Banque de France chief Trichet. The rest is history, namely the Euro, and Trichet now heads the European Central Bank based in the fort of the Franks, Frankfurt.

Meanwhile the sneaky USA had connived, over the objections of Keynes, and behind his back, to make the US Dollar into the world ("reserve") currency. Keynes headed the Bretton Woods commission in charge of monetary problems. This little reminder for all those that American imperialism and dirty tricks to play with the planet as it was its personal basket ball, were not invented by G. W. Bush.

That world currency status of the Dollar allowed Secretary of the Treasury Connelly to grandly declare to the Europeans:"The Dollar is our currency, but it is your problem." The Europeans decided to solve said problem by being serious, and going the high technology route. European high taxes on energy and carbon, doubled with incentives to sell renewable energy for profit, are part of that high technology plan.

Anyway, so what are we going to do about China? One should notice that China is not alone, but is allied with the world plutocratic class. (A whiff of what happened with Hitler.)

Of course we could try to talk and seduce the Chinese out of mercantilism, forgetting for a moment that the immense fortunes of the owners of Wall Mart, for example, depends heavily upon Chinese mercantilism.

European powers practiced mercantilism intensely for three centuries, during which they engaged in a number of ferocious wars with each other. War is a natural extension of mercantilism. So the seduction dance to the aggressively minded may not work this time either: China and its western plutocrats may make the same mistake Hitler and his Western plutocrats made, namely interpret negotiation as weakness, and democracy with lethargy. When Paul Krugman worries about American job losses to China, he does worry about European job losses to the USA.

Another approach to pound a bit more sense in the mercantile ones, is to enforce worldwide intellectual property with more severity. Indeed, mercantilism orient an economy towards cheap product and impoverished workers (since it is trying to out-produce by cheapening). This is naturally an ambiance little supportive of intellectual creativity, always an expensive art.

The problem of China is that it employs around 600 million people in cities, and has to deal with about as much impoverished peasants who want to move to the cities to find better work. So China has to find more work for dozens of millions, hence its fanatical growth policy. China is addicted to growth through exports, because the (most of them American) plutocrats come to China and take care of everything: China has just to furnish local contacts, cheap workers, and cheap currency. What China needs to do is to reorient its growth towards a bit more self sufficiency, a bit more Maoism, and get more Chinese to self develop China.

To encourage the Chinese economy to grow internally, a long term approach is to use a WORLDWIDE CARBON TAX. It will in particular strike imports, and force importers to pay for the carbon mess which is poisoning the biosphere. This can be done in a way fully compatible with republican and fair trade principles. Actually a carbon tax is exactly about fair trade.

France was supposed to introduce a carbon tax, January 1, 2010, today, but just three days before that date, the French Constitutional Court found that the tax, as proposed made too many exemptions, violating the EQUALITY PRINCIPLE of the French republic. The French Constitutional Court blocked the enactment of the Carbon Tax law (notice in passing the enormous power of French courts).

The French government is scrambling to modify the Carbon Tax law, according to the Court’s findings, and should re-present it to parliament January 20, 2010. The global point is this though: a worldwide carbon tax, if enacted according to the finding of the French Constitutional Court, would be perfectly valid as far as the World Trade Organization is concerned.

China will not be able to move out of carbon as fast as the USA and the EU can. Indeed it is heavily invested in coal, cheap and dirty, and China needs lots of cheap energy, right away. The graphs, if nothing else, show that the augmentation of the need of China for energy is much greater than that of the EU and the USA.

Hence to go carbon free, China will have to make much more of an effort, even relatively speaking, than Europe or the USA, or Japan. Thus, forcing China to reduce its carbon output will force China to develop more internally rather than flooding the world with cheap exports (American style).

Come to think of it, a worldwide carbon tax would force the USA to develop itself more, too, instead of escaping into exportism. More generally, a carbon tax would force countries to self develop, and would have many of the advantages of protectionism, without the inconvenience and the aggressive underlying theme.

I would not call the worldwide implementation of a carbon tax retaliation, but rebalancing. Which it would be. Planet first, mercantilism last.

***

Patrice Ayme

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

***

Annex 1: DEFINTION OF MERCANTILISM: Mercantilism is a theory that holds the prosperity of a nation to be dependent upon its capital, and that the global volume of international trade is "unchangeable" (a so called zero sum game).

Economic assets or capital, are represented by bullion (gold, silver, and trade value) held by the state, and are best increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations (exports minus imports). Strict mercantilism assumes that wealth and monetary assets are identical. Mercantilism advocates to advance these goals by protecting the national economy. Notably by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, through the use of tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to fair trade.

Plutocratic propaganda often views French mercantilism as closely associated with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, finance minister for 22 years in the 17th century. This is misleading.

clip_image001

clip_image002

French finance and economy minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert .

Sometimes French mercantilism is called "Colbertism", by deliberately confusing, or confused, Anglo-Saxon economists of the plutocracy loving type. This confusion is of some import, because Chinese policy may have more to do with Colbertism than Mercantilism, and some American economists are very biased about this. Actually the USA is an extremely mercantilist country masquerading as a free trade fanatic.

Under Colbert, the French government became deeply involved in the economy in all its aspects, in order to develop it more. Industries were organized by more than 150 edicts, and by technologies transfers guided by the government, and production was regulated by the state through a series of over a thousand directives outlining how different products should be produced. To encourage industry, foreign artisans and craftsmen were imported (something the USA has done always). Colbert also worked to decrease internal barriers to trade, reducing internal tariffs, making taxation more equitable, with indirect taxes that even the great lords could not avoid, and building an extensive network of roads and canals.

Colbert’s policies were very successful, and France’s industrial output and economy grew considerably during this period, as France regained her natural position as the dominant European power (after the ruinous seven religious wars of the end of the 16 C, and the just as ruinous war against the Spanish empire in the Netherlands, and worldwide, from roughly 1515 to 1637; unfortunately Louis XIV squandered some of this renewed, Colbert directed, economic might in wars, not all of his own making.)

To this day, though, Colbertism is controversial in France, and often derided as "dirigisme" (i.e, directing the private economy more than appropriate).

***

Annex 2: Here is a fuller extract of Krugman, New York Times, January 1, 2010, explaining extremely well what China is doing, currency wise: "China has become a major financial and trade power. But it doesn’t act like other big economies. Instead, it follows a mercantilist policy, keeping its trade surplus artificially high. And in today’s depressed world, that policy is, to put it bluntly, predatory.

Here’s how it works: Unlike the dollar, the euro or the yen, whose values fluctuate freely, China’s currency is pegged by official policy at about 6.8 yuan to the dollar. At this exchange rate, Chinese manufacturing has a large cost advantage over its rivals, leading to huge trade surpluses.

Under normal circumstances, the inflow of dollars from those surpluses would push up the value of China’s currency, unless it was offset by private investors heading the other way. And private investors are trying to get into China, not out of it. But China’s government restricts capital inflows, even as it buys up dollars and parks them abroad, adding to a $2 trillion-plus hoard of foreign exchange reserves."