Posts Tagged ‘China’

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."

TEACHING CHINA WELL.

April 10, 2008

TIBETAN AUTONOMY AS AN OCCASION TO GROW CIVILIZATIONALLY, AND TO FOCUS ON WHAT NOT TO EMULATE.

The People Republic of China learned its modern ways from Western Europe, and most particularly the French revolutionary models (several top leaders of the PRC were formed in Paris with the help of French leftists: Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping…)

Very good, but also pretty dangerous. Leaders of Cambodia were also instructed by the French Communist party. But they did not take to croissants as much as Deng Xiaoping did: French theoretical extremism has always been somewhat mitigated, within France, by benign hedonism, and the love of placid happiness. Absent enough of the later, Armageddon is at hand (the Terror under the French revolution has elements in common with the Chinese Cultural Revolution).

Ominously, we have seen that story before, with Germany. And Japan. A military elite, drunk on technological and economic success, pulled too hard the strings of fascism (that had favored this particular form of success), and disaster ensued in a lethal clash with democracies.

Germany used to be broken up in a few hundred states (nominally united as a rather benign empire inherited from the Franks). Then Britain and France, busy with their own civil war with each other, messed up with it (Britain financed and excited Prussia in the Seven Year World War of the 18C, then France united all of Germany as one state under Napoleon, who raised a giant German army to go vanquish Russia). Next Prussia came out of the whole interference like a roaring economic and military colossus, eager to show to her creators and competitors, Britain and France, that she was even bigger and stronger. Nationalism and fascism rose to a fevered pitch, disgusting Nietzsche, who could not find enough bad things to say about the way Homo Germanicus was evolving.

Soon the German empire, led by Prussian military men, and having integrated some democratic structures, such as a parliament (which had all secondary powers), reached achievements far ahead of the rest of the world: best literacy in the world, best health care in the world (with the first single payer system, still going on today). Besides in technology the Second German empire often reigned supreme, and had the world’s strongest military.

 Germany had a single Achilles’ heel though, FASCISM. It was mild fascism, all right, and for many Germans it looked just as if they were in democracy. Economic well being was going straight up, and so was pride, and creations everywhere.

Some revolutionary events occurred in Russia, and the fascist system there was replaced by a constitutional, democratic monarchy. Next French capital flooded Russia, and that new democracy started to develop like crazy.

The top Prussian generals took fright. Initially Bismarck had wanted to destroy France, and started the job in 1870-71. By 1890, Bismarck himself, maybe having read Nietzsche, realized that German fascism was getting out of control, and was heading towards the ditch. The young, brash, vainglorious and deformed Kaiser, a grand son of Queen Victoria, sacked him. The top Prussian generals, by 1912, had become very anxious with the enormous rise of the republican, democratic French empire in the west, and the giant democratic Russian empire in the east. The fact that France and Britain had got sort of married very officially was not reassuring in the least (”Entente Cordiale”, 1908, now transformed in “Entente Formidable”, 2008).

The last big time fascists in Europe felt surrounded. In December 1912, the top Prussian generals explained to the Kaiser that time was working against the fascist German empire: the future was to democracy, to survive, fascism had to strike now. It was convened an attack should be mounted within 18 months. Preceding attacks, against Denmark, Austro-Hungary, and France had been crowned with success, so why not again? An envoy of the US president visited, and to appease tensions, offered to overlord the world with a British-Americano-German triumvirate. On August 1, 1914, the German empire attacked four countries by total surprise, including France and Russia, and pushed a fifth one, Austro-Hungary, to declare war too. An astounded, but courageous Britain, having her closest democratic allies invaded, declared war within two days, although she had no army. This little adventure finished on May 8, 1945, with more than 100 million Europeans dead, and Europe devastated. A gang of five criminals had started it, all by themselves.

Japan’s case maybe even clearer; a society of sheep was railroaded into attacking the world by military leaders, after similarly getting drunk on spectacular technological and economic progress, in two generations. It helped also to have crushed Tsarist Russia (when it was still fascist). An attempted coup by younger Japanese officers, anxious for action, accelerated the movement towards militarism, and full fascism was imposed, crowned by the Second War against China (1936-37).

Both in Germany and Japan, fascist militaries ran the show, flushed with technological illusion, drunk on their power.

