Posts Tagged ‘Collapse’

CLIMATE CHANGES: CO2, Islam, & The Eternal Return Of Fascism

July 27, 2016

Another day, another Islamist attack in France. This was “Islam de France“, as it is among all too many youth. The two (French) Islamist “martyrs” were shot dead by the BRI (Brigade d’Intervention Rapide). Armed with knives and a gun they took hostage several parishioners in a church. The 86 year old priest was made to kneel before his throat was cut. Several other elderly persons were cut. The Islamist “martyrs” were so busy filming their “heroic” deeds, that a nun was able to escape discreetly, and alerted the police. As with the latest attack in Bavaria at a music concert two days ago, the Islamist pseudo-state ISIS claimed it set it up. The area, in rural Normandy, is known as one of the most Islamized places in France, thanks to a Salafist mosque (which, if one followed Israeli methods, would have been dynamited long ago!)

No wonder Donald Trump wants “extreme vetting” of French visa applicants.

Yes, I know, it’s dreary. Yes I know, among the looming threats gathering out there, Islamism is the silliest fanatical cretinism on steroids. However, Islamism is dreadful enough to cause great dislocation, and lack of focus on the real problems. After all, it was the (de facto) pro-Islamist mood which Kanzler Merkel organized, all by herself. The reaction to this pro-Islam mood, in turn, broke the European Union’s back with Brexit (I watch plenty of German TV, and I was aghast with the let’s-embrace-Islam mood the Merkel-led authorities promoted rashly, with their naive approach… Admitting refugees (which I am for) is one thing, welcoming the mood of the religion which has caused the refugee crisis is something else: it is in an absolute contradiction).

Want to see a real threat? Something really hot and hard? Here it is, spiking up, as I said it would, so long ago

Climate Change: CO2, Islam, & The Eternal Return Of Fascism. Temperature In 2016 Is Exceeding All Expectations.i

Climate Changes: CO2, Islam, & The Eternal Return Of Fascism. Temperature In 2016 Is Exceeding All Expectations Scientists Who Are Paid To Sound Nice Officially Expected.

[Image source: Dr. Stephan Rahmstorf. Data source: NASA GISS. Data 1880 CE to April 2016.]

What is the reason for this sharp spike? Fundamentally the global rise in temperature is driven by the man-made GreenHouse Gases (GHG: CO2, CH4, NOx, ClFs, etc.). The GHGs block infrared radiation more than normal air does, trapping heat in the biosphere. This “climate forcing” warms up the lower atmosphere (and cools the irrelevant stratosphere!) The GHG density is increasing at a steady pace from human industry. But the resulting warming, and thus the GHG emissions have clearly now started to self feed. (How do we know this? From the divergence of the graphs. More on this another day.)

What of the change of mental climate Islam brings? Is it benevolent as the proselytizers of Islam claim, a “religion of peace”? Or do we need to read what is really going on, and find out why 18 year olds with criminals pasts, and no education to speak of, know Islam way better that judicial and legislating authorities in the West claim to?

Those who fight for Islam get “special reward”:

Quran (4:95)“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.”

Those who don’t help God, go to hell:

Quran (9:39)“If ye go not forth God will afflict you with a painful doom…”

When fighting the unbelievers, God hates a coward and throws him to hell:

Quran (8:15-16)“O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!”

Those who die, fighting for God, go to paradise:

Quran (3:169-170)Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.”

As usual, the preceding is confirmed, and amplified, in numerous parts of the Hadith and the Sira:

Muslim (20:4678)It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: “Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed?” He replied: “In Paradise.” The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i. e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).

Abu Dawud (14:2515)I asked the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him): Who are in Paradise? He replied: “Prophets are in Paradise, martyrs are in Paradise.”

If you are young, depressed, and believe in the preceding, and surrounded with what preachers and sacred texts tell you are unbelievers who deserve to die, what would you do? The answer is all too obvious.

I was watching a top, senior, just retired, French judge,  and she calmly pontificated that youth who committed assassinations of unbelievers in the name of Islam perverted Islam. Well, if you read Islamist sacred texts, you can judge the judge. I judge that judges like that, who pontificate that fanatical Jihadists “pervert Islam”  are themselves perverse idiots and could well be viewed to be a deeper source of terrorism than the youth who commits such assassinations, to start with. Yes, some will say I am out-Trumping Trump. But think about it: the white judge just claim that Islam, Literal Islam, is perfect, and youth was perverse. OK, then the judges say that the quotes above are perfect, while accusing those who act on them of what, exactly?

Another angle on the same problem: imagine that a youthful would-be assassin confronts a judge. The judge tells the youth to be less perverse and to follow Islam more closely? In the case of the assassination of the priest this happened precisely with one of the two 19-year-old Islamist assassin: the youth opined that he would be a better Muslim, follow the Qur’an better. So he was judged mature enough by a lady judge to be freed from jail, where he had been for eight months after being arrested in Turkey for trying to slip into Syria.

The climate in the West has been that Islam was good, whereas poor youth was bad, uneducated, not worth of correct schooling and employment. Verily, the truth is the other way around: Islam has been good for plutocracy, and orienting, actively or indirectly, youth towards Islam, Literal, Wahhabist, Salafist Islam, a perversion.


When Climate Changes, Species Go, And Smarter Ones Thrive:

Dinosaurs, pterosaurs, mesosaurs, plesiosaurs, and the like were all what some now call “mesotherms”: their temperature was in-between. They depended too much upon the balmy Jurassic and then Cretaceous climate to insure their own temperature. When the climate cooled, they faltered, and then disappeared. Whereas the hot “endotherms” (self-warm), mammals and birds, thrived.

A change of climate changes which species thrive, or even exist. It is the same with ruling systems of ideas, such as religions, and the mental climates they bring.

Islam created a wonderful climate among desert nomads. Prior to it, Arabs were at each others’ throats, and killed girls to limit the population explosion. Meanwhile, the Arabs were fully exposed, and frustrated, by the great civilizations swirling around them: Ethiopian, Yemenite, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and then the formidable Greco-Roman civilization, and its partial descendant, the Persian Sassanid empire. However, soon after 605 CE things changed: a formidable war between Sassanids (Zoroastrian Persians) and “Rome”, turned suddenly to Persia’s advantage (the Persian Shah In Shah was all the bolder as the Romans had put him back on his throne earlier: a case of back-stabbing).

It is a long story, and I want to tell it (but will have to do so some other time). It is a matter of climate. In more ways than one.


Mental Climate Catastrophes Brought Islam:

To understand the change of species which Islam brought, one has to understand the anti-intellectual climate which brought a deep mental freeze in “Rome” (Constantinople), and the influence the resulting refugee crisis of fleeing Roman intellectuals had in Persia. Then a terrible storm arose: an all-out war between Constantinople and Persia, of an extraordinary violence, back and forth, like a tsunami going one way, and then the other.

Thanks to a crazed out Persian emperor, Persia made the greatest invasion of the Mediterranean basin in 1,000 years, even conquering all the way to Libya, something it had never done before. By 622 CE, the situation was so desperate, that emperor Heraclius thought of evacuating the Roman capital to Carthage. Just when the enormous reforms he had made back to a citizen army and other reconstitution of ancient Greco-Roman traditions, changed the climate completely in the Roman empire. That change of mood mobilized the population, and enabled to reverse the military tide.


Why Islam Swept All:

Islam is a war religion. As simple as that. It went much further that way that Roman Catholic Orthodox had (= Christianism imposed by the Roman state, now headed from Constantinople and Milan). Christianism celebrated a “Lord” mimicking Constantine’s behavior. That included the summary execution of the son… and Verses of the Sword:  Luke 19; 27 is unambiguous. The mythic Jesus Christ supposedly said:

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

It could not be any clearer. A total negation of the state of law. A proclamation of human sacrifice. Yes, when thinking of religion, remember this: human sacrifice is about having a religious reason for killing others.

“Religious” means non-legal. “Legal” does not just mean legal in the Roman sense, but legal in the ethological sense.

Hence the imposition of (fascist, mono-dictatorial, lethal, jealous, imperious) Christianism, between Roman emperors Constantine and Theodosius (both initially generals, reigning absolutely on the entire empire) changed the climate completely. Instead of having a state of law, one passed to a state of caprice of the emperor, sultan, prophet or caliph at the head. Or, as Constantine modestly depicted himself “thirteenth apostle”.

This anti-intellectual climate appeared just when a greater intellectual activity was called for. This is what generally happens, it’s no accident.

Meanwhile, to the south-east, the Arabs saw all of this. They saw the Persians invade Yemen and seize Aden. They saw Rome nearly collapse, and, while Muhammad was fighting Mecca from Yathrib (= Medina), from 622 Ce to 630 CE, he saw the fabulous Roman counter-attack, and Persia collapse in coups, civil wars, queens reigning for a year or two, top generals assassinated…

The Roman nadir was in 622 CE. In 630 CE, Muhammad was religious dictator of Mecca. As a prophet, he could re-organize the Qur’an, and he did. Exit the kind, loving and tolerant Islam. However, quite a bit of the Meccan religious arsenal was preserved, including perhaps the Satanic Verses, and certainly the Moon as a symbol, Mecca as a religious center, complete with meteorite and recycled Kabaa.

So Muhammad changed the climate, but not too much where not needed. Instead he led a crusade of united warriors to the north, to attack the Romans (who smirked and avoided contact, as they had just concluded peace with the Sassanid Persians, reconstituting the old borders… and had decided to spurn Monophysite Arabs).

Kill or fight the enemy, go to paradise? What better mental climate to impose an empire?

What is sure is that, if we don’t kill the CO2 rise pretty soon, the notion of paradise will change. And that this Literal Islam, Salafism, Wahhabism, Wall Street compatible Islam, thing is an un-amusing distraction.


Nothing new under the sun; civilizations can die quickly:

1,500 years ago, or so, the mighty Moche civilization, along the coast of Peru knew a drought and a super El Nino (certainly amplified by natural climate change, probably of volcanic origin).

The Moche survived initially, but their religion became all-consuming (full of human sacrifices and pyramids). It is the usual reaction: when a society gets stressed, it reacts as a baboon troop: everybody of one mind, behind the chief (right now Trump).

In a civilization, if more than one fascist movement appear (say the Communists at the same time as the Nazis, as in Germany in the 1920s; or Syria now), civil strife ensues. This is what happened to the Moche, and in such a violent manner, that the civilization collapsed.

Something similar, a super drought in the Seventh Century, accompanied by civil war and ecological devastation, nearly eradicated the Mayan civilization, thereafter a shadow of its former self (until the Spaniards showed up, 6 centuries later).


“Hydraulic Dictatorships” And, Or Fascist Over-Reaction?

The basic problem of the zone where Islam festers, has been ecological. A massive, epochal drought, tied to the interglacial cycle, started more than 6,000 years ago, triggering the Egyptian civilization. The drought forced the Egyptians to get along with agriculture, in a very long and narrow valley, and vast associated oases, where hydraulic was crucial. Fernand Braudel rightly introduced the notion of “Hydraulic Dictatorship”. And the reasoning is obvious: big hydraulics means big society, armies of workers, relative wealth, hence big army to protect the whole thing, etc. So I supported that reasoning (which I had developed on my own). However, I am starting to have second thoughts: after all, many Western societies, including some Greek city-states, and Rome for much of her history, and the various regimes which descended from the Franks/French, including England, did not fall into the same pattern (nor did Egypt, mostly, for that matter).

After all, the entire region was long the richest in the world, where many Neolithic and civilization basic techniques were discovered, invented and blossomed. And the climate got desperately dry 6,000 years ago, when the deserts became basically uninhabitable. Still, the area was at the very forefront of civilization until the massive Celto-Greco-Roman (“The West”) took over, starting 23 centuries ago. Some of the degeneracy occurred before Islam, or even just before the Hellenistic civilization of the Trojan War took off. However Babylonians and later, the Achaemenid empire still made civilizational innovations. And yet the fact the Achaemenids’ greatness depended mostly upon one man, Darius The Great a sort of Zoroastrian Muhammad, with more brains, experience and statesmanship, reveals the truth: the Middle Earth had become way too fascist already 3,000 years ago, used as it was, by then, upon depending on just one individual. A climate of intellectual fascism had come to rule. (It’s no coincidence that the monotheism of Abrahamism, blind obedience to the Lord, mauling all and any human decency, came to fester there.)

So what could be going on? The mental climate may have over-reacted to the increasingly desertic situation. A climate of intellectual fascism had come to rule, and rightly so. Yet, in my view, there was an overshooting of the fascist mood. A bit like an immune system over-reacts, and a lethal auto-immune disease develops. True, strong government were needed, associated to strong religions, such as Judaism, and Constantine’s “Catholicism”. A bit of the Dark Side is often necessary. But Islam ended changing the mental climate way too far to the Dark Side (contemplate the quotes above).

Political and intellectual fascism can self feed, through religious effect (= the madness of the crowds), similarly to the self-feeding of the climate we are witnessing now (the ever crazier ending of the Nazi regime is a case in point! The more desperate the military situation was getting, the more insanely lethal the Nazis became, including against their own ilk!) Thus, as fascism arises from bad situations, as a healthy, and most effective defense reflex, it can bring in an even worse situation, through its own actions, which, in turn, ask for even more fascist action. Just as, the higher the temperature, the more methane and carbon dioxide released, hence more greenhouse, more temperature, thus more methane and carbon dioxide, etc…

The climate is changing, whether we want it or not. We have to do as the Egyptians did, 6,000 years ago: change minds, moods and civilization. We have to do much because now history is moving at the fastest clip ever. And history shows that civilizations which lasted many centuries, or even millennia, can collapse in days, and commonly do so in years.

Patrice Ayme’


Only Philosophy Can Reverse Civilization Collapse

August 12, 2015

World population is presently exploding. How many human beings were there before dogs became in wide use? In 35,000 BCE, it is estimated that Earth had three million human beings. Before the rise of cities, in 10,000 BCE, world population had reached 15 million. The rise of civilization was enabled by a technological explosion, the discovery, invention and intense use intense use of science, technology, writing, genetic engineering (dogs, cattle, goats, chicken, cats, wheat, rye, millet, rice, beans, potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, etc.), irrigation, fuel, etc.

Civilizations rise when they find new technological tricks to dominate and exploit their environments, be it the human, and, or, natural, environments. Those tricks exhaust resources after a while, bringing stress, thus war (against people, and, or, nature). War activates the fascist instinct, bringing the rise of plutocracy (as observed nowadays), and complete cretinism (also known as theocracy). This makes the collapse worse. Civilization can be destroyed by fate. The most famous case is a civilization we owe so much to: Crete. It was devastated by one of the worst volcanic explosion in 25,000 years (as it tried to recover, it was hit by a “plague”, according to Greek historians). 

Cretan Girls Leaped Over Bulls In The Nude

Cretan Girls Leaped Over Bulls In The Nude

Crete is part of our cultural inheritance. Today, the status of women depends upon the breakthrough ancient paintings (from the Knossos Palace, above), some 40 centuries old, depict. The status of women was high in Crete. Women could be in authority, for 2,000 years. Women were then to be subjugated in Greece, for 3,500 years (yes, time flies, these are big numbers: civilizational setbacks can last millennia).

Europe is named after Crete, an acknowledgment. The goddess Europa was from Crete (and one of her sons was the famous king Minos, after whom Minoan Civilization is named).

An example of self-imploding collapse is the Maya. The Maya were, for millennia, an extremely advanced civilization which seemed to be on its way to accomplish on its own something similar to the ascending superiority of Middle Earth (my term for the Mediterranean plus Egypt-Middle East-Arabia plus India area).

However, a terrible century long drought starting in the Seventh Century struck the Maya who proved unable to manage the crisis, to which they added terrible wars (the worst involving a queen, in the leading role, not just the usual demonic males). All Maya cities were destroyed. When the Spaniards landed, eight centuries later, the Maya were just shadows of their former selves (yet, they proved to be tough customers).

As Jared Diamond (2005, in his book “Collapse”) wrote, one can only be struck by “the disappearance of between 90 and 99% of the Maya population after A.D. 800 …and the disappearance of kings, Long Count calendars, and other complex political and cultural institutions.” Not just that, but much more importantly, the giant irrigation system of the Maya, with its dams and canals, was one of the world’s largest, ever: it can still be seen from space. When that centuries old irrigation system was left in disrepair, civilization became history.

In the close-by very extensive highlands of central Mexico, many powerful states also rose to high levels of power and prosperity, only to rapidly collapse. Teotihuacan (the sixth largest city in the world in the Seventh Century) and Monte Alban among those to experience dramatic collapse, with populations decline of at least 20–25% from their peak within a couple of generations (Tainter, 1988).

Civilization collapses come in many guises. Egypt cycled through more than two dozen dynasties, and a couple of century long occupations, tweaking itself every time. However, in the end it was unable to stay an independent, original civilization, undergoing thereafter 2,000 years of subjugation. 

The present civilization was born from a near-collapse. And was born thanks to a philosophical reset.

Indeed, in the case of the Greco-Roman empire, full collapse was avoided. The Franks rebooted Greco-Roman civilization, with their own Germano-Christian sauce, by the early Fifth Century (defeat of Goths who were ejected from Gaul, 507 CE, thanks to the battle of Vouille’). This is completely clear, when one inspects known facts, battles, laws, and the Storia Francorum of bishop Gregory of Tours.

The truth of what happened was masked by severe setbacks which were endured in the Sixth Century, under (Constantinople based) Roman emperor Justinian: Christian madness made Greco-Roman intellectuals flee to Persia (!), while a terrible plague (“Justinian Plague”), and a mysterious cataclysm (asteroid, volcano?) struck Earth’s climate. (The reality of what happned under the Franks was also masked by French Revolutionary propaganda, which was anxious to put all and any “ancient regime” in a bad light, and the usual Anglo-Saxon propaganda, anxious to disparage its absurdly French origins in all and any way.)

Differently from the Maya, the Franks centered in, or around Paris, and the Romans in Constantinople, were able to adapt to the catastrophes of the Fourth (Christianization, Gothic invasion), Fifth (Germanic invasions of 406 CE; then, the Huns), Sixth (as related above), and Seventh Centuries (dramatic war with Persia, followed by the surprise attack of the god crazed Arabs).

Both then defeated in the Eight Century those fanatics of war who had attacked like carnivorous locusts.   

The official “Renovatio Imperii”, the Renovation of Rome, was made formal when Carlus Magnus (Charlemagne) was endowed with the sole “Imperator Romanorum” (Imperator of the Romans) title in 800 CE, an imperial tradition which went on with say Otton II in 962 CE, and for more than a millennium (formally, Napoleon I, as leader of Francia was entitled, the Roman way, to grab back the title for himself).

Greco-Roman civilization incorporated the Cretan, Egyptian-Sumerian, Phoenician civilizations (with more than a touch of Etruscan). Then other Middle Eastern elements were included (Mythra, Great Mother Cult, Judaism, etc.) Western civilization incorporated even more: the fierce love of freedom, and women, of the Germans, and the generalized tolerance and open mindedness of the Franks (by 600 CE all citizens were Franks, and, within a generation the slave trade was outlawed by the Imperium; that latter fact was a world’s first). Interestingly the Franco-Roman synthesis incorporated traits which Crete had, but that the Hellenes had lost (for example maximum sexual equality, in at least some respects: there were female Cretan matadors, playing with ferocious giant bulls).

Conclusion? Even in an horrendous situation (the decline of the Roman empire, under fascism, theocracy, barbarity, invasions, ecological collapse, plague, unfathomable impact of a giant explosion somewhere), fresh new ideas, arising from shock philosophy can turn things around. The Franks demonstrated this thoroughly. The Chinese also did, on a more modest scale… Until Mao came, and unleashed the Dark Side onto fossilized Chinese thought, habits, and a philosophy, Confucianism, which had ruled for 26 centuries, as the symbol of ultimate wisdom (which it was not).

To repeat slowly: the Franks introduced the following reforms, in rough chronological order:

  1. The rule of warriors bound to common sense and religious tolerance (in complete contradiction with the Catholic terror, just prior). This was illustrated by Clovis’ quip that, had his Franks been there, Christ would never have been crucified. On the surface, it’s as if Clovis had understood nothing of Christianity. Indeed it looks as if Clovis had not understood that God wanted to be crucified, just to visit a guilt complex on his followers, same as with the story of the snake and the apple. Most probably, Clovis understood all too well< and made a show that he was firmly intend to violate God’s law. In any case, under the Franks, Judaism, Paganism, etc were freely practiced. Christianism with a human, even Frankish face (to the Vatican’s rage).
  2. The implementation of a modern, much less sexist, non-discriminatory legal system, applying to all by 600 CE, the Lex Salica, on top of Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman law. By 600 CE, all citizens of the Imperium Francorum were Franks (in a dramatic contrast with the situation in Spain, where the Visigoths applied Visigothic law just to themselves; same in italy where the Lombards, another type of Germans, were above Roman law)
  3. The outlawing of slavery (starting around 650 CE).
  4. Nationalization  of the Catholic Church, constitution of the largest professional army since Republican Rome, to face the humongous Islamist invasions of 721-745 CE. Destruction of the army of the Arab Caliphate (which thus collapsed in 750 CE, crushing Bin Laden and other Islamists forever thereafter).    

All these reforms were of a philosophical nature: the Vatican discussed excommunicating Charles Martel, for expropriating the Church, but concluded it was safer not to debate with a Hammer. When the Franks formed, named, and made a bishop, within three weeks, from an illiterate Frankish warrior, they were sending a message to the Vatican about who was the boss: secularism, not superstition.

Civilization survived from smarts, not just swords.

Patrice Ayme’


Lord Ridley’s Rule

May 18, 2014

Ridiculous, But Lethal, Lord Ridley Riddled With Holes

Plutocrats are everywhere. Everywhere that matters. You won’t find them in the 99% parts of town they feel are bad, you find them where opinion is molded, the MSM, the Media Sadistic Manipulations. Either they are writing, or, better, controlling the writers.

I always think that I am as cynical as one can get. Yet, I keep on being surprised, as I discover people I thought were honorable, being tightly wound with the worst thinking. I want to share my latest surprise with my readership.

What Lord Bankster Ridley Does Not Want The Commons To Know

What Lord Bankster Ridley Does Not Want The Commons To Know

Long ago, I came across a scientifically oriented writer, Matt Ridley. He wrote well. I innocently bought other Ridley’s books. A curious fly innocently exploring a sticky web. However I found Ridley’s science increasingly turning to sophistry, over-complicated (“The Red Queen” hypothesis was presented as key to evolution, something out of “Alice in Wonderland”). And Ridley was cocksure about his very restricted vision of evolution. How could one be so sure to explain so much with so little?

Being cocksure about very little explaining everything, is a feature of the intellectual fascists. It’s basically their definition.  

I was always a Lamarckian (just as Darwin himself). I always believed that Lamarckism was too good a mechanism for evolution, for evolution not to have stumbled on it. Although I understood perfectly well the reasoning of Jacques Monod in “La Chance et La Necessite’”, I pushed it to its logical conclusion: natural selection was not just natural selection of genomes, but natural selections of inheritable geometries, and a selection of the selection mechanisms themselves.

So Ridley’s bombastics struck me as the simplistic self-obsession of one who did not know too much, but felt he owned the world (how right would I turn out to be!). I forgot about him. In recent years, it turned out that this vision that genes (sensu stricto) were everything was very far from the whole story.

Now epigenetics, the intelligence of genetics, is established, and just warming up.

Libertarians believe that all government is bad, except for the army. Everything else ought to be bought and sold, somehow that would be fairer, more clever, more efficient, get the animal juices flowing for the best. An extreme libertarian who earns his life well, working for the health industry in the USA, recently tried to persuade me that, if only there were markets, all would be well.

My libertarian friend started to sing the praises of Matt Ridley, who he told me, had demonstrated the superiority of markets, in a book called “The Rational Optimist”. I found that weird. Matt Ridley? Really? Was not just Ridley a zoology student? How did he get into writing a bible libertarians swear by? What a riddle.

Then there was this Wall Street Journal Weekend section, full pages of it.  It was entitled: “The World’s Resources Aren’t Running Out.”

The subtitle, and basic reasoning? “Ecologists worry that the world’s resources come in fixed amounts that will run out, but we have broken through such limits again and again.”

For those who know about history, this master idea was beyond absurd. It was counter factual.

For example, we have run out of Tasmanians, down to the very last one. OK, the politically correct Wall Street thinkers would probably point out Tasmanians were not a resource. In any case, historians know that, out of the 99.9% of the 10,000 or so civilizations out there, which have collapsed, most did, either because they had run out of resources, or because a resource collapse had caused a war. that destroyed them.

That was even true of the Mongol Empire, which in turn annihilated several civilizations: after Genghis Khan had domesticated the half dozen Mongol tribes, the resulting population explosion, deprivation of killing each other, threatening dearth of resources, led to an immediate expansion into most of Eurasia (and all of China). (Thanks to new military methods, and superlative training… That only the Franks could resist.)

Once, a Roman emperor from Constantinople visited Rome, for the first time in centuries. Rome was where the Roman empire had originated, and the Roman Senate still convened.

In July 663 CE, Roman emperor Constans II visited Rome, and ordered all (“omniae”) the metallic roofs of the Eternal City to be stripped, including that of the Church of Mary and the Martyrs (as the Pantheon was then called). Copper and bronze was melted to make Greek fire machines, the gold (the roofs were of gilded bronze) to make coins, and lead to make sling pellets. That was part of a desperate attempt to stop the Arabs.

The brute truth is that the Roman Empire ran out of metals. Romans had exhausted their mines. All over. The Roman metal crisis caused both the inflation crisis that started in the late Second Century, and carried over all the way to 663 CE.

A century later, the Franks (Imperium Francorum) would solve that problem by conquering Eastern Europe, which only imperators Caesar and Trajan had the guts and brains to try to invade (Caesar was assassinated on the eve of his departure; Trajan, though reached through Romania all the way to Moldavia, 2C).

The next huge resource crisis was in the Fourteenth Century, when a situation similar to what we have now developed: an exploding population, a resource crisis (no more wood), and an ecological crisis (“Little Ice Age” plus human devastation).

Then, though, Europe knew what to do, what the Franks had done: keep a strong state, adapt the laws, develop new technology… and be ferocious (that, unfortunately also brought war). Being ferocious extended to the death penalty for those settling in regions where forests were supposed to regrow (in mountainous areas, deforestation means losing the soil).

But here was the Wall Street Journal, rewriting history with superficial, not to say superstitious, feel good, blabber:

How many times have you heard that we humans are “using up” the world’s resources, “running out” of oil, “reaching the limits” of the atmosphere’s capacity to cope with pollution or “approaching the carrying capacity” of the land’s ability to support a greater population? The assumption behind all such statements is that there is a fixed amount of stuff—metals, oil, clean air, land—and that we risk exhausting it through our consumption…

But here’s a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such limits again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone. Ecologists call this “niche construction”—that people (and indeed some other animals) can create new opportunities for themselves by making their habitats more productive in some way. Agriculture is the classic example of niche construction: We stopped relying on nature’s bounty and substituted an artificial and much larger bounty.

Economists call the same phenomenon innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter’s tendency to think in terms of static limits. Ecologists can’t seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is discovered, or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls.

That frustration is heartily reciprocated. Ecologists think that economists espouse a sort of superstitious magic called “markets” or “prices” to avoid confronting the reality of limits to growth. The easiest way to raise a cheer in a conference of ecologists is to make a rude joke about economists.”

An “artificial and much larger bounty” in agriculture? Just ask the Irish, who live next door to the ignorant blabbermouth who wrote the preceding. The 1841 census showed that there were 8,175,124 people living in the four provinces of Connacht, Leinster, Munster and Ulster. The Irish thrived on potatoes. After the potatoes died, from Potato Blight, caused by a fungus Phytophthora infestans, so did the Irish. The population was soon half of what it used to be.

Anyway, who was that ignorant fellow who wrote those idiocies for the Wall Street Journal?

He confessed that:

“I have lived among both tribes. I studied various forms of ecology in an academic setting for seven years and then worked at the Economist magazine for eight years. When I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not the political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers on my car), I very much espoused the carrying-capacity viewpoint—that there were limits to growth. I nowadays lean to the view that there are no limits because we can invent new ways of doing more with less.”

I, I, I, I… We can invent? We will just ask the Lords overlording in their castles to innovate more with less?

Matt Ridley, because, of course, it is Matt Ridley who had written these mellifluous inanities, and hundreds of similar articles all over (as I found out, to my dismay), pursues:

“This disagreement goes to the heart of many current political issues and explains much about why people disagree about environmental policy. In the climate debate, for example, pessimists see a limit to the atmosphere’s capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid warming. So a continuing increase in emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous rates. But optimists see economic growth leading to technological change that would result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow warming to level off long before it does much harm.”

About eight million people killed a year: that’s what Ridley calls “little harm”. What would be big harm? A tax on hereditary wealth?

Hey Ridley! Ever heard of acid? Half of the new CO2 dumped by humans into the atmosphere, turns into acid presently. It’s true that the atmosphere could globally warm five degrees, and all that would happen is that a few billion people would be under water, but being under acid is something else entirely.

Caviar would not be served on the tables of the great Lords anymore, because sturgeons would have dissolved.

More seriously, accountants are already finding that about half a million people a year are dying from global warming already. Aside from higher winds, higher flooding, widely expected, is indeed occurring. Just this year, precipitations greater than all records were registered in Great Britain and the Balkans. Recent massive flooding in Australia even lowered world sea level (as the water had nowhere to go: there are no rivers in the middle of Australia, where it usually never rains).

Yet Matt Ridley maniacally pursues:

“Until about 10 years ago, it was reasonable to expect that natural gas might run out in a few short decades and oil soon thereafter. If that were to happen, agricultural yields would plummet, and the world would be faced with a stark dilemma: Plow up all the remaining rain forest to grow food, or starve. 

But thanks to fracking and the shale revolution, peak oil and gas have been postponed. They will run out one day, but only in the sense that you will run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a harbor in Ireland. Just as you are likely to stop rowing long before you bump into Newfoundland, so we may well find cheap substitutes for fossil fuels long before they run out.”

This is wrong in several lethal ways.

First, fossil fuel pollution already kills seven million a year already, and no market will correct that, as this mass smothering is the result of connivance between governments and polluters.

But, obviously, killing people is not a factor for the incomparable Mr. Ridley. It’s just the cost of doing business, apparently.

It is far from clear that fracking shale and other rocks is not augmenting the ecological crisis. Contrarily to what Obama has been saying, if fracking leaks more than 3% methane, it’s worse than coal, as a contributor of the greenhouse effect (there is proof of massive CH4 leakage).

Another problem is that fracking works economically if and only if oil stays above 60 dollars per barrel. The very fact fracking is “profitable” means that we have a terrible problem.

To say that peak oil and gas have been postponed is disinformation. Peak CHEAP oil is passed. That’s all what matters economically. (And it would be way worse if “externalities were accounted, as they ought to be.)

Matt Ridley then go on to explain that we will not run out of anything important that: “The economist and metals dealer Tim Worstall gives the example of tellurium, a key ingredient…” Yes, getting the advice from a plutocrat trading precious metals goes a long way on the path to wisdom.

In plutocracy, plutocrats define wisdom.

Matt Ridley takes his readers for complete idiots: “Or take phosphorus, an element vital to agricultural fertility. The richest phosphate mines, such as on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific, are all but exhausted. Does that mean the world is running out? No: There are extensive lower grade deposits, and if we get desperate, all the phosphorus atoms put into the ground over past centuries still exist, especially in the mud of estuaries. It’s just a matter of concentrating them again.”

If we get desperate, we could just get plenty of little slaves to fetch the phosphorus atoms in the estuaries, with their little fingers. Better: if we got even more desperate, we could use the slaves themselves as fertilizers.

What’s wrong there with Ridley’s asinine logic, is that extracting takes energy. Given enough energy, we can do a lot of things: fly to the closest Super Earth, establish a colony there, crash a million water bearing comets into Mars for warmth and water. We could even use super colliders to fabricate fundamental elements, including phosphorus and tellurium.

Cheap energy is what we are running out of. We are taking between pincers. One pincer is the exhaustion of resources (hence ever more expensive energy, hence fracking, hence coal), the other is the poisoning, acidification, smothering and warming of the planet.

Ridley is an adept of the Big Lie technique:

“In 1972, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University came up with a simple formula… the damage done to Earth increases the more people there are, the richer they get and the more technology they have.

Many ecologists still subscribe to this doctrine, which has attained the status of holy writ in ecology. But the past 40 years haven’t been kind to it. In many respects, greater affluence and new technology have led to less human impact on the planet, not more.”

So, Ridley tells us, implicitly, the increasing acidity, warming and rising of the oceans, the increasing mercury in the fish, the nearly ten millions killed by fossil fuels, each year, are not happening.

Where does Matt Ridley belongs to? The mental asylum? Make it more rather like jail.

Indeed, who is Matt Ridley?

Matt Ridley is not a nice guy. He just plays on TV, and TED, for millions of adoring fans. Matt Ridley is not just a student in zoology. Matt Ridley is not just a guy with many best sellers below his belt. Matt Ridley is not just a guy who can employ guys to write books for him. He just has to make the right phone call. To a number of servants.

Matt Ridley is a Lord.


And not a small, garden variety one.

Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, Deputy Lieutenant, Fellow Royal Society of Letters, Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (born 7 February 1958), is a British “journalist” who has written several popular science books. He is also a businessman and a Conservative member of the House of Lords.

Such people own the world. They are the owners. Most people at the top of British society have been there for more than 450 years, recent studies have shown.

Such people will tell you whatever allows their class to pursue their rule, through mass hypnotism.

Matt Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007. Under Ridley’s rule Northern Rock experienced the first run on a British bank in 150 years. The bank had to be bailed out by the UK government. Thus the People of Great Britain had to pay for the nationalisation of Northern Rock.

(Nationalization is more honest than just giving the money to the banksters, that being the preferred method. Northern Rock was nationalized by PM Brown, but then the plutocratic owners of the world realized that the Peoples did not understand a thing about all this financial stuff, so they just requested governments to fork the money over to them, without bothering with transferring ownership title to the People.)

Ridley has been inundated with honors, on both sides of the Atlantic. Academic institutions love him. He has chaired many institutions.

Ridley is also part of the British government in the largest sense, as a hereditary Peer and member of the House of Lords from the Conservative Party. In that sense, he is one of the overlords of the global plutocracy.

Ridley rules, you commoners, with your pathetic little Internet, kneel to his ideas. How can you beat the exposure of Lord Ridley, all over the Main Stream Media, books and the Internet?

It’s just like magic: you are born, and you get a castle, a title, land, money, you head one of the world’s largest financial institution, as his your hereditary right, plunder it, and while being one of the top pundits at The Economist, and the Wall Street Journal. You get a world-wide following of adoring fans. You bask in their groveling idiocy.

Such individuals do not just overlord the British. They overlord the world. They are the hereditary members of the true world global government. The argument that all those Lords belonged to jail, will seem obvious someday.

As the CO2 parts per million augment, so do the poisonous imbecilities that the Main Stream Media, in a generalized sense, keeps on fumigating public opinion with. It’s hard to know what’s worse.

Patrice Aymé

GASSING EARTH: Tipping Point Passed!

June 29, 2013


Warning: The essay below demonstrates, from published official data, that NON LINEAR EFFECTS are now ACCELERATING the CO2 greenhouse. This is no theory, but data that I observe. This is the major tipping point experts feared. It’s here, now. Weirdly I am the first to observe this catastrophic evidence. 

We are making war to the biosphere. We are trying to kill it (biocide?). Gassing Earth with CO2. Calling this atrocity “climate change” is more than a silly euphemism. It’s disinformation.

True information: the bath is heating up. Here is the global heat content of the ocean, incomparably greater than that of the atmosphere.

Global Warming Is Accelerating

Global Warming Is Accelerating

Self satisfied frogs croak happily in the simmering heat until they croak for good. Speaking of the stupid, loud and mosquito inclined, a deafening chorus from all over richly rewarded pseudo-science has recently claimed that global warming had stalled, or that the climate was less susceptible” to increasing CO2 than previously thought.

The graph above shows that those people are either paid too much, or as stupid as the frogs they mimic so well. Unable to deny the greenhouse, they focus suddenly on atmospheric heat content, as if that was the main problem (it’s not, by a very long shot!)

One can see, in the graph above, that the global heat content of the biosphere is clearly not just augmenting, but doing so faster than ever.

Another remark of mine of TREMENDOUS importance, and you read here first. Look at the graph above carefully. And then look at the CO2 graph below, just as carefully. Compare the graphs. What do you see? The horror! The HEAT CONTENT GRAPH accelerates FASTER after 1990 than the CO2 GRAPH!!!!

Thus there is now evidence that NON LINEAR EFFECTS ARE GETTING IN GEAR. Heat is increasing faster than CO2 now! Tipping points have been passed, the heat is growing by ITSELF, beyond human input.

Non Linear HORROR: CO2 Augmenting SLOWER Than Global Biospheric Heat Content!

Non Linear HORROR: CO2 Augmenting SLOWER Than Global Biospheric Heat Content!

[Technical math remark, consecutive to readers’ misunderstanding: I have a math background as one high as one can get; so, obviously I am not making the grotesque mistake of comparing the overall slopes, as the scale of the y-axes are arbitrary. What I am doing is more subtle, and that maybe why the NON LINEAR TIPPING POINT was not noticed before: I was trained as a research mathematician, not as a cloud watcher.

I am not comparing the overall slopes of one graph with the other, but the changes of slope after 1990, of one graph relative to the other. The global ocean heat content graph clearly accelerates so much after 1990 that it adopts a steeper trendline; one does not have such a feature on the CO2 graph. So one can say, supposing that the latter drives the former (that sounds intellectually fair), that it has been driving it much more since 1990. End of the high school level mathematical analysis. More details & answers to objections can be found in the comments!] 

So fossil burning is launching the avalanche, but the avalanche is also growing by itself, that’s what comparing the three graphs above shows.

OK, now for some elementary school math. The mass of the top 2000 meters of the ocean is 2 (total oceanic surface relative to continental surface) x 200 (mass of 2000 meters of water relative to atmosphere) = 400 times that of the atmosphere. The excess heat injected since 1990 in the upper 2000 meters of oceans is roughly equivalent to one billion times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb (personal computation). Yes, the inflection point when non linear amplification of CO2 started was in 1990 (look at the first graph ).

The core economic issue of our time is the alarming CO2 curve. That CO2 curve is threatening to become an exponential. CO2 is augmenting by (nearly) 1% a year. CO2 concentration has reached 400 parts per million. If one takes into account all industrially made greenhouse gases, it’s more like 450 ppm in CO2 equivalence, beyond the point where most of Antarctica’s ice shield is stable.

Thus the CO2 curve is also the core survival issue of our time. Every day, the deep oceans are getting warmer, more acidic (the CO2 gets in the sea, turning it to a soda), and lose oxygen. Every day, the deepest currents are absorbing the new energy, modifying themselves. Any day, Antarctica could start melting, big time:

Giant Regions Of Antarctica Are Below Sea Level

Giant Regions Of Antarctica Are Below Sea Level

The brownish and yellow parts are the WAIS, the West Antarctica Ice Shield’s bed, and are all below sea level, and are why the WAIS will disintegrate.

Areas more than 200 meters BELOW SEA LEVEL in East Antarctica are indicated by blue shading. Notice that a lot of east Antarctica, where the sub sea level basins are, have their margins well north of 70 degrees (and actually just north of the south polar circle).

(Extracted from:

Some idiots out there have pointed at the fact that atmospheric heat is not going up drastically, in the last decades. Of course. That means the energy is spilling in other dimensions. If those idiots had taken a physics class, they would know that this effect is similar to a well known phenomenon: as ice melts, the water in which it sits stays at zero degree (Celsius, only Americans use crazily obsolete units).

This general change of the biosphere, throughout dimensions so far unsuspected, is due to a generalization of the equipartition theorem:

At any point, any day, formidable non linear mechanisms independent of man, caused by the effects of the CO2 increase, could get in gear. That they did not happen yet is as reassuring as jumping from a gigantic cliff, without a parachute, and then gloating that everything is fine so far.

For example enormous, sudden releases of methane hydrates causing tsunamis (accelerating considerably the greenhouse, as methane is twenty to a hundred time more of a greenhouse gas).

A slow-down of the sun has bought up some time, in the last decade (see again the very long:

Most of the carbon found in coal has been buried for hundreds of millions of years. Extracting, and throwing  it up in the air, in ever greater quantities, is sheer insanity. This has got to stop. That is the main problem with fracking for gas; not that it makes water flammable, but that it pollutes with CO2. Although fracked gas (CH4) produces half the carbon for an equal amount of energy, that’s still an awful lot of carbon!

Advocating fracking-for-gas as a way to kill coal, short term, is tenable. But then fusion research ought to be massively financed, to make sure fracking-for-gas is really short term. Yet the $600,000 for fusion propulsion at NASA, while Elon Musk the well connected Neanderthal, gets billions, just for looking good, and dishonorable Sen. Feinstein’s whining about ITER, demonstrate that fracking forever, without fusion, is the real agenda!

Managing the planet correctly is real macro-economics. It is much more real economics than the shenanigans of some central bankers, or the dementia of unregulated shadow banking (which is just as big as official banking, 67 trillion dollars, nota bene).

The new Obama plan ought to be a war on coal. Right now, about ten billion tons of CO2 from coal are pumped in the atmosphere, each year. Better a war on coal now, rather the alternative. The alternative is world war, or worse. About CO2 pollution and energy.

This is not just a fancy vision of an apocalyptic future. It is also a sober assessment of an awful past. Around 1300 CE, sextuple trouble hit Europe: a population crisis, an energy crisis, a construction material crisis, a food crisis, an ecological crisis, and a climate crisis. All those aspects were entangled in one huge crisis .

Within a generation, France and Britain, until then part of the same polity, had exploded in a very complicated, but extremely lethal civil war, that was to last nearly five centuries. A terrible plague assaulted Europe (from Yersinia Pestis, a 2000 French study showed in all of 20 samples). The plague itself was related to the preceding, as bad climatic and military conditions in the two years preceding it, favored overcrowding of rats and humans alike. (Tremendous research on how the Black Death occured as early as 1348 CE, and great progress was made, leading to control of many diseases. Yet, the tricky causal triangle between fleas, rats, and plague was discovered only around 1900!)

In a few years, the population of the European continent had been cut by more than two-thirds. Greenlanders, assaulted by plague, climate cooling, and Inuits, died off.

Yet, countries such as France and Germany took effective ecological counter-measures of preservations of forests (thus saving commodities, construction, energy, soils, etc.).  Western Europe did not go the way of the Mayas because of vigorous. scientifically minded governmental counter-attack.

Instead, Europe chose then what we have to chose now. New technology was relentlessly pursued. By 1300 CE, pollution from burning geological coal was so acute in London that regulations were passed to reduce it. Edward III, grandson of French king Philippe IV Le Bel, and official launcher of the “100 Year war”(-that lasted in truth 478 years, as I said above) actually regulated coal trading, allowing the exportation of coal to the parts of France he controlled. Within two centuries, coal would be mined under the sea in Scotland.

No doubt all this would have worked better, the calamitous Fourteenth Century would not have been as calamitous, had superior technology, and careful management thereof, had arrived earlier. It could have arrived earlier.

In Roman Britannia, the usage of coal had been ubiquitous (even down the social scale). The tech was lost for nearly a millennium after the legions evacuated in 400 CE. Superior tech would have allowed to avoid the overcrowding that killed so many during the Black Death (relatively few nobles died, as they lived large).

The proximal reasons why Greco-Roman civilization collapsed are complicated, and are all entangled. Although the story started with plutocracy blossoming, it ended, four centuries later, with technology failing in so many dimensions that civilization could not be sustained anymore.

Basically, rising plutocracy (2C BCE)  led to political fascism (1C CE), that led to intellectual fascism (2C), which in turn led all sorts of technological stagnations or reversals (monetary, ecological, resources, military), and from there massive command economy and theocracy (300 CE) was called on, and then religious terror, anti-intellectualism and mental retardation (starting under emperor Jovian in 363 CE).

Many of these tipping points and causal chains are relevant today. However the situation is different in the sense that not only is history is going much faster, but, on the hopeful side, the world is still endowed with well armed, grimly determined republics (say France). Thus plutocracy may not win this time, as it did under the Gracchi brothers’ Roman republic. Indeed, we can now use meta arguments the Gracchi could not use, namely point at the fact that, ultimately, not only did plutocracy made society unfair, but the Republic collapsed, and so did civilization.

However, some causal chains, similar to those that undid Rome, are being activated presently.

One of them is the technological gradient between civilization and savages. Or, rather, the disappearance thereof. Bear with me a moment here.

Shortly after 300 CE, the Roman empire, in a reversal of hostilities, called onto the Salian Franks to become the shock troops of the empire. For years, the Franks had raided rivers of the empire, Viking style, and Constantine had fought them. Then suddenly, the Franks were at Constantine’s side, conquering the entire empire. And, astoundingly, by 400 CE, the Franks were put in charge of the defense of the entire North-West corner of Romanitas. Although, even more incredibly, the Franks had staged a long succession of coups and civil wars, against what they viewed as excessive Christianity, promoting a succession of secular Roman puppets to fight the central government.

What happened? Why did Christianized Romans put in charge their natural enemy, the Salian Frank Confederation? Simple: the Franks had better weapons, and better military capability. The Romans determined that, if you can’t beat them, you should join them. (Another, secondary reason, had to do with the Franks being more republican than the Byzantine court; Romans nostalgic with the republic, and secularism, and they were many, could only see the youth of Rome in those Frankish farmers).

What’s the connection with the CO2 rampage?

The only way for the most economically advanced countries to stay advanced is, first, by staying technologically advanced. Thus by researching, developing, and imposing worldwide, advanced technologies.  That can only work when those advanced technologies are necessary, and sustainable, that is, moral. As sustainability is the definition of  morality.

As I have long advocated, Obama is going to use his executive power by, hopefully, imposing new technology to stay on top. Not just on top of the problem, but on top of the world. Finally (Welcome to the executive branch, Mr. President!) With executive orders. Four years late. Execute, or be executed. After all, pollution to the extent we are exposed with CO2, is a form of execution. (Obama should have done the same with health care, as I also advocated more than 4 years ago).

The sorry collapse of the Greco-Romans, all entangled as they were with slavery (thus lower tech) caused some physical damage to the planet. Forests in Dauphiné are still showing subtle scars from Roman over-exploitation (mostly from mining). No big deal: South East France is heavily forested.

However what we are doing now with CO2, and other industrial greenhouse gases, is the big deal. The lifetime of CO2 in the combined air-ocean system is counted in many millennia. Projections show that we have already done enough to modify the climate enough to prevent a glaciation in the next 50,000 years . The mind reels.

So we are in life-and-death race to develop a long term, massive, survivable energy source. And there is just one; that of the sun, itself, thermonuclear fusion. Sun in a bottle. Feasible, but only if dozens of billions of economic activity are directed towards fundamental research labs (see note). Let’s not do like the Romans, and rest on yesteryear technology, until it’s so late, that nothing can be done anymore.

Einstein used to say that he knew the Fourth World War would be fought with sticks and stones. Error my dear Albert. The way things are going, the Fourth World War will be fought by scorpions and dragonflies.


Patrice Ayme


Note: let’s not be too passive, even if the outlook is sunny. Some are sure to whine that “solar energy” can do it all; what they mean is the passive reception, on Earth of part of Sol’s enormous thermonuclear output. Well, yes, they are talking about thermonuclear fusion, but may not know it (?) Passive solar has a great future. However its usage is bound to stay unimportant in space (!), high latitudes, and, more worryingly, in regions with high precipitations  (the greenhouse is going to get very wet in places!).

Slaying A Few Austerity Myths.

May 1, 2012


When Austerity Is Too Great Even Reason Shrinks:

Abstract: Austerity can go way too far. Austerity in finance, austerity in military matters, austerity in logic, or in one’s emotional system (“Puritanism“), can be a disaster. For individuals, or civilizations.

 Austerity is why Britannia collapsed, 16 centuries ago. Austerity in logic is why one prefers to cover that fact up, by denying the evidence: English is a  Latin language. Not a Germanic one. The latter “fact” is sheer propaganda.

 A similar situation one tries to cover-up was the take-over of the Greco-Roman world by the Jewish religion, and its criminally sectarian aspects. Making us believe Jerusalem was a “pillar” of our civilization is a form of austerity of evidence.

 Whereas the wealth of evidence is that Christianism was the cross on which civilization got nailed, and that there is nothing loving about brandishing a cross, let alone threatening to kill a child.




 May First. A celebration, a remembrance in honor of workers killed in a conspiracy in Chicago. (Modern Americans will tell you there are no conspiracies in the USA. They have been trained to say this.)

A conspiracy involving the police, judges, industrialists. A conspiracy long forgotten in the USA, but not in the rest of the world. Someday, maybe the Americans will realize how they were led where no dignity deliberately goes… And that they stayed there, because that was the lazy thing to do. The austerity of little minds, in full evidence.

 Visiting Rome was enlightening. I am writing essays on the subject. The first one breaks new philosophical ground. It has proven difficult to write. A kind critique told me to rewrite it before publishing it, and I have been obeying ever since she grated her teeth in a persuasive way.

 In the meantime, let me handle a few tidbits. They are apparently unrelated, but the misfortune of righteous empires unites them.

 They are erroneous ideas, one should actually say, erroneous moods. Grown from austere, all too austere, minds.

 One of these lies has to do with the myth that there is something as a purely Anglo-Saxon economic model. Verily that model is half Dutch. Great Britain is a Dutch plutocratic fabrication.

 Twelve (12) centuries before, Britannia, left by Rome to its own instruments, collapsed in all ways, as it fell victim to Anglo-Saxon invasions. That was a real holocaust that killed most of the population. England was created by a French counter-strike, much later.

 Another myth is that the West has three pillars: Rome, Greece and… Jerusalem. Please don’t laugh. What does that forsaken small city in the middle of nowhere have to do with great civilizations? Verily, the West has more pillars than that: Sumer, Egypt, Crete, Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, and Germania (not to say Francia!). All these places created ideas we use to this day. But Jerusalem is not of them. A pitfall is not a pillar. A primitive mother of a prehistoric child could not be sure that a turtle did not support the world. But she sure would have told you that a guy called Joshua did not invent love. How come so many people are not that smart? Do they have an agenda?



 I have long subscribed to several British media. And it riles me up when I read disinformation emanating from London, that speaks of Britain as if it were on the other side of the Earth. Many English media deplore the unthinkable “Eurozone crisis“, decrying anemic growth, and huge deficits.

 Meanwhile Great Britain enjoys negative growth (it’s in a recession), and has at least twice the deficits. It is intriguing that English media fail to notice that the conditions on planet Britain are strangely similar to those on the rest of the same continental plate, 30 kilometers away.

 But the credit rating agencies, owned by Obama’s guru, Mr. Buffet, give a triple A to Britain, presumably because Britain is their friend, just like Buffet is friend to Obama. And that no doubt would come in handy, should Obama go the way of the crazed Sarkozy rushing to hell in his Sarkophage. Friends take care of friends, that’s what friends are for. Each Obama needs a buffet to splurge, like a Sarko, his sarcophagi.

 What are these misinformators trying to do? Hide the total failure of the “trickle down“/plutocratic model, by insisting instead that the Eurozone is disaster. (OK, right, the Eurozone is a disaster, and it needs to grow out of it, as Mr. Hollande, to be elected France’s next president in 5 days, insists).

 This is part of a general mood that the world’s largest continent is isolated, while Britain and the plutocratic model thrive.

 In truth, Britain thrived, because a highly leverage financial system entangled with the Royal Navy and the Bank Of England was imposed by the Dutch, three centuries ago. Nothing very glorious about being successfully invaded. So to prevent examination of this sordid affair, the term “Glorious Revolution” is used to depict the invasion and usurpation.

 Ironically, the aim of the successfully invading Dutch republic was to use the British bulldog to attack France (France was the Netherlands’ creator, it is another case of ingrate child). But that cost a huge amount of money and effort on part of the Dutch, and by 1712 CE, a quarter of a century later, the Netherlands was a shadow of its former self, and stays so, to this day. Britain, though, profitted.



 Britain was a part of the Roman empire that was cut-off, without a battle, as part of an austerity program! I hope the word “austerity” sounds familiar. That is what is evoked much nowadays. Nowadays that the banks have spent all the public money in the world on themselves and their friends, especially the ones in white houses.

 This observation is nothing really new: for decades in the last century, or so, the defense of the West has been pretty much reduced to France, Britain and the USA. Some will say it does not matter anyway. Wrong. Remember Auschwitz?

 Europe fell to the Nazi invasion in 1940 in part because massive austerity throughout the democracies had left the entire West with just 110 French divisions to face 153 fanaticized Nazi divisions.

 The USA and Britain had basically no armed forces, because they were practicing austerity. The Netherlands and Belgium were even more stingy on defense, as they believed that France would protect them from much admired Germany… And it was most profitable to contradict neither the German, nor American, anti-French drives.

 The “Occidental Part” of the Roman empire fell without a grand battle.

 Whereas in the Orient the Roman army suffered catastrophic defeats at Adrianopolis (Eastern Thrace, presently, European Turkey) against the Goths (378 CE) and against the Arabs at Yarmouk in Syria (636 CE).

 The defeat against the Goths allowed them to roam the Western empire, until the Franks and the Romans bottled them in Spain. The defeat against the Arabs allowed the latter to quickly seize two-thirds of the Roman empire, before they were mauled by the Franks (721 CE to 748 CE). The Franks did not practice austerity: they nationalized the church, and rose the largest army since republican Rome, complete with professional soldiers.



 The old Britons, like other old Celts, learned to read and write… From the Romans. Mostly. This explains why the Roman civilization was accepted so well, and so durably (it lives on in these lands, to this day).

 Indeed, the Romans taught much of higher civilization to common Celts, such as how to read and write, and why law was better than gods. The Celtic religion had forbidden that dangerous knowledge to the People. That was a deliberate trick of Celtic oligarchies, as the Celtic civilization was very advanced in other important ways, for example in metallurgy, or ocean going ships.

 One reason for calling English a Germanic language is pure propaganda. Many common Brits talked, read and wrote Latin for at least four centuries, no Jutes, Angles and Saxons involved. Those savages did not read or write.

 The smashing of the Oriental Roman army by the Goths in 378 CE had far reaching consequences. The legions of Britannia were soon withdrawn, to save money. Fascist Catholic terror was cranked up by a new emperor (a Spanish general), throughout the empire, in the hope of stopping the Goths.

 Learning that Britannia was defenseless, the Angles and Saxons crossed the North Sea in ever greater numbers. Civilization collapsed in Britannia, war blossomed. Most people died. Finally, in the mid-Sixth Century, many Romans from Britannia fled to Gallia (Gaul) giving its name to Armorica (now known as Bretagne). 

 In fact 70% of English words are of French (a third), Roman (a third) and Greek origin. The same words of Greek and Roman origin are also found in French (French is degenerated Latin, where much of the efficient Latin grammar was replaced by little prepositions, German style; meanwhile the Franks latinized the Germanic language’s grammar).

 Hence the common content of French and English is roughly 70%. (In truth much more than that, because French and English have many words of common Germanic, Celtic, Arab, Indo-European, Semitic origin, for example algebra, algorithm, amen, etc.)  

 This is a second reason not to call English a Germanic language. English is Anglo-Norman, one of the three languages of the French middle ages… It’s not because the language of the Parisians, the Langue d’oïl , came to dominate, Langue d’Oc, and Anglo-French, through the most brutal means, that we should pursue the oppression.

 This point of view refutes the Franco-French bigotry of viewing English as the enemy. The correct point of view is to use English for what it is, a French language, to foster one of the oldest and most complex civilizations.

 Another myth, another lie, is that, somehow Jerusalem brought something positive to the West. If so, what? Believing in something that never was? How come historical records don’t mention Jesus, how come his bible is full of horrors?


Some say “monotheism” is a pillar of the West. But a close inspection shows that most religions had a principal god. Moreover, Christianism and Islam use several super natural entities that god is unable to submit (Satan and the Djins in the case of Allah… Besides the Moon, and entities in the Satanic Verses).

 Monotheism was invented in India and Egypt, well before Jews appeared on the scene. Vishnu, is the supreme god with many Indian avatars (26?). For example Krishna. 1,000 years before some Jews wrote some book in Baghdad.
Before Indian and Egyptians, there was Cybelle and the cult of the Great Mother. For 10,000 years. The Christians have (re)produced “Mary” from this fundamental religion. A religion which is, altogether, more natural, than the “jealous” god of the Bible (that god is “jealous” is revealed in the second commandment).
 “Deus” by the way has the same root as “Zeus”. By the time Jews wrote the Bible, the Greeks considered there was one main god, a version of the 15 centuries old Ahura Mazda.
  I do not see what Judaism brought to the antique civilization that was sorely missing. The biblical Jews claimed they stole the land of their enemies the Canaanites (that is the inventors of the Western alphabet, the Phoenicians). However, archeological and textual evidence shows that early Jews were actually Canaanites. So they are liars.

 When one examines the situation in 70 CE, during the great war of Judea, it is clear that the Greco-Roman civilization is completely formed, universalist, tolerant. OK, it’s also a bit fascist, but not as much as the fiercest of the Jewish leaders, such as Simon (who is also completely crazed besides; he was later whipped to death in Rome).

 The enormous population of Jews in Alexandria, next door to Jerusalem, thought the sectarians in Jerusalem were crazy to have treacherously assassinated 600 legionnaires. They did not take part in the revolt… which killed one million, many of them Jews at the hands of other Jews. During the siege of Jerusalem, to make fun of Jewish superstition, Roman artillery bombarded the city with thousands of ripe pig heads…

 Josephus, the most competent and supreme Jewish general, came to the conclusion that the Jewish revolt he had himself led, was not wise. He retired in Rome, where he wrote his extensive memoirs, which provide ample indirect evidence that Jesus existed only in Saint Paul’s head (as the latter admitted).

 The contribution of the Jews to the antique civilization, was, roughly, nought. Okay. the followers of one of their sects, Christianity, have acted as if said sect had discovered, invented and promoted love, first to do so, ever. And there are some naïve, or cruel enough, to believe them. When, obviously, altruism is the essence of civilization. Civilizations had existed for millennia before Jews were invented. (Yes people are invented: Romans, Gauls, Celts and Germans are example.)

 But the doctrine of the “Chosen People”, chosen by jealous (and murderous) god, no less, central to Jewish tribal theism, has caused a havoc. See Fourth and Fifth Century Christianity, busy exterminating, in the best Bible style, everybody, as if everybody were a Canaanite. See Auschwitz. The coup of the apprentice sorcerer? What is Nazism, but for the cult of the Chosen People? “Gott mit Uns”, said the SS, fundamentally.
 The Christians say Christianity discovered love and altruism, but it is not the Christians who outlawed slavery.

 Instead it is the “Merovingian” Franks (Imperium Francorum) in the year 660 CE under the “regency” of (English born) queen Bathilde who outlawed slavery. Christian bishops were from the richest families, and they were very appreciative of their armies of slaves.

 Meanwhile, the Christians had burned books, libraries, philosophers, free thinkers, “people who had made a choice” (“heretics“), academies, science, etc. … All this made directly the bed of Islam, another religion that celebrates the myth of Abraham, the guy who ties up his son to cut his throat to please his boss!

 OK, Abraham was right say those for whom exploitation is the highest value. Indeed bible god then gave Abraham the land of the Canaanites. So the fact that Abraham was willing to kill his child was highly profitable to Abraham. And for those who believe profits should overlord it all, have there, all the god they want.
 I categorically refute the myth of the would be slaughterer of a child as foundational for our civilization.

 OK, that perverse foundational myth obviously explains why so many priests imitate Abraham, and engage in child abuse. But is this the civilization we want? A civilization where daddy ties up the child, threatens him with death, so that he can satisfy his boss’ strange desire. Is that a civilization we can afford?

 Oh, some say they did not look at it this way. Sure. Willful blindness is most profitable. Mental retardation is the ultimate soporific. Austerity of thinking, indeed. No emotions involved.


Patrice Ayme

No Vision, No Future.

November 23, 2010


There are many reasons why societies collapse. The plutocratic explanation works well most of the time, and explains a lot. In particular, it explains most of the defeat of Athens by Macedonia, and all of Rome’s degeneracy into theocratic despondency.

In a plutocratic collapse, propped up by the redoubtable power of the exponential function, an oligarchy monopolizes ever more riches and power, to the point the rest of society becomes weak and dumb, which is both an effect, and a way to achieve the rule of the plutocracy. Such a process is apparently engaged, once again, in some major countries of the heretofore triumphant West, and that is why the Western plutocracy prefers to put everybody to sleep, by accusing… China.

The plutocratic explanation was actually brandished by the Mongols to the Caliph in Baghdad, before killing him, his family, and about 800,000 Muslims in the capital (Christians were spared). The Mongols insolently claimed to their Muslim victims, that Muslim plutocrats had let the Caliphate degenerate, as demonstrated by the Mongol victory, and thus it belonged to them, Mongols, to put an end to this miserable lot.

Another reason for collapse is ecological devastation. It happened to Sumer, due to salination (agricultural abuse) and flooding (catastrophe at the hand of God). This is also what happened to the Mayas, victim of drastic drought (7C), in combination with abuse they had made of the resources (be they trees or water). Plutocratic strife did the rest, as the duopoly of the two leading cities was replaced by a generalized war.

Still another reason for collapse is determined invasion by bloody aliens (part of the reason for Athens’ collapse). Most societies and civilization go down that way. The case of the Mayas (internal implosion by civil war, down to the bitter end), is rare (and the drought made the difference).

Generally bad plutocracy, or bad ecology makes a society weak, and then it gets invaded. But the powerful Aztecs went down first because of an alien invasion of Conquistadores (having too many local edible enemies was also crucial).

The Incas were also defeated by astoundingly brazen and belligerent conquistadores, but only after the empire and its organization had been already wrecked by a smallpox epidemic (which preceded the European invaders that brought it). If Pizarro had come before the smallpox, he would have probably failed, as he would have encountered a united empire.

Love is a good motivator, but it does not lead armies. Facing the Mongols, the armies of the Chinese plutocracy were overwhelmed. China was very militaristic, but Genghis Khan’s army was much more efficient.

Not so for the Mongols with the Europeans: after a costly victory in Hungary, although they had defeated all European armies, but that of the kingdom of France, the Mongols remembered what had happened to their ancestors the Huns. Hence they wisely decided to not pursue further west beyond the Hungarian steppe. Instead they switched to cooperation with the Franks (they invaded Syria together). Islam survived only because the racist Pope excommunicated the collaborating Franks, and was not keen to cooperate with Nestorian Christians. Peeved, the Mongols became Muslim instead.

Ultimately the collapse of a society or civilization is caused by truth and consequences denying love and future to the people. It cannot be avoided when caused by a giant scientific and technological gap.

Reciprocally, when the Europeans did not succeed to invade durably, it is because the technological gap was not as great as it looked. This is clear with India, China, Thailand, Japan. The latter two could not even be bothered militarily.

Little known, this is even true with Black Africa. Africa was NOT neolithic. Africa resisted European colonization, in great part because it had indigenous steel technology. Thus, when the White Man was not yet dead or morbid from African diseases, steel arrowheads would do what was needed. So, for centuries, White Men, and that includes the Arabs in the East and the Moroccans in the Sahel, stayed on the periphery, unable to get inside the Black continent seriously. The Whites traded slaves with the Black potentates inside (who were busy making war on each other, as usual).

France ultimately "conquered" Senegal and most of West Africa with a dozen French officers, and 5,000 rifled armed Senegalese soldiers. If you can’t beat them, you join them.

In the Qur’an, or the Bible, God is depicted as "merciful". But otherwise, there is little nice about him. He is depicted as jealous, furious, forever vengeful, but also loving (New Testament), or practicing (very tough) love (Qur’an), between two torture sessions for miscreants.

No doubt those who wrote Bible and Qur’an took quite a bit of inspiration from the real universe out there. The Cosmic Comedy, la Divina Commedia, is quite a bit as mad, furious, and tender as classical gods. Nature even mercifully provides with endorphins, and the forgiveness of wisdom.

However, if we want to love the children, and their children’s children, we need to see far, and carry a big stick. Nothing less is moral.


Patrice Ayme


May 17, 2010




Abstract: A first paragraph on the clear and present plutocracy in the USA is followed by a paragraph explaining that Rome degenerated because plutocracy requires the people to be stupid, but stupid people can’t handle a world that is not exactly the same as it was before.

As Rome, a self proclaimed "developed world", stagnated, stupefied under the decerebrating plutocracy, the Barbarians caught up, technologically, and the ecology got exhausted, and the fascist leaders reacted with more fascism, and more mental terror, making the situation worse. That is how Rome "collapsed". The rest is details.

The next paragraph is a reader’s objection, which was made to me already several times. The reader reminds me of the thesis of Tainter, a professional historian who is often brandished these days by the plutocrats, to explain away the problems the West is having, and, in particular to claim that a notion such as plutocracy has nothing to do with them (this is total contradiction with the classical view that greed is THE explanation for decay, ever since Solon, the founder of the Athenian constitution, 26 centuries ago; Solon, a poet and philosopher, and a very courageous politician and revolutionary, took strong anti-plutocratic measures which allowed Athens to blossom into her golden age).

Tainter believes that societies become too complex, and that is too onerous, so they collapse. I try to show, with a few elements here and there, why this neo-conservative thesis is completely erroneous in the case of Rome (and also in other cases, including the present one).

Tainter’s thesis fits with the meta principle of the USA ever since Nixon: reduce government, turn everything to the private sector (Nixon created private Health Maintenance Organizations, on the public dime, hence massive for profit health care in the USA; later Reagan took Nixon’s torch, and set the government on fire, with his boy, Summers. Summers was allowed to continue his work of destruction under Clinton, and was of course chosen by the most brazen plutocrats as mentor for the naïve young Obama; the public financing of private banks has blossomed ever since).

Finally I fast forward in the last paragraphs to the situation now. It is getting quickly worse, philosophically speaking. Philosophical Rubicons are crossed, the abyss is near.

Although this is not the subject of this essay, civilization, to function, has to create its own strong morality, which is different, and opposed, to the natural morality of man, which is, in part, violent, evil, even "criminal" (by civilizational standards).

This tale of two moralities is complicated by the fact that, by definition, civilization brings together immense numbers of people, allowing the full power of the exponential function to come into play, for better or worse.

The exponential can grow the good in proportion to itself. It can also grow evil, proportionally to itself, and the power of greed, proportionally to itself. In other words, civilization’s exponential is Pluto’s best incubator (Rousseau vaguely guessed this).

Pluto is not just about money. The Greek philosophers condemned plutocracy, and City-states passed laws against it, and abuse of riches; even imperial Rome did this. My critique goes much further, though: it’s not just more and more money in fewer and fewer hands, it is also more and more evil in fewer and fewer hands, as the supine masses contemplate bovinely the gathering slaughter, sighing vaguely that it is not about them. (Yet.)

Thus the decay of civilization starts with the decay of morality, rotting from the top. Because civilization has let its guard down, as it stopped fighting actively the exponential growth of Pluto, that it itself generates.

And here we are: torture made official, predator robots hunting humans as in the Terminator movies, the president crowing about it, greedsters government supported, at the cost of nearly everything else, pirates crowing about using worldwide conspiracies to undermine countries and currencies, and now, last and not least, assassination of citizens, just because they do not think right, and talk too much.

Even in the Middle ages, European governments did not assassinate citizens for thought crime: a semblance of judicial process was maintained. It was felt then that the state of law required judicial executions, to maintain, at least, the appearance of justice. But now the government of the USA is trying to introduce a new custom: think bad, die fast. In Latin: new "mores", new morality. The abyss is here. (A telling detail: Republican Rome was neither torturing nor, a fortiori, arbitrarily executing citizens. It was against the law. A law the fascist Roman Principate violated, in the next five centuries.)




A number of financial big shots have insisted that preventing individual banks to become Too Big To Fail would be enough of a reform. But this is completely insufficient, because what has become too big to fail is the entire financial industry. And the financial industry used that power in 2008, as I pointed out at the time. The top financiers said: give us money, to us personally, or we will close the ATMs, and cut off all the money economy. They were given the money personally, instead of yanking out the banks from them, and nationalizing them, with that same money (to be sold later at a profit, as Sweden did). As it is, even now the entire financial system is on life support from the public, as the plutocrats keep on splurging on the money flow that, unbelievably, they are still given the opportunity to control (control beats jail, any time).

In theory, finance is supposed to be like an oil, allowing the friction-less transmission of savings to valuable investments. Right now it has become instead a metastatic oil spill engulfing civilization. This is entirely due to the fact that politicians have been bought by that financial cancer they helped create stealthily. The system keeps on growing, because the public does not understand how the labor, saving and taxes of common people is used to make an oligarchy very rich. It is not so much that it is too technical, and people do not have enough mathematics, nor moral fiber left to appreciate how revolting that exploitation has become. No, more simply, a careful propaganda machine disguises the tricks used by the financial oligarchy.

Just thirty hedge funds control, together, more than one trillion dollars (that is 2/3 of the normal USA federal budget). Now, of course, the largest banks are behaving like hedge funds. This is actually by behaving as hedge funds that the bank holding companies collapsed in 2008: 300 billion dollars of mortgage defaults were transformed into 24,000 billion dollars of potential losses, in the USA alone, as the hedge funds like bets of bank holding companies backfired.

The financial crash was purely a hedge fund phenomenon. Had the Banking Act of 1933 still been in force, this could never have happened. (But the plutocratic boy, Summers, had demolished the Act under puppet-in-chief Bill Clinton.)

So here, when I say 30 hedge funds control as much as two third of the federal budget, by "hedge funds" I meant pure hedge funds, the ones reserved to the hyper wealthy (by the way, to open an account at the so called "bank" Goldman Sachs, you will need ten million dollars, although every US taxpayer gave vast amounts of money to Goldman Sachs, by paying taxes, they can’t enter that temple of wealth). Oh, by the way, there are not just 30 hedge funds: there are about 10,000 of them in the USA, and as many in Europe.

Hedge funds use strategies such as "butterfly" trading. They consist in taking huge leveraged and opposite positions. One side will always lose, but the other will win so big, that it does not matter. All what is needed is markets that move big (so that there is a big loss, or a big win). So the question about the monstrosity of finance becomes: can an "industry" that controls around 15 times WORLD GDP move markets?

There are other lightly regulated pools of capital, and tax heavens are part of the shadow financial empire which tries to control the planet. The tax system of the USA is entangled with US corporations and tax heavens, so this plutocratic system functions as an integrated whole: the USA’s political structure has been captured by plutocracy.

In 1998, one hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management failed, and the US Federal Reserve intervened on the most gigantic scale to save a number of investors who were friends. It’s all about friendship among the rich and famous. The Fed, the supposedly independent central bank of the USA, is part of that system, and fears to be exposed to the light of the day, as all good vampires do (that is why it does not want to be audited by the US Congress, lest all the gifts to friends would be exposed to the light of the day).

Quantitative and high frequency trading increases the complexity, opaqueness, and self fulfilling prophetization of financial markets, allowing plutocrats to become ever bigger relative to the political and economic systems. Market shut-downs such as the one of May 6 (market down 10% in a few minutes for no reason whatsoever, except huge sell orders from giant plutocratic organizations: Citi, etc.) will increasingly happen. US Senators were just engaging in a vote to curb the banking industry at the time. When asking for explanations, we were told that a trader confused the letter m, and the letter b. So he sold billions, in a fraction of a second, when he should have sold millions. It reminds me of fairy tales for children. Panicked, the senators did as they were told, implicitly, and voted down a pesky law, that would have bothered the banks.



In Rome, the richest of the rich became so rich that they ended up owning the country. This is happening now, again, and foremost, in the USA.

The universes of derivatives, shadow banking, tax heavens are the ultimate too big to fail that sucks up nearly all capital, depriving the rest of civilization of sufficient economic activity (capital is potential power; no capital, no power).

The hundreds of trillions of derivatives, many times world GDP, are as much capital which is not available for the real economy. This is why important technologies either very different and practical, or futuristic and indispensable, are not developed. And why there is not enough money for education, and any other activity that could make the masses more clever, and see through the system (seeing through is good for technology, but very bad for plutocracy, which thrive on the unseen).

Plutocracy blocks technology.

Why? Because technological progress depends upon intellectual progress. Plutocracy wants the population to be stupid and impotent. Blocking intellectual progress, and thus controlling the learning and thinking institutions that allow progress is foremost. The Roman emperors deconstructed the educational system, burned the libraries (starting with emperor Jovian, 363 CE), and transferred books and the knowledge from independent individuals and institutions, to "Catholic-Orthodox" monasteries. The emperor, as Christian-in-chief, or "thirteenth apostle", controlled the monasteries, not the libraries and academies.

We also have explicit declarations from Roman emperors, centuries before the imperial imposition of Christianity, that new inventions may destabilize society, and thus emperors paid inventors to keep their inventions secret. It is not a coincidence that the time of great technological and industrial progress in Europe, later, would see so many revolutions. Progress is one whole.

Progress in Medieval Europe started as early as 1100 CE, when professor Abelard and his partisans confronted the religious fascists led by Saint Bernard. At the time the revolution had to do with the immense popularity of the cathedral schools, and their transmogrification into universities, and architecture had gone beyond Roman science (as demonstrated by Gothic cathedrals, which replaced Roman cathedrals, with the invention of flying buttresses, which embodied the forces, in particular wind loads, that the buildings were submitted to).

One could look at an even earlier renaissance: the Franks made a revolution in education, even before Charlemagne, by trying to make schooling mandatory and universal. This was the exact opposite direction from the late Roman empire. It was followed with an advancement of technology; the tenth century is “full of beans” (which Frankish biotechnology had just evolved).

Roman plutocrats blocked the evolution of society, of all of society. When they made changes it was mostly out of dire necessity and fascist control. This excluded really new methodology. So, for example, Christianism, an old style superstition was imposed, to help establish a stronger fascism than the one used by prior emperors, in the first three centuries of the Principate.

This drift towards fascist superstition was so deep that it was emperor Diocletian that established this, the emperor as sun-god, to be called "Dominus". Constantine just switched to using the Catholic church, which had an already existing paramilitary structure in place, and which rested on a cult of personality of a tyrannical father and a chosen son that could be easily translated into the imperial cult (whereas worshipping the sun was all too natural, and all too real).

Gibbons focused on Christianism, as the cause of the collapse of Rome: I explain how this superstition came about, the last nail in the fascist-plutocratic coffin. For Gibbons, Rome reached apogee under the Antonine emperors. For me, Rome started to decay when the plutocracy took control of the Senate, under the republic, three centuries earlier than the period Gibbons admired so much.



One man or two could have changed everything; Caesar and Cicero knew it, and so did the plutocrats at the time. That is why Caesar and Cicero, long opposed to each other, became allies. And that is why the plutocrats were in such a rush to assassinate Caesar, who, although himself the top plutocrat (and "dictator for life"), was also the leader of the Populares, and had shown the capacity to change everything.

Correctly, Caesar decided to use the most formidable army the world had ever seen to destroy all of Rome’s external enemies, in one blow. We will never known what could have been. But, just as with the assassination of the Gracchi, and thousands of their supporters, the enormous mental force of plutocracy is not to be neglected: for one Caesar, and one Cicero, how many were ready to die for plutocracy, so much they believed in it?

When the Gracchi were confronted by armies of thugs paid by plutocrats, the later had succeeded to leverage themselves, thanks to their wealth, in controlling the republic. This control was not total, as 110 years of near constant civil war and dictatorship (such as the one of Lucius Cornelius Sulla) followed.

Verily this is how the Greco-Roman empire crashed: THE INDISPENSABLE BRAINY IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT MADE IN A TIMELY MANNER (the same scheme happened in most other collapses of civilizations).

This would befall any civilization, lest it continually reinvents itself. Indeed, any given technology is always unsustainable, in the fullness of time. So new is always needed. That means new brainwork. That means progress, the opposite of conservatism.



An Internet interlocutor called "George" replied to a version of the preceding, exhuming an historian plutocrats have been using to claim they are innocent: "Patrice, some authors (Tainter in particular) have a theory for “most collapses of civilizations”, which basically boils down to diminishing/decreasing returns on complexity.

Thus, the reason that “indispensable improvements were not made in a timely manner”, according to Tainter, is that because of the diminishing returns rule, society ran out of the ability (or willingness) to cope with the need to add on more complexity to deal with the problems caused by the accumulation of complexity.

In a sense, the ever increasing supply of energy-dense fossil fuels since the dawn of the industrial era has enabled our current civilization to more than offset the consequences of the diminishing returns to complexity – so far. But, as in the Merchant of Venice, the pound of flesh will have to be paid in the end.




A complexity theory of collapse has something for itself in the sense that, as old technologies exhaust themselves by exploiting what was there before, until it is no more, it is necessary to develop new technologies to replace them. So complexity rises, and always has, ever since there are men, and they think. Failure to follow that natural trend results in a crash.

But it does not seem to be the argument Tainter is making.

Tainter argues that sustainability or collapse follow from the success or failure of problem-solving institutions and that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity and their "energy subsidies" reach a point of diminishing returns. Tainter recognizes collapse when a society rapidly sheds a significant portion of its complexity.

For me, this argument of Tainter is neither here, nor there, in the real world. Viewing invasions by Germans, Huns or Mongols as "shedding complexity" is silly, although, of course factually true, since everything burned down. Sheer terror is more like it. The Mongols actually debated whether to eradicate China and change its ecology into a steppe.

Tainter’s mishmash of ideas and observations is generally viewed as meaning that: investment in social complexity are characterized with diminishing returns. In other words, Roman welfare ruined Rome. And Reagan made the sun rise over America, by dismantling the state (except the army, so Reagan could go and ruin other states too).

Tainter’s basic thesis, is a rather curious one for an historian to make. It is beyond a doubt that, by the late Middle Ages, social complexity in Europe was far above that of imperial Rome, and "returns", far from diminishing, as Tainter would have it, were well above those of Rome, and increasing. It had been so since 1000 CE.

Tainter’s picture is so simplistic that it ends up being completely inappropriate. To rehash the most well known facts is rather superficial, while invoking "diminishing returns" here and there, is an incantation which can only satisfy plutocrats. for plutocrats, it’s all about returns. The conceptual category tied to the notion of “returns”: it is that of finance, the realm of the plutocrat. Thus Tainter conveys at the outset the notion that confinement to the plutocratic realm is all we need to explain the world.

To brandish imperial overextension as a cause of decay is nothing new. Emperor Hadrian was so familiar with it, that he pulled the Roman empire out of Mesopotamia, and other places, with catastrophic military consequences, as the pressures of enemies nearly broke the empire under Marcus Aurelius. Hadrian’s unfortunate retreat would haunt Rome forever, and thereafter. It may be why the American legions are in Mesopotamia now, still trying to reestablish order, and progress, in rather pathetic way, 1,900 years later.

Complexity has to do with collapse, but not the way Tainter has it. I believe that it is the other way around from how Tainter has it. It is the incapacity to handle complexity that went up drastically, not the complexity itself (complexity always trends up, at a pulsating, but overall steady pace).

As I keep on repeating, the increasing incapacity for thinking is blatant in the Greco-Roman empire: most of the creative thinking is at the beginning, or under the republic, or even earlier in the free Greek city-states.

After a while, under the Principate, thinking completely vanishes. Centuries go on and on, and no thinking of any value is created, let alone any major new idea implemented. Rome reigned, on an intellectual desert the plutocracy had created. Far from becoming ever more sophisticated, the empire was getting always less complex, mentally speaking.

Anti-intellectual terror, though, was in full evidence: the pope Gregory the Great threatened to burn his own bishops if they taught "grammar’ to the people (the Franks shrugged, and protected the bishop of Die, who kept on teaching "Grammar", to the People).

Mental malfunctioning is how empires go down.

The Mayas depended crucially upon some particular tree species for construction, and kept exploiting them for many centuries, if not millennia. Yucatan became a vast technological garden, with a huge hydraulic network. But, in the end, the Mayas suddenly overexploited the trees they depended upon. Far from getting into too much complexity, the Mayas had forgotten the old subtleties. They had forgotten the old ways, where morality comes from, the customs, the time honored ways, the "mores". It is not so much complexity that had increased (OK, the intense drought at the time may have complicated matters), rather than the incapacity of the Mayas to handle it. The balance of power between the City-states of Tikal and Calakmul may have been disturbed by an arriviste queen from another city, around the time when the calamitous, centuries long drought struck (would I add). But it remains that the Mayas were suddenly unable to cope, because they had created a mess, instead of creating solutions.



Basically, by the year 700 of its founding (0 CE), under "Augustus", the "One-Who-Augments", Rome became increasingly idiotic, and, although the situation of the empire was much simpler, it was incapable to deal with it. Rome had become idiotic because it was controlled by Roman plutocracy, and it was in the interest of Roman plutocracy to make the People of Rome (Populus Romanus) completely idiotic, thus to make Rome completely idiotic, overall.

One can control, imprison and fleece sheep, not philosophers, engineers, and poets. One of Augustus’ first moves was to throw out much of the old Senate, and replace it by one of his own plutocratic liking.

So, when NEW technological challenges appeared, confronting Rome, the NEWLY idiotic Rome was unable to deal with them. Instead, Roman technology stagnated, and society degenerated into a plutocratic theocracy… Although, recent archeology shows, the economy kept on improving (contrarily to what Tainter is claiming).

Meanwhile the Barbarians caught up with Roman technology, especially military technology: the Franks became the shock troops of the Roman empire (the Franks became the elite of the army under Constantine, 310 CE, a fact confirmed under Julian (356 CE) who was voted Augustus by the Franks, after the emperor Constantius II tried to order them to the Orient to fight the Persian Sassanids. This was a full 150 years before the Franks took control of Gallia and Germania…in the name of Rome).

After the collapse of the Roman state (not of the Roman civilization or language, but of the Roman state), technology would start advancing again, under the Franks (inventing from beans to stirrups, to horses’ collars, to massive labor horses, to sophisticate agriculture and deep plows turning the ground, to Gothic cathedrals to wind and water power everywhere; by 1000 CE, the energy Frankish citizens had at their command was the highest in the world).

In the case of Rome, it is pretty clear that the bizarre evolution of Roman society had nothing to do with increasingly complex problems.

For its first seven centuries or so, Rome was confronted to enormous, extremely complex problems, of the most extreme lethality, which looked hopeless to solve.

From the Etruscans’ colonization, to the war with the Sabines, to the invading Gauls, who captured Rome, and asked for ransom, to the brazen Carthaginian plutocratic empire, and its high tech Navy, to Hellenistic dictatorships, complete with charging elephants, to violent marauding hyper powerful German warrior nations, complete with deadly fighting women, destroying all Roman armies, but one, to the problem of getting rid of kings, and giving increasing powers to the People, to the status of the Allies, to the very complex, evolving constitution and voting systems, Rome, the Roman republic, had giant problems everywhere, and responded to them by enormously complex solutions, which were moving all over the place, as the centuries went by.

Towards the end of the republic, the situation had become much simpler: Rome was master of the world. Rome could not be killed, and actually was not killed: the Merovingian empire of the Franks (“Imperium Francorum”) replaced progressively the Greco-Roman empire (from the defeat of the last non Frankish Roman army in 486 CE, to the capture of Constantinople in 1204 CE). But the queens of the Franks spoke Latin, and did so imperially, thinking of themselves as Roman (we have some of their letters!)

At the end of the Roman republic, only three military powers could be distinguished, in the far distance. Caesar intended to solve the military situation once and for all, with one giant military expedition that would submit Persia, Sarmatia and Germania in one shot, coming from behind. Unfortunately he was assassinated by plutocrats masquerading as republicans, the day before he was going to take his leave. That assassination was a drastic collapse of the ethics of survival of the republic (since when would good Roman republicans assassinate the commander in chief, the "dictator", as he was going to war against terrible threats?)

In a few months, Rome lost it all. Marcus Antonius, "Marc Anthony", soon boyfriend of Cleopatra, nailed the hands of Cicero, lately allied to his master, Caesar, on the doors of the Senate, an unimaginable gesture, prior, when Rome was a republic.

What had collapsed was ETHICS and morality (mores = customs in Latin). After that, the ruin of the empire was just a matter of time. The situation was simple in all ways, EXCEPT in the ethical realm, where plutocracy reigned on minds and society alike.



It seems to me that Tainter does not know Roman history as well as his ambition demands.

A first problem is when did the “Roman collapse” occur? Collapse of what? The Roman republic? Was the collapse when Octavian ("Augustus") became Prince ("Princeps"), or half a millennium later, when the last Western Roman emperor reigned in Rome, or in the Seventh century, when the Roman Senate disappears, or when, in 846 CE, the Muslims sieged Rome and occupied the future Vatican? A Frankish army chased the Muslims away.

Tainter, of course, gives the conventional answer: Rome collapsed when the last emperor was deposed in the West. But that was just a detail: Theodoric would soon be Roman emperor there, in all but title, and the Roman Senate would go on for more than a century. The last certified Roman emperor visited Rome in Meanwhile, in Gallia, Clovis, son of his Roman imperator of a father , was made Consul. Roman Consul. As far as the Franks were concerned, they were Rome. They never collapsed. And Roman emperor Justinian did not attack them, when he retook control of the entire Mediterranean (but for the shores that the Imperium Francorum controlled). This was in 554 CE.

The collapse of Rome is a very mysterious subject, because the more one looks at it, the less one sees it. Just another example: Otto III, crowned in Rome in 996 CE, as “Holly” Roman emperor, made Rome the administrative centre of his empire and revived elaborate Roman customs.

Otto III was a successor of Carlus Magnus, "Imperator Romanorum". A bit earlier, in a joint land-sea operation, the Frankish army and the Byzantine (= Roman) Navy had crushed the Muslims in Provence, with a final sea battle in the Gulf of Saint Tropez, where the Gregian fire was used, with its usual success.

That is why I go back to the point when the ethical collapse of the republic started, when the plutocrats of the Roman senate had enough clout to impose their destruction of (by then) democratic Carthage and the free Greek City-states (including Athens).



Much earlier, when confronted with intractable military problems, the Roman republic invented new military technology: Spanish short sword, to make short work of the phalanx, from the side, javelins that one could not be thrown back, sure to stay stuck in the enemy’s shields, advanced metallic armor, ballistics, and so on. Carthaginian ships were captured, and duplicated, etc. Confronted to huge ocean going Gallic sailing ships, the Romans invented a way to seize their sails. Having to feed the cities, they built a giant trading system, with aqueducts using waterproof cements of their own making. And so on. Republican Rome was a plethora of new high technology.

Under the empire, although it became obvious that further technological progress was needed, economically, energetically and militarily, the emperors deliberately made an anti-invention policy, paying inventors to NOT invent. Because, they said, inventions would increase unemployment (meaning: make plutocracy unstable). Interestingly the first industrial uses of water power occurred in Roman Gaul (where technology would soon blossom under the Franks, because the Franks had not enough slaves, having outlawed slavery for Christians and Jews).

The mind solves problems by augmenting complexity. Just look at physics, mathematics, and biology. Our present theories are certainly more complex, and more powerful, than ever before. Our present societies are also more complex, and that very complexity allows them to solve more. Where has Tainter been?



Another observation from a reader was this: "@ Patrice Ayme: The Greco-Roman Empire crashed from their over indulgence of arrogance. They partied hardy on the laurels of the past. Sounds familiar? Technology had nothing to do with it, but the over extension of Roman armies into lands that were plunder-less from past plundering. They killed the “Golden Goose”, period! This parallels the United States too… with our perennial Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran… if the Military Complex War-Mongers can get their way… wars accomplishing nothing, but moving us closer to the precipice of financial ruin! I ask you to question yourself – have America’s leaders become arrogant, and drunk with hubris?

Earle, Florida"



It is true that the present day USA is insufferably arrogant. Even criminally so. And it is true that insufferable arrogance, obvious in the speeches of Pericles, led to the downfall of Athens.

The "plunder-less" theory comes straight from Tainter. It is central to its "diminishing returns" concept. Many provinces of the empire thrived for centuries, as long as the Barbarians did not show up. Thus, that the empire stalled from lack of plunder is not supported by detailed evidence of the history of Rome.

Instead, Imperial Rome was imperially incoherent, because it was led by mentally small people, preying on each other. The plutocratic leadership worried more about other plutocrats rather than about Barbarians, or the grandeur and future of Rome.

Having suffered a severe defeat there, Augustus told his successors to leave most of Germania alone. But that left a frontier with a high fractal dimension, impossible to defend, precisely what Caesar wanted to fix. Finally emperor Carlus Magnus, ‘Charlemagne", completed that conquest, doing part of what Caesar wanted to do, a short frontier on the other side of Eastern Europe. Thus Charlemagne, following Caesar, created Europe, and the Romans did not. Although, of course the Roman army, was gigantic, getting to as much as 800,000 men in the Late Empire. But it was going nowhere. It was a sitting duck, with rusting technology.

Arrogance is not very much in evidence in the last few centuries of the Roman empire. However, the Romans were extremely arrogant, wrapped as they were in a strong legal and ethical system under the republic, and it worked well for the republic. It was the arrogance of superior morality. Generals who could put their hand in the fire, and stayed unmoved. By contrast, Rome became a mess under the empire, and moral arrogance went down as confusion went up.(This seems to support Tainter’s thesis, but not really, once one looks in the details).

There are other character flaws besides arrogance, and the Romans , or more exactly the Roman plutocracy that ruled Rome during the empire/principate, accumulated plenty of these. Cupidity and greed were foremost. The empire was not only ruled by the richest, but its soul was guided by Pluto. This is the crucial point: it’s not just about wealth, but the nastiness to enforce it.

Technology, or rather the lack of drastically new, adapted technology, played a huge role in the down-going of the Greco-Roman empire.

First of all, of course the technology of political organizations (“political science, economics”) became simplistic in the empire/principate: an emperor seized power, and the army vowed to obey him. Or the army would chose an emperor, and then try to impose him. That was ridiculous simple, politically speaking, relative to the enormous complexity of the republic (with its various chambers, assemblies, responsibilities, duties, voting system by "tribes", balance of powers, powerful judiciary).

Plutocracy also voided Rome, and Italy, of all and any control on its destiny (putting millions on the dole, and making them impotent economically and militarily, before outright switching the capital out of reach, all the way to the way to Asia; Romans, and later Italians, were forbidden to serve in the army).

More important for the loss of military control, was the disappearance of a technological edge in armaments. Instead, the Barbarians acquired the edge. Composite bows used by the Parthians, and then the Huns, threw arrows that could pierce Roman armor. The economic technology also faltered: unexploited land grew (from the end of small farming by independent owners, another device deliberately imposed by plutocracy, because small land ownerships had been given backmany times in the republic, with land redistributions). The mines with their indispensable metallic ores became unprofitable, from a dearth of slaves and difficulty of extraction.



Where does the West stands as a comparison to Rome’s slide into the abyss? Well recently, the leader of the USA, in perfect tuxedo, joked, as a stand-in comedian, to great laughter among the worthies of the main stream media of the USA, about "predator drones".

"Predator drones" bomb people, far from battlefields. Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians have been killed in these strikes (the military of the USA is now careful to hide that tragedy, at least from the public of the USA). Also we learn that orders have been given to kill an American born citizen who is a Muslim cleric, who just speaks with a bad tone of voice. Now, it’s not in my habits to defend Muslim clerics (see P/S).

Inasmuch as I detest Muslim radical literalist fundamentalism, I do not believe that it necessitates to throw out the foundation of Western civilization. Indeed we are in a state of law, not in a state of assassination. Supposedly, the government of the USA has decided that this cleric, apparently hidden in Yemen, was putting out too effective of an anti-American discourse. So what the government of the USA is now saying is that American born citizens can get killed purely for their ideas. And with no more due process than some administrative decision.

As the New York Times puts it all too soberly: "The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy."

Now I am not naïve, and I do believe that assassinations have their place, and that secret services (under the threat of prosecution), should have some latitude to do so, after presidential approval, as needed (under Mitterrand, in France, a few foreign agents were selected for assassination, each year).

But the mental process that is going right now in the USA is completely different. Declaring that American born citizens can be killed, just because of what they say is going back to the sort of morality the plutocrats who opposed the Gracchi displayed in Rome: WE KILL YOU, BECAUSE, YES, WE CAN.

This criminal arrogance is moral collapse, hence collapse of the republic. Of the American republic. This is exactly how Athens collapsed; it exterminated a City-State, for no good reason, but sheer hubris. Of course, the other 200 Greek City-States felt immediately more inclined towards Sparta. Similarly, moral collapse, of a less brutal type, happened also in Rome.

More than five centuries before the Visigoths seized the eternal city (410 CE), Roman morality had started to collapse. And then progress was set in reverse. Similarly, indications of American moral collapse are everywhere. The hypocrisy has got so colossal that it is obviously there to produce giant red herrings behind which to hide reality, not just the truth.



An example of the distortion of reality is the contrast between the treatment given to Polanski, and that of the torturers of the USA. Polanski is an Auschwitz survivor whose life was broken in Los Angeles when his eight and a half month pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was tortured to death by the Charlie Manson gang, having pieces of her body removed while alive. Polanski’s child also died. Polanski has spent many months in prison for a sex charge, consensual "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" (her own mother had sent her unsupervised daughter to Polanski for a second photographic session in Jack Nicholson’s home, 34 years ago; see P/S).

In the USA the obsession with Polanski is sky high, all devouring. If you get indignant about Polanski, you are a citizen in good moral standing. If not you do not, you have got to be, well, French, like Polanski, or Bernard Henri Levy (Polanski’s philosopher friend). It will remind Europeans of the old American obsessions with "sodomy", and inter-racial sex. Both used to be unlawful, both allowed to perform very nice lynchings. Not that I approve of Polanski’s deranged act, but neither do I obsess about it, in these times of unlawful wars, predator drones, official torture, and citizens’ assassination for speech crime. The obsessors want to obsess, though, because it allows them to forget about the rest.

Ominously, prosecution against Polanski heated up while he finished his excellent latest movie, "Ghost Writer". "Ghost Writer" accuses the USA to be a giant conspiracy of quasi infinitely malevolent hypocritical lowest of the lows, shrouded in American academia.

In that movie, the ex-British Prime Minister has fled arrest for war crimes by European justice in one of these islands for the rich off Massachusetts. The ex-British PM has lived his life as a puppet of a murderous plutocratic world plot centered on Harvard University, and American secret services, serving, well, the plutocracy. As the Harvard/US Secret Service conspiracy gets revealed, inquiring minds get killed, and nothing is left of them in the end, but papers in the street, torn by the wind.

While Polanski get prosecuted and imprisoned, the advocates, theoreticians and implementers of torture in the USA are honored and empowered. One is a university professor (at UC Berkeley) and the other is a Federal judge (in San Francisco, an extremely powerful job). They are both based in the San Francisco Bay Area, supposedly the most liberal place in the USA (imagine what would happen to Polanski in Los Angeles: torture, execution?). In other words, in the most liberal place in the USA, the theoreticians and enforcers of government torture thrive. (Code Pink is trying to change that, but not yet.)

"Ghost writer" is not just on the screen. It’s on main street. It’s in Wall Street. And, say Polanski, it’s in US academia. I have myself long attacked Harvard as a center of an immense plot, an erroneous vision of subjugation. Many things thought to be archetypes of Nazism were directly adapted from Harvard, including songs, because at least one of the most important leaders of the Nazi party was from Harvard. Lawrence Summers, the dismantler of Franklin Roosevelt’s Banking Act of 1933, the main creator of metastatic finance, was president of Harvard, until his grotesque sexism drove him out.

Another growing obsession has been the "Tea Party". Those people consider Obama a "socialist", because of his health plan (which is very friendly to the hyper rich… although much less friendly than the status quo). The Tea Party claims to represent the People, but the situation is reminiscent of what happened with the Nazi Party; People’s rage, plutocratic service.

Meanwhile the worst financial manipulators who ever were (most of the top of the American financial system), some demolishing currencies (after a plot: George Soros), some demolishing countries (Goldman Sachs and its paid prostitutes, the rating agencies), are left free to keep on with their self serving, world destroying conspiracies, while using fresh public money to do so, offered to them by their generous accomplices in government.

We have seen decay and rot, it starts with the head.

Fortunately, the USA is not in the situation of Rome. The People of USA is not alone, facing a mad plutocracy, as the People of Rome was.

Europe, differently from Greece when Rome attacked it, is strong, and not just militarily. Moreover, Europe was brutalized by fascism and all Europeans know that fascism was related to wealthy manipulators, and have stayed vigilant. Hence the brutish stupidity of the attacks by the plutocracy against the European Union. This time, though, there is no Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin to help. And fortunately, the president of the USA, Obama, played a positive role, telling Chancellor Merkel to do the right thing (Franklin Delano Roosevelt had not played enough of a positive role during the powering-up of Hitler). Obama apparently knows that the USA is better with a strong EU than without it. Progress of one, but progress of the most important one. So there is hope. But it’s going to be a jolly fight.




I view literal fundamentalist Islam as a personal enemy, although I do understand its usage by freedom fighters, and although I am quick to point out, that, for decades, it is American secret services, and the imperial machines of the USA, which have been the greatest promoters of this extreme superstition, which enfeebles the minds, just what plutocracy is always looking for in its enemies. This is so true, that it is starting to be known. Some people in the Middle East and Pakistan even believe that bin laden, in full accord with his ex-employer, the CIA, set-up the 9/11 attack, to give a reason for the USA to invade the Middle East. Although I am more than willing to attack the superstition, and I recognize the necessity of combat against armed enemies to neutralize them, I draw the lines at people who just think, or just talk. Those should not be touched.

What of fighting words? Well, they can be prosecuted, but first they should be denounced and interdicted. This applies to covering women under a tent on account of their gender, a form of threatening, fighting communication.



Following his indictment on one sex charge, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, halved for good behavior). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal–and sentence Polanski to prison–the director fled the country. After "Ghost Writer" loomed in the distance, and the thoroughness and independence of American justice came into question, in matters such as unlawful war, torture, and the subjugation to financial criminals, it was time to beat the sex drum. As if one old guy having had some sort of sex with a minor, compared with the death, pain and suffering of 250 million people in fear of "predator drones” throughout Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan-Yemen. But in the USA, it does.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 435 other followers