Fast forward to the 21C. China is in many ways on a trajectory similar to imperial Germany. It has the same arrogance of recent success. It loudly proclaims its difference, and its fascism with a human face (fascism is not an insult, it’s a technical term depicting the default psychological governance of baboons under attack). The Chinese military pulled all the strings until very recently, and a militaro-plutocratic elite has run the show, resting on the 5% of the Chinese population who are in the (“Communist”) Party. China claims to be ready to engage in a war about a small island. That, in the case that particular words would be uttered (to risk a world war about a relatively small place, a de facto independent democracy with 2% of the population of the PRC, is a psychological imbalance characteristic of hypernationalistic minds).

China has imported many elements of the Western European civilization. Among them is the right of “Just War” by “We The People” against its enemies (that right was central to Rome, and the Christians (St. Augustine) themselves approved of it. In this case, “We the People” is dubiously reduced to the elite of the “communist”-military machine, the small brain heading the PRC.

But China is missing many crucial elements of Western European civilization. In particular, that democracy’s most fundamental reason is that it allows to tap the big brain of the many, and not to stay stuck with the small brain of the few. China, as Japan and Germany long ago, seems to confuse the many movers and shakers of its techno-economico-capitalist-military complex, with the few who are taking, all by their little selves, the really most crucial decisions, such as going to war. China demonstrates this by its hard edges on Tibet and Taiwan, let alone the South “China” Sea.

Remember: only five “Prussian” generals took all the fascist decisions that threw the world into war for the next 31 years. The situation in Japan was similar: even the top of the Japanese Navy, admiral Yamamoto, who had deep and excellent reasons to oppose the war, and voiced them loudly, was forced into war by his superiors (he was one of many in the top Japanese brass in that situation: one can imagine how little the average Japanese’s opinion counted!). 

Confronted to all these facts, well trained sophists on the Chinese government payroll insist that China is different, that it is secular, and has never known Christianism. This is a red herring: Confucianism is a religion (the reigning native religion of China for 26 centuries; Buddhism was imported). Christianism became just one of many convenient excuses for European civilization (after having nearly succeeded to destroy it). Not, either, that Confucianism was successful in smothering war: the Warring States period lasted centuries, and only the particularly strong, book burning fascism of Qin ended it (221 BCE).

Confronted to Tibetan protests, China applied censorship methods akin to that of Nazi Germany. Massive protests in Paris by all segments of French society were ignored on Chinese TV (Paris was only depicted as “very pretty”, that Paris City Hall was decorated by a giant banner, put by the mayor, was ignored. So were the banners on the Eiffel Towewr, and Notre Dame, so were the demonstrating MPs, and the president of the Region Ile de France, momentarily stopped because she was rushing the flame with a fire extinguisher. Finally the Olympic flamme got extinguished twice, once for twenty minutes. None of the this Chinese TV viewers saw. And we are not talking about neglectable events: the Region ile de France has 16 million people, and the largest GDP between New York and Tokyo (and it’s headed by a woman: where are the women in the Chinese Communist party?).

The West has to teach China that these manipulations of information are not acceptable. Democracy means first that the people (demos) has the power (kratos) of INFORMATION. During Germany’s three generations of fascism, information was frantically controlled, starting in primary school (that’s why both Nietzsche and Einstein fled, among others). Literacy was the highest, true, but it was more to make the monkeys 

China is huge and potentially very dangerous, if its fascism gets out of control and metastatic. There is something to the fact that democracies do not attack democracies: the oldest and fullest democracies around, France and the USA, never had a war (Britain and the USA in 1812, the last time when they fought, were far from being full democracies). A quick span of history shows that democracies were typically at war with fascism (although democratic Athens attacked other democracies [5C BCE], it was part of a larger war initiated by fascist Sparta, financed and instigated by ultra fascist Persia).

China has to become more democratic in an orderly fashion, as soon as possible, under the Communist party guidance. The argument that this is impossible is ludicrous, considering the Indian example (the only threats to India are from other countries with rather fascist systems; internal instability is not a problem, the “millions of little mutinies” that animate it are like butterflies on an elephant).

China can start by reporting events as they happen, and not as it wishes them to happen. This goes for Chinese TV, and giving free access to journalists. When French TV wants access to the US armies in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, it gets it (and then shows pictures not shown on the main US outlets). China has to watch and imitate. Refering to Confucius will not help, because we can refer, in turn, to the Warring States and the fascism that succeeded him. Confucius was just one man with a restricted philosophy not really transcended by his successors. Western information gathering capability is not restricted to the the West, and to the now.

China cannot just use a few pieces here and there of particularly aggressive and uncritical pieces of Western philosophy, and run away with them. It needs the whole thing, and that means democracy. In all ways.

Patrice Ayme.
http://www.patriceayme.com/index.html
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

Patrice Ayme, Hautes Alpes — 09 April 2008

 


SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism