Posts Tagged ‘empire’

Enraged Stoics

March 5, 2016


[One of my readers told me to remove a more offensive title which depicted better how I felt about Marcus Aurelius and his clueless critters. Otherwise she won’t read the essay!] Yes, I know, it is curious that people who call themselves “stoic” would actually be enraged. Yet, they are. How they were led to rage, under the guidance of your truly, is instructive, and reveals much on human nature. Basically, I revealed them the truth, knowing full well, they would explode (that makes little different from Daech, aka ISIL).

And, yes, I know, Marcus Aurelius is one of the most adulated celebrities, viewed as a top intellectual, a great stoic philosopher, a towering right of life and death emperor, etc. However, my word is stronger than his sword, the true philosopher knows.

There is nothing which enrage liars more than the truth, to all revealed.  By revealing to them the truth, namely that one who, to this day, is one of their greatest leaders, is a piece of mental trash, who led humanity astray, I brought them to the abyss, where, lemming like, they jumped passionately.

Rage permeates the human condition, and reveals its nature. It’s a failing of traditional humanism that it has not yet enlighten the causes of why this happens.

Emperor Antoninus Pius Ruled For Twenty-Two And A Half Years. Pius, A Stoic, Was The Immediate Predecessor of Marcus Aurelius. Yet, A Truly Wise Leader, Following Republican Tradition, He Nominated None Of His Numerous Male Descendants Successor-Designate (“Caesar”)

Emperor Antoninus Pius Ruled For Twenty-Two And A Half Years. Pius, A Stoic, Was The Immediate Predecessor of Marcus Aurelius. Yet, A Truly Wise Leader, Following Republican Tradition, He Nominated None Of His Numerous Male Descendants Successor-Designate (“Caesar”)

Just as the Buddhists had Buddha, the Xns love Jesus, the Muslims venerate Muhammad, the Stoics are overwhelmingly psychologically dependent upon Marcus Aurelius, a Roman emperor, and their hero. Today I will demonstrate further why Aurelius was garbage. (Do I look enraged myself? Not really, but against Nazi-like cultish methods, only the strongest answers are appropriate. The case against Aurelius may be more serious than the case against all the monarchs of the Middle Ages, as second only perhaps to Aristotle, he generated them all. As I will show below.)

Stoics, in their admirative folly, tell a lot of (traditional) lies about Marcus Aurelius. That these lies are traditional does not excuse them, or transmogrify them into the truth. Confronted to the details making blatant that those lies, however much repeated on the Internet, are lies, would-be stoics use the traditional methods deriving from what I call “intellectual fascism”. (At least that’s coherent, as Marcus Aurelius described, one could say, invented, and sang the praises of that mental method I call “Intellectual fascism”.)

I have attracted the anger of bankers, Muslims, Christians, American fanatics, and many other critters such as “Antisemites”. Unfortunately, apparently overwhelmed by a mountain of evidence and scholarship, bankers and Muslims have become exceedingly quiet.


The Fascist Instinct:

The ancestors of human beings for many million of years were primates pretty much exposed, far from a thick tree cover. The survival of the genus depended upon adopting with gusto the  following behavior: when confronted to danger the whole group gathering together behind a leader, and acting as one. We will call that the “fascist instinct”.

(This depends upon a piece of mathematics observed in the wild: when two groups of predators fight, the side with the greatest total mass generally wins; by acting as one, a human group could overwhelm any predator; predators cannot afford injuries, so they avoid any potential prey potentially all too injurious.)

We do not know how a behavior, necessary for survival, becomes “hard wired”. (I have just argued against simplistic ways of doing so.) However, I think the “fascist instinct” (for want of a better phrase) is “hardwired”, whatever “hardwire” means.

I also think that the next big progress in humanities will consist in admitting that various “hardwired” traits of the human genus are actually demonic. So, instead of denying that they are there, we should recognize, own, manage, mitigate, domesticate, and civilize them.

Intellectual fascism is such a trait. Celebritism, the cult of celebrities is an aspect of it. It brings forth the confusion between knowledge and hero-worship. For example the discovery of gravitational waves was attributed to “Einstein”, a content-empty concept. In truth, gravitational waves should be attributed to field theory: any moving field source generates an energy wave radiating outwards (that can then be explained further; ironically, Einstein vacillated on the waves, for years, so he had not understood how simple they were).


Roman Emperors Were Generally Nominated by The Senate or Adopted By Their Predecessor:

An example is Tiberius, top general in the Roman empire, adopted son of Augustus. After Augustus died, Tiberius retired in the country and waited many weeks, until the Senate begged him to become Princeps (Tiberius was de facto already head of all Roman legions, thus imperator, from his long top military command).

Marcus Aurelius was the first emperor with a son. That’s completely false. For example Tiberius, the second emperor, had two full grown sons. Both followed the cursus honorum, and became famous generals: Germanicus reconquered the part of Germany lost by Arminius’ treachery, and in particular the locale where three legions had been lost in an ambush.

What was new, is that Marcus Aurelius used a logic that brought him to make his son a “Caesar” at age five. It is not that Marcus did not know right from wrong. He did. And what he did was obviously wrong. But, somehow, Marcus found a psychopathic LOGIC to justify his perverse action.

It was psychopathic logic, because it explicitly contradicted the explicit wisdom to choose the next emperor very carefully, if possible among the most meritorious youth after they received the best education (as Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus had been selected, and educated by the famous Grammaticus Fronto).


Even With An Imperator Cum Princeps, Rome Viewed Itself As A Republic;

Indeed, the truth has been in plain sight, so many can’t see it:  Why? One has to know first this striking fact: until after Diocletian’s rule, around 300 CE, the Roman Imperium was actually a Republic.

Historians have come to use the word “Principate” to qualify Rome until 300 CE. Because the Imperator was also “Princeps”, the first man in the Senate. Right now in the USA, the Vice-President is first man in the Senate: as President of the Senate, the vice president has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. The distinction between “president” and “prince” is that between “sits first” (president) and “takes first” (princeps/prince).

The Republic was supposedly going on, and “imperator”, supreme military command on a set of legions, was a military title from centuries of Republic. There were cases, during the Republic, when imperators saluted each other, with the “imperator” title.


A Professional Philosopher Makes A Correction:


once more, your statements are incorrect. It isn’t that Marcus was the first emperor to have a son reach adulthood, but he was the first emperor of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty dynasty who had that opportunity.

And one more time: drop talk of fascism and psychopathy, it is adding nothing to the discussion.”

Well, dear Massimo, if you want to dine with the devil, you will need a longer spoon. I replied this:

During the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, an important qualification to become emperor was to be a stoic.

Emperor Hadrian adopted in 136 CE one of the ordinary consuls of that year, Lucius Ceionius Commodus, who took the name Lucius Aelius CAESAR. Lucius did not look the most qualified, and historians suggested he was Hadrian’s natural son. After another successful consulship in 138 CE, Lucius died (of natural causes).

Emperor Antoninus Pius, predecessor of Marcus Aurelius, had two natural, recognized sons: Marcus Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus and Marcus Galerius Aurelius Antoninus. However, the emperor Antoninus Pius did not name them Caesars during their childhood or adolescence. That would have been… unwise.

Antoninus’ two sons died young without issue. However, their sister Faustina the Younger had thirteen children, and their descendants are attested in the Fifth Century. As Antoninus had the longest reign since Augustus, he could have named a direct descendant Caesar (as Marcus would do). Antoninus was a stoic.

Marcus Aurelius differed from his numerous imperial predecessors in two ways: he did not adopt a qualified, adult heir. He also nominated a very small child as heir (a royal habit which would reappear in the Fifth Century, and thereafter through the Middle Ages).

This is not a full case against Marcus Aurelius. His attitude against Christians was also a disaster.


If You Want Civilization To Survive, Reject Celebritism, Intellectual Fascism, etc., & Embrace Direct Democracy:

Marcus Aurelius sank the Roman Empire, just as surely as the Captain of the Titanic sank the Titanic. His designation of the baby Commodus as Caesar, heir-designate, at the grand old age of five, tells us he was no wise man. However much he repeated like a parrot in Greek what Greek philosophers had said before. Thus he covered his tracks for 19 centuries, but as Donald Trump would point out, here I am, to say the obvious.

The rage of the professed ‘stoics’, confronted to my naked truths with whom I crush them, tells volume. First it says that Stoicism falls short. Half of humanity lives in East Asia, and should not scoff too fast. East Asia is permeated with Buddhism and its variants and fellow travellers (Confucianism). One can viewed all these as forms of stoicism. Or, more exactly, forms of stoicism a la Marcus Aurelius. (It’s not that Aurelius influenced them directly; it’s more that to the same problems, the same solutions.

Marcus Aurelius, as world dictator, devised a system of mind compatible with his elevated role as fascist-in-chief. Many a ruler in East Asia, and their obsequious servants, such as Confucius, were drawn to the same broad conclusions.

Thus (much of) Stoicism-Buddhism-Confucianism can be viewed as an overall mentality (there are variants of the three of them which differ wildly.

As long as We The People do not admit that individuals are prone to failure and demonicity, always, we will not progress to the sort of perfection we now need for survival as a genus of mind.

That packs of stoics can exhibit the ugly side of man, reminiscent of an angry pack of hyenas, is no wonder. When a pack of hyenas of roughly equivalent mass confront a pack of lions, they attack. However confronted to one of a few humans, they flee. Why? Even hyenas know that humans are the worst of the worst, in some most important ways. And that’s why stoics love Marcus Aurelius: because he was the worst of the worst, under Stoic guise, he was ready to lead them, straight into the Middle Ages, and its hereditary absolute power, from father to new-born babe.

Marcus Aurelius, the first hereditary king? Yes. A philosopher? No.

Patrice Ayme’

Shakespeare Versus Sade

January 7, 2016

Why were the English, or even the Spanish and the Portuguese so much more successful in establishing a world empire than the French? On the face of obvious facts, it’s curious that France did not do better. Nowadays Latin America speaks Spanish or Portuguese, entire continents are English-speaking. Only some of the wastes of Africa speak French. How come? Why did France not grab a continent for herself? Was France… too civilized? Is too much civilization an infection?

France was the most powerful, most populous, most innovative, most central, not to say most belligerent, of the European countries, for about 13 centuries… Besides being the creator of Europe since 360 CE (election of Julian). France led a healthy reaction against Christian terrorism, and became the center of military and imperial power which made Western Europe one (rather united, “Christian”) civilization.

Too Much Civilization Goes To The Wolves

Too Much Civilization Goes To The Wolves

And, precisely, more civilization and more centralization may have been the problems. If one is too civilized, one may respect the Natives so much, that one may forget to take their place. This is clearly what happened to the French in Canada. The French civilized and settled the Hurons. Then the Iroquois Confederacy came down from the mountains, and exterminated the pacified Hurons. And so on. Turkeys cannot built a civilization under the watchful eyes of lions.

If one is more centralized, while civilized, one will be unable to exploit the Natives as required for a successful settlement, in a timely manner.

True, Louis XIV, the famous Sun-Tyrant, made “legalized” slavery in the French West Indies, with the “Code Noir”. However, there was no slavery in French Canada and Louisiana, while slavery was lawful in English colonies, starting with Massachusetts…to immense economic success: some English American states were mostly people by African slaves cultivating tobacco, under the white whip, terrorized by their white masters. Tobacco had made English America profitable.

So what the difference in the imperial patterns of various European powers? Moods. Basically, the French had too little too late, of the … Dark Side. I mean real Dark: the king of Portugal harassed the Pope to obtain a Papal authorization to enslave Africans (Frankish law forbid to enslave Europeans explicitly, and Charlemagne had created the Papal state). Their Catholic Majesties, Isabella and Ferdinand harassed Borgia, a fellow Spaniard and Pope to authorize the Inquisition (then used to exterminate Judaism and Islam in the Iberian peninsula). Portugal and Spain were then ready to lash out. A planned crusade to exterminate Islam, was redirected more profitably towards the conquest of the Americas.

How come the greater friendliness of the English government to the Dark Side? Not coincidentally,  the rise of Shakespeare and of the West Country Men was simultaneous in England. And they were entangled: the (ex-Scottish) King James I, one of the West Country Men (basically) supported Shakespeare. (As Dominique Deux said) the success of Shakespeare comes from his parade of monsters.

Shakespeare, just as Allah in the Qur’an (following Yahweh in the Bible), made monstrosity honorable. Thus monstrosity became a strategy at the ready, something normal to do.

One may object that it’s not clear why monstrosity worked so well for the English and not so well for the Muslims.

Well, as a metaphysics of war, Islam was superb: the initial Muslim empire went from France, through Spain, North Africa, all the way to Central Asia and India, within 89 years of its launch in 732 CE. On the way it defeated the two most powerful empires outside of China, annihilating one, eating more than half of the other.

The feat was renewed later: in the Eleventh Century, the Turks, a decade or two after converting to Islam, defeated three large empires in West Central Asia, including a mauling of the Roman empire (which called the Franks to the rescue, launching the crusades).

So Islam’s monstrous side is excellent to motivate primitives for war.

This is proven as we speak: yesterday and today, January 7 2016, two Jihadist attacks in France (some terrorists tried a car attack against soldiers, no doubt inspired by happenings in Israel, and another attacked policemen with a meat cleaver, screaming “Allah Akbar”, and carrying a fake explosive belt, he was shot to death).

However, fanaticism does not rise to the motivation and power of free, knowledgeable men, as Islam’s crushing defeats at the hands of the Franks (starting in 721-732-748 CE), would prove in the next 13 centuries). Or the reconquest of Ramadi from the Islamist State by the Iraqi army and Sunni tribes.

So how come the English were so successful: it’s simple: in the case of the English, monstrosity was an adjuvant. I was listening to the Queen’s 2016 message the other day. She charmingly, succeeded to quietly claim that her family invented Christmas (a 4,000 year old tradition). She was completely unfazed by the monstrosity of her claims. (One could easily imagine her claiming Macbeth invented Christmas, just as unfazed.)

Monstrosity worked well as an adjuvant to other, more democratic structures in society, such as Common Law, Parliament, the Monarchy, with the oath to it that all males had to take at 14 of faithfulness to the King. In the case of the Qur’an, the Qur’an was all there was. Interpreted literally, the Qur’an is unbalanced monstrosity 100% of the time (with the major inconvenience that everybody can be suspected of apostasy, something punished by death).

Admiring Macbeth’s statement that life… is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, is a perfect slogan to go kill Irishmen (as the West Country Men did). And then American Natives (as the colonies founded by the West Country Men in America soon did).

Make no mistake: the Bible is full of genocides. Just as the Qur’an, which it inspired, it enables major monsters, bent on holocaust, to claim they are doing God’s will. Shakespeare is a secular version of the same mood with which to handle the world.

In the USA, many a school children spent an entire year studying Shakespeare shaking his spears all over human society (Shakespeare himself made jokes about the spear in his name, wanting it as his coat of arms).

Some could sneer that Sade wrote worse things. True. And actually I do think that writing terrible things is not just good, and instructive, but fights boredom, and feeds the mind. However, the obsessive exposition of Anglo-Saxon children to Shakespeare (or the Queen and her grotesque lies), while presenting that author as the epitome of classical humanism is deeply wrong.

Sade did not claim to extol classical humanism as he described horrors with relish. He was actually highly critical. Differently from Shakespeare the bard, about whom we know little, we know very well that Sade played a major role in the 1789 Revolution (including instigating the attack against the Bastille). Not just that, but he personally saved thousands (and got nearly executed for his troubles, escaping at the last moment thanks to the coup against Robespierre).

Sade’s main theme is that man is (potentially) immensely cruel, and politicians even more so, as they need cruelty, just to relax.

Power is cruelty, and absolute power is absolute cruelty.

A society where spears are shaken all the time, does not just shoots itself in the foot, or the head, very much. It also shoots everything that is in the way, all too readily. Shakespeare is viewed by the Anglo-Saxons as classical, while some of what is viewed as his most classical parts is just as bad, if not worse, than the worse in Sade (who, at least, was conscious of cruelty, while extolling it). The same objection can be made, and should be made, against the devout followers of the Bible, the Qur’an, and other various books of horrors. They say it’s classical, and should be respected.

No. Those books are classical, they should be known, but then they should be debated, fiercely, and dragged in the mud, as needed. Identify, condemn, and cut off the gangrene, the gangrene of the mind, as needed.

The West Country Men, powerful plutocrats as they were, sent soldiers and “endured servants” (white slaves) to America to make a profit. The French founded Canada for the “Mission Civilisatrice” (mostly). The West Country Men, operating in connivence with Justice, sent derelicts and miscreants to America. The French government carefully selected a moral elite to go to America, help the Natives.

However, in the real world, the sheep, however clever and cultivated, does not vanquish the lion. The former eats grass, the latter, sheep. It’s as simple as that. One lesson? Instead of just criminally prosecuting Africans, the International Court of Justice in La Hague should think about engaging a procedure against ex-president G. W. Bush, for instigating so many war crimes in iraq. Then, logically, the ICJ should move against the Saudis and all those businessmen doing business with them.

Indeed. Think about it. Culture without claws and fangs, and the will to use them, is only a betrayal of civilization.

In the Sixteenth Century, the Conquistadores enslaved the Indians, made them dig for oil, grow food for them. After they exterminated the Indians this way, they brought African slaves. When, finally the Frenchman Charles Quint, Spanish king and Roman emperor was forcefully appraised of the extent of the Holocaust by men of conscience (Bartolome Las Casas, etc.), the emperor autocratically ordered a halt to the Conquista (after a supreme tribunal got hung up). Otherwise all the Americas would be speaking Spanish.

Then Charles V retired. His son, Philip II, was less French. When Philip learned of French (Protestant) colonies along the “Carolina” coast, he sent an armada to exterminate them to the last French baby. A French relief fleet was dispersed by a hurricane (showing that god, were it to exist, is not friend of goodness). The French babies got killed, down to the last one (although some may have been rescued by Indians).

Not defending goodness with fang and claw surrenders it to the wolves. The good human is not an inert human. Goodness cannot just be lauded, it needs to be defended. Being inert, is inhuman.

Patrice Ayme’

Give War A Chance

September 21, 2015

John Lennon sang, with a smug attitude: “All we are saying, is give Peace A Chance”. It could be argued that was justified, when the matter at hand was just the taking over of Saigon by Hanoi. (And the resulting flight of a few million “boat people”.)

A few years later, a calm maniac, who would later declare the singer an hypocrite, fired 5 hollow point bullets at John Lennon. Four of these bullets hit Lennon. Lennon was not ready for this: he was neither wearing a bulletproof jacket, nor had he a bodyguard with him. He declared he had been shot. Later he acknowledged to the police rushing him to the hospital that he was John Lennon, indeed. Every one of the four bullet was lethal. Only making Lennon nearly as cold as ice could have saved him. (But that technique is not used yet, 35 years later.) Lennon had been “peaceful”. However, Lennon’s insane aggressor judged him aggressive: aggression is, all too often, only in the mind of the beholder. Peace did not give Lennon a chance. Had a well trained armed bodyguard been there, Lennon would have survived.

Since then, authorities have kept Lennon’s murderer in jail, trusting force more than the promises of the assassin. When serious mayhem arises, men and women of good will intervene. Such should be the case in Syria, a place ripped apart by a terrible war.

In the grander scheme of things, peace, love, just as war and hatred, come and go. All what matters is to encourage, or carry on with, the most appropriate behavior at the time, given the circumstances.

Two years ago, the dictator Assad of Syria, son of Assad Senior, another dictator, killed more than 1,500, in just one chemical attack, crossing a red line Obama had brandished. France and the USA decided to punish Assad.

The Assad family is the number one cause of the civil war in Syria. As Assad launched the civil war against pacific demonstrators, and then put in the streets the Islamists of ISIS (who were in jail), terminating his brand of power was entirely appropriate.

However, at the last moment, Obama mysteriously called off the attack. France backed-off. This time indeed France was not even supported by Great Britain,differently from September 1, 1939 (when Britain had joined France in opposing Hitler).

Now Putin has surged ahead, sending fighter jets to support Assad. The reason? Russia has its sole basis on the Mediterranean on the Syrian coastal strip. For some reason, Russians consider they have to have such a basis.

France and the USA had a chance to get rid of Assad, and finding somebody more reasonable, and cleaner to lead the secular Syrian government. Now they are in the strange position to have to tag along Putin. But there is no choice. So the Obama administration has made some openings.

Another aspect where the USA has no choice: the failure to act against Assad in a timely manner, besides killing another quarter of a million Syrians, has created eleven million refugees.

In the 1939-1940 period, the USA distinguished itself by refusing all genuine Jewish refugees (hundreds of thousands got stuck in France, which was not cool, because France lost the first round with the Nazis, and got half invaded). Anxious not to look as vicious as in 1940, the USA has now announced it would accept 100,000 war refugees… next year. One cannot stop progress.

What is the conclusion of all this?

Who is going to run the empire? Putin? Which empire, some will sneer? The United Nations empire, of course. It exists, and it even has a law, the UN Charter, someone has to manage it, and, more pragmatically, to impose it.

The problem with the UN is fundamentally the same problem as with Europe: the European Union exists, it has to be managed. It has to be led. France and Germany, when awake, make a reasonable, and just forceful enough, leader of Europe.

For the UN, the leadership has to come from the three permanent Security Council members which are also the leading Western military powers. At this point, it’s pretty much the USA, and France (as Britain is increasingly unwilling to spend money on defense). However, Obama “leads from behind”, and France is already running a deficit more than 50% above the Euro Group limit (and gets little help from Germany which is well below the minimum defense spending theoretically agreed to inside NATO).

How to remedy all this? The USA ought to cooperate more with France, which, not being an island, but, instead, at the crossroads, instinctively understand the necessity to go to war. A way to cooperate is to foster the French military-industrial complex, instead of viewing it just as a deadly competitor.

For example, the USA ought to give up on the worthless and dangerous F35 program, and, conceding defeat, just buy the French Rafale.

France has not remained completely despondent: an accord was just signed with Morocco to train Islamist preachers there. This is actually an astute move. A dance with the Dark Side. But this is a long story by itself, and better treated another time.

The Romans used to say: “Si vis pacem, para bellum!” (If you want peace, prepare war). We are beyond that point now: war is here. In 1936, the Western democracies stayed out of the wars Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had launched. That enabled the dictators to train their armies, and gain unwarranted confidence. In the shock of one week in May 1940, the French and British armies found, the hard way, that the training of their air forces was insufficient.

We don’t want such a surprise again. Putin has demonstrated he was ready to invade countries. To accept to be led by him is troubling, to put it mildly. Especially as we have a precedent: in the 1930s, the Western democracies agreed to be led by Stalin against Franco and by… Mussolini, against… Hitler. What happened next is that both Stalin and Mussolini allied themselves with Hitler against… the French Republic (hence the fall of the latter).

One cannot “lead from behind”. Obama will stay an object of ridicule, in the eyes of history, and he has more than ten million refugees to contemplate.

All over, the West is cooperating with horrendous dictators: in Gambia (!), in Eritrea, in all places in Africa which contain precious ores, etc. In Libya, the liberation of the country from the bloody dictator ought to have been followed by a military and administrative occupation, with the aim of proposing an association with Europe (the same ought to be extended to Algeria and Morocco, or Egypt).

The empire exists, and it has to exist, lest war spread uncontrollably. Simply, it’s not Mr. Putin who should be left to administer it, because Obama leads from way in the hell back there.

When peace does not work, one has to give war a chance. The alternative is meaningless annihilation.

Patrice Ayme’




Europe Immigration Massacre

April 24, 2015


Something went wrong in the general picture of Europe as the den of horrendous colonialists, projecting force worldwide: the previously allegedly exploited masses swim across the Mediterranean like lemmings, in their apparent desire to be exploited some more.

And they drown like lemmings.

Greece and Italy suffer the brunt of the “invasion” (which should be properly viewed as an opportunity). Just last year Italy imprisoned 171,000 refugees from Africa, and more than 50,000 from the Middle East.

Mass Death By Hypocritical Bureaucracy

Mass Death By Hypocritical Bureaucracy

Amnesty International condemned the very latest European measures as “Mesurettes” (little measures in French). I agree. Maybe to compensate for the appearances of measurettes, France and Britain speak about going to the United Nations to get the authorization to sink the boats of the enemy (apparently, the enemy  would be all fishers, trawlers and commercial boats from Algeria to Turkey?)

It reminds one of Obama’s drone policy (now “under review“, after killing Western hostages, announced a contrite Obama yesterday). Hey what could go wrong with bombing civilians one has observed, doing stuff? If bombing civilians is good for Obama, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, why is it not good for France and Britain? Eternal peace beckons…

In truth, the immigration problem to Europe forces a complete revision of what it means to be a “progressive”, dismantling 70 years of “anti-colonialist” hare-brained self-glorification discourse by pseudo-intellectuals of great renown.

Europe wants the advantages of empire to persist, such as material wealth, health, lack of risk taking, social laziness, and philosophical comfort. While Europe does not want to endure the costs of empire.

Europe is an empire which wants fate to provide, but does not want to contribute to fate with an enlightened vision.

The cost of empire means, first to master one’s vital space (Lebensraum in German). An empire masters its environment through military force, used, threatened, or implicit. Military means are viewed as primitive by (most) Europeans. So are demographic means. Overall, Europe has a timid, not to say senile, approach to the world, a mix of greed, fear, and laziness, physical and philosophical.

The case of Libya is typical: France and Britain finally finished the war France had been engaged with the Libyan dictator, on and off, for decades. However, they were mostly alone in Europe. Strong support came only from Obama’s USA. Any follow-up was no of the advantage of China, Russia, and, generally, all the countries in the world, which do not want to see Europe behave as if it were an empire.

It is OK for Russia, China, the USA, Indonesia, and even Australia, to behave like empires, ravaging the planetary environment, imposing their ways and means, but, for Europe to do so, the Europeans agree that it should not be.

Thus Libya, long part of Europe, as part of its ancestral civilizations of Phoenicia, Greece and Rome, was left to its own instruments, after having been decapitated.

This European self-flagellation and mortification is all for the better, as it fits the mood of dolce vita which Europeans are very much attached to.

In particular, it was self-congratulatory, rather than analytical, for European intellectuals to rant against colonialism. So now here we are: tens of millions of people are trying to get into Europe, thousands are dying, trying to do so.

This is not without similarities with the crisis that put an end to the Roman empire. Rome was depopulating, and increasingly senile. Various barbarians were trying to get in, by force. Rome accepted refugees, but, often without integrating them well.

So here we are again.

Rome ought to have projected force, mental and physical. But plutocracy is fundamentally idiotic, so Rome became ever more stupid. All the moral force provided was Christianism (and thank god for that). So, when the barbarians more or less conquered the empire, at least they were philosophically compatible with Rome.

So what to do?

Fix Africa, fix the Middle-East, by projecting the mental and physical force necessary for the continuation of the advantages of the European empire. Yes, it means American sized military budgets. It also means a strong immigration policy, a chosen immigration and integration policy (as Canada and the USA use).

If this path is not chosen, actors unfriendly to Europe, such as Daesh, the USA, China, will extend their empire in Africa and the Middle East, Europe’s doorstep, and the door will soon give way.

The number one problem of Europe is demographic and cultural depopulation. Poorly managed immigration and empire make it worse. In a way the migrants are saying that it is empire (of law and goodness), or death. Let’s listen, and learn.

Patrice Ayme’

Europe Trapped By Masochism, Intellectual Laziness?

January 5, 2015

Greece, Euro, Algerian FNL, Colonialism, Bullying, Whining and Depression.

Syriza, a Party in Greece, threatens to win elections on January 25. Its leader has announced Syriza was not a danger for Europe, but that Merkel was. His views are those I long held within these pages. “To Save The World, Devalue!”

Some Germans, claiming to have talked with officials, uttered that Greece could leave the Euro. Why don’t those Germans mind their business? The Euro is Greek money. Greeks want to keep their money.

Meanwhile Lithuania adopted the Euro. All European countries are supposed to adopt the Euro. Even the Swiss Frank is locked to it (and is going down accordingly).

If Germans want a clean Europe, they can accept the official French proposal to create a European Banking Union, the equivalent of the FDIC of the USA. Conservative Germans are not anxious to do this.

Indeed the German Landbanks, the local banks, crucial to finance the German “Mittelstand”, the middle companies, are bankrupt, and live on accommodations with the authorities. In other words; disguised subsidies.

“Austerity” in Europe means not enough money to operate the economy. Let Syriza bite Merkel’s well fed derriere!

Euro Still Way Too High:

Politics, when not totally democratic, can be absolutely Machiavellian. The Euro reached 1.45 dollars, a few years ago. Clearly it should rather be half that.

Based on the very long range equivalence of the French Franc with the Dollar, the Euro was made to be worth one Dollar. However, the economy of the USA has been much stronger, for years. Thus the Euro should be lower than its lowest level ever (when Germany was in trouble, a decade ago). That was 83 Dollar cents.

A way out of the European crisis is to boost the economy and lower the Debt/GDP by lowering the Euro. This has been zehr klar, for years. After the article in Der Spiegel saying Berlin wanted to expel Greece (which cannot be constitutionally done), Siebert, spokesman of Merkel, said policy had no changed.

However, the Der Spiegel article may have been planted, just to hasten the lowering of the Euro (which reached 1.18 Dollar, lowest in nine years). If so, it would be in agreement with France (which has to be pushing for a Euro at 80 cents, if still endowed with brains).

It will not escape conspiracy theorists that a collapse of the Euro would be painless, as oil, paid in Dollar, has seen its own price cut quickly by half. Hopefully, Putin is also been cut in half.

Maybe God is a conspiracy theorist?


Too Much Mushy Whining, No Action:

Women tears’ smell lower testosterone in human males. In other words, if women want some action, they better act as activists, or even aggressors (“bitchy”) and not as whiners.

Instead of whining about “colonialism”, Europeans ought to have found what was wrong about it, and how to correct it for the best.

Shrinking onto oneself, that’s called depression.


Colonialism: Very Bad, Indeed, But the Wrong Notion

What’s the difference between an immigrant, a migrant, a colon, an invader?

I was always a fanatic of cultural, and ethnical mixed background. Why? Because the more cultural ingredients around, the wealthier the minds.

Example. Although I vigorously attack both Bible and Qur’an, my dirty little secret is that I live very faithfully according of some of the elements of both I approve of… For example I don’t touch alcohol (being drunk on my own thoughts all day long, will cynics no doubt notice).

In the 1950s, it was fashionable for French intellectuals to be “anti-colonialist”. This, in turn was amplified worldwide, and became the credo of the left and progressives.

According to the theory, the French had conquered the world, and needed to go back to their barracks. They did, and were replaced worldwide, by American plutocrats, and their GIs. The same was extended to other European colonialists, of course.

Did French intellectuals realize they had been had?

Most died without being officially aware. But some who were the youngest, and most frantically anti-“colonialism” are changing their tune. Decades of history have instructed them forcefully.

Rene’ Vautier, a French movie maker joined the Algerian FNL (to the point he was implicated in factions struggles therein, and got imprisoned because of this). He just died at 86, and gave a final interview.

Interestingly, this FNL fanatic, changed his music in recent years (“before I get senile” he added).

Vautier fought as a teenager against the Nazis in the French resistance. A communist he was sent to Africa. At the age of twenty-one years old in 1949 the Ligue de l’enseignement en Afrique sent him to make a film about life in the French African colonies. It was filmed in the Ivory Coast.

Under French administration, Ivory Coast was peaceful.

(I was left free as a toddler on the beach there; my only fear, whom I had been instructed to have, was of a vicious, roguish wave that would appear from time to time; ever since I have a healthy fear of waves… That does prevent me to surf, occasionally, or even been swept in recent year by a rogue wave in California, and losing a camera, but when I am by the ocean, I worry.)

Since the French left, as with many European ex-“colonies”, from Pakistan to Fidji, Shri Lanka to Somalia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Congo, Cambodia, or the CAR, Ivory Coast was wrecked by a vicious civil war (about who was really an Ivorian).

In his last interview, Vautier, a worldwide icon of anti-“colonialism”, declared he wished the struggle against “colonialism” had not been all in vain.

But in vain it was. In many places, where imperial states had blocked plutocratic excess, now the worst of the worse were free to roam and feast.

In The Trap Again?

Krugman wrote a blog post “Europe’s Trap”. It’s entirely correct. However, Europe fell into the trap when the Kaiser and his generals listened to the songs of Colonel House, right arm of American president Wilson.

Sure that the USA would help, the Prussian (also known as German) army attacked the French Republic in an all-out attack, August 3, 1914, invading and declaring war to secondary countries in the process. A month later, after retreating for three weeks, the French army successfully counter-attacked.

American help to trade with the Kaiser’s dictatorship, through the “neutral” Netherlands, extended the First World War three years. But that was only the beginning of the involvement of the USA in European submission affairs.

However, nowadays, the USA has come to realize that it cannot rule the world alone. So the enlightened ones agree that the European Union is a precious ally, and it needs its own currency. As Keynes had pleaded in 1944, the Dollar cannot do it all.

It’s nicer to have a peaceful union under Franco-Germania, rather than a West fighting itself to death.

If we want peace, we need as little exploitation as possible, and it starts in the neighborhood. To have a strong Europe is in the USA’s best interest.

Example: the disastrous, trillion Dollar price F35 flounders. This is the worst fighter plane ever put into production, and is a threat to the security of the USA (but not to North Korea or Putin).

However Europe has two excellent canard fighter-bombers, the Eurofighter/Typhoon and the Rafale, both armed with the excellent Meteor ramjet missile (Mach 4, 100 miles range). Both have excellent Infrared vision, and can fire infrared long range missiles. The Rafale has active stealth, and that works, whereas passive stealth not only does not work, but cannot work.

An astute U.S. Air Force could ditch the dangerous F35, and build one of the Euro canards, under licence and renovated. Thus Euro strength would profit USA strength. An example of many. At the Las Vegas consumer electronic show, January 2015, the second largest delegation, with more than 100 companies, is… French.

Meanwhile French president Hollande declared that the rise of the Islamist State is directly attributable to the refusal to strike mass bloody dictator Assad (in the end, only the French wanted to attack). Indeed (as I said for years).

Colonialism? No. Where are the colons? And are immigrants replenishing Europe, colons?

Just administering the empire. The worldwide empire we need to run good enough to survive, civilizationally speaking.

… And which is already running, albeit in plutocratic form.

Patrice Ayme’

Localism, Democracy, Empire: Hand In Hand

September 21, 2014

Local Minds Are Weak, and Will Be Decapitated in Solitude

France and the USA are conducting airstrikes against the terror organization Daech (= “Caliphate”, ISIS, ISIL). France had soldiers on the ground for weeks in Kurdistan, in a desperate attempt to stop Daech (it worked; superior guns helped).

Three notions, related, yet different: localism, democracy, empire. Did they reign together before? Yes, they cohabitated, for centuries, in the Roman state. They are the essence, the secret, of why Rome worked. And worked it did: most of the world GDP was Roman, for centuries. And peaked just as Augustus established his fascizing, plutocratic republic (not a coincidence).

Greek Democracies, United, Defeated Persian Plutocracy

Greek Democracies, United, Defeated Persian Plutocracy

At that time, the other great power was Carthage. Although Carthage paled relative to the 50 million (?) Persian empire. Rome was just a city-state under a constitution similar to Athens (but evolved independently).

Verily, Athenian Roman cities had a great degree of autonomy (and their status varied, depending whether they were colonies or not, for example). That sort of autonomy reappeared during the millennium of the Middle Ages.

Alex Jones: “I consider all powers should be devolved down to localities, so that even issues of tax would be decided at the local level with no structure above it such as Californian governors or the European Union voting it out. The idea of localism as I see it is that the state or nation or entities like the EU or UN would be abolished.”

Dominique Deux disagreed icily. So, as I said, did Rome.

The Persian Achaemenid empire (“Parsa”), under Darius, although fascist and plutocratic, practiced a great extent of localism: it was pretty much an union of Greece sized plutocracies (the satrapies).

The Achaemenid empire was not democratic at all: it was all about leaders of armies making deals among each other, when not killing each other. Still, it was powerful: it nearly made it all over the Mediterranean. But the Athenian phalanx charged at Marathon before the Persians could get well organized, and that was the undoing of the empire.

Democracy means the power of the We The People. We clearly don’t have it now. Of course, there are graduations. The system we have now is closer to the Achaemenid empire than to the Athenian democracy.

It can even be measured (as I have explained).

So how was Persia defeated? By creating the GU, the Greek Union. The 200 or so Greek city-states got united. The point is that, to defeat an empire led by one man, one needed a more powerful union.

Thus the EU, to confront Putin, and Xi. Xi is the absolute chief of 1.3 billion, Puttin reigns over 17 million square kilometers… And wants much more, he says.

Notice that Alex Jones does not suggest to dismantle the USA. It’s not really a choice. A proposed referendum to split California in six states of six million each did not gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Who proposed that? A plutocrat, of course. He spent millions to buy the signatures. Now he is going to court.

Plutocrats like it small, because they are big, and the weaker We The People, the stronger the satanic impulses.

The UN, the United Nations, is the implementation of the Enlightenment, of the ultimate rights of man. Maybe “UN” ought to stand for “Ultimate Naturality”.

And what of the Greeks? After uniting against Persia, Greece dealt Persia three crushing defeats. Emperor Xerxes, son of Darius, barely escaped with his life (he was afraid his bridge above the Bosphorus was going to be cut by the Greek fleet after Salamis). Persian plutocracy then changed tactic and paid Sparta to cause trouble (offering Sparta a fleet to beat Athens with!) In the fray, Athens got nearly destroyed. Half of the Athenian population died. Sparta saved Athens at the last moment from vengeful other cities.

In the dizzy period that followed, Thebes beat Sparta. At this point, Greece ought to have got united. But it did not. The philosopher Demosthenes saw the truth. He screamed on every rooftop how dangerous the fascists in the north were, thanks to their gold mines, who made them filthy rich enough to raise a dangerous army. In vain. Small Greek city states kept refusing to unite against Philippe of Macedonia, the Putin of his times. The Xi of Greece.

Philippe then moved, Alexander annihilated Thebes. Demosthenes committed suicide at the last moment. Democracy was only brought back to Greece, 23 centuries later, thanks to the European Union. Does Alex Jones understand this? Why would one prefer NSA/CIA supported Greek colonels, worshipping at Goldman Sachs, to a European Union?

Right, the battle against Goldman Sachs is not finished: one of its partners, from Portugal, was just named at the European Commission (EC). Sadly, the battle against the fractional reserve system, the collusion between state employees and private bankers, has not even started. Why? Because people  minds which are all too local can barely see beyond their garden. Burning kittens make them vibrate, five million Africans killed for cheaper smartphones are not even on their radar. You want local, and you want local to be fair? Then you need a just empire. be it only to tell you what’s up (as Obama has been doing about the self-declared “Caliphate“)

A just empire is how democracy and localism are protected.

Patrice Ayme’

Those Who Know History Don’t Need To Repeat It

May 28, 2014


Moods are everything. They are the epigenetics of ideas. They don’t just color them all sorts of ways, they originate them. Homo is not just about mental capabilities, but also the hormonal system motivating to develop them

Putin was stopped in the Ukraine, because he was handled by the USA in a completely different mood than the mood the USA applied to previous European tyrants, such as the Kaiser and Hitler.

In the Twentieth Century, formidable European tyrants, such as the Kaiser, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were approached as business, and even imperial opportunities, by the USA. Those tyrants became the tools the USA needed to break the European hegemony on the planet.

There is an exhibit number one here: the abominable attitude of the USA in September 1939. Instead of flying to the rescue of the French Republic, which had declared war to the mass homicidal dictator Hitler, who had already killed hundreds of thousands of Germans, the USA applied sanctions to France and Britain (which, with the Commonwealth had joined France in declaring war to Hitler, to its honor, overruling the despicable bleating of Gandhi, Hitler’s self-declared”friend“).

Not only that, but the industry of the USA allowed Hitler’s Luftwaffe to keep on flying while it crushed Poland, and kept France at bay.

I said: exhibit number one in 1939. The paradigm of the USA’s bait and switch was the USA’s conspiracy with the Kaiser, from June 1, 1914 (bait and trade), to sometimes in 1917 (switch!)

Forget about the genius of free enterprise. This bait and switch of the USA was about raw empire, comprised of countless conspiracies of major plutocrats, and details nobody even knows about.

Details of enormous consequence, though, such as the decision by Roosevelt, in 1933, to build 24 fleet aircraft carriers. That was not just as an enormous economic stimulus… And puts a lie to the commonly entertained fantasy that the USA was not ready to fight a world war in 1939.

The day fascist Japan attacked treacherously, the USA had seven carriers, and five were in advanced construction. Only one survived the war, the Enterprise (and it was holed by Jap bombs more than once, including off Okinawa).

Embracing European dictators, while getting ready to stab them in the back, worked beyond the wildest dreams of the American nationalists.

The way the strategy worked was always the same: under the guise of “isolationism”, and loving to know nothing about everything, the USA would let its top business men established profitable trade with the worst.

A massive war would ensue, and the USA would fly noisily to the rescue of victory, preventing the victors to enjoy victory without Uncle Sam splurging, and dictating.

A recent example of this has been the Coltan war in Congo. The USA long supported Kagame and company (the “liberators” in the Rwandan holocaust… Or maybe perpetrators and instigators, too).  Electronic businesses wanted the Coltan without paying taxes. Result: Rwandan supported warriors caused a mess in Congo, bringing five million dead, and lots of tax free Coltan. (Susan Rice was involved in this circus.)

Yet, in Europe, the USA has changed strategy.

How come?

Simple: the European Union. The EU’s democratization paradigm changed everything. The European Union forced the de-fascization of Portugal, Greece, and Spain. These dictatorships had been established with the help of the USA, direct or not. The EU’s might deconstructed the American empire.

Direct French (and then British) intervention in Bosnia (under UN mandate) forced back pseudo-nationalist Serbian racial fascism.

Confronted to all this, Bill Clinton joined the Franco-British effort (well after the French had used lethal artillery and air force violence in Bosnia). At this point the USA changed paradigm: instead of doing its usual switch and bait, it just collaborated with the EU, or France and Britain, right from the start.


Simple. The switch and bait tactic used with the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin, while still unobserved so far,  has come very close to being revealed to all. One more blatant case, and even well paid pseudo-intellectuals from the pseudo-left, would be forced to admit that they noticed it.

When the European Union enforced the de-fascization of much of southern Europe, the USA could not really oppose that frontally.

Then of course, there were the eight year of plutocrat Bush. Bush decided to better embrace Europe to lead it into military-imperial adventurism.  However France got in the way.

Obama had decided that the Iraq war was a stupid war, and, thus, proved himself an authentic ally of France. (He could not advertise that, as Wall Street induced Francophobia runs rampant in the USA; if anything, he did not want to antagonize his sponsors.)

Obama, Clinton, and, of course, Kerry-the-French, seem to have perfectly understood that the old bait and switch strategy is unbecoming the USA. And that’s right. The USA is now so mighty that it can get a better mileage from a higher morality.

This is why Obama has become the best friend the European Union ever had since president Kennedy.

Why Kennedy? Kennedy was no peasant. He was the scion of a top plutocrat. Yet he was also someone who had travelled in Europe, and, even more important, was an authentic war hero (so was his elder brother, who died piloting a sort of giant early version of a drone in a quasi-suicidal mission).

Obama has an extremely variegated experience as a child, not just in Hawai’i, but also in Indonesia, confronted with people  with very different attitude and religion, and even suffering the occasional brunt of their hostility, just because he was different.

Enough to appreciate the transnational splendor of the European project. And that is why Obama found the wisdom and power to stop Putin in a timely manner (instead of the bait and switch FDR played with Hitler; Obama could have very well done this; instead, sanctions that bit were applied, and even the Swiss got motivated enough to entertain Putin with the vision of the bank accounts he and his friends have in Western Europe).

Those who know history don’t need to repeat it.  

American plutocrats are too mighty to be opposed directly. After all, they made Clinton and Obama. The best those chaps could do was to short their main overseas strategy, planetary bait and switch. It’s much more than it looks.

Now what we need is a real left in the West. And it should, it has to start, with intellectuals (it’s no accident that Elizabeth Warren is an ex-Harvard professor).

As Obama has long said , he can’t do the entire job by himself.

Patrice Aymé

Imperial Justice Wins

March 27, 2014


Thus if a tribe wants to survive, it helps to be more moral than the opposition.

Minorities ruling vast empires have existed before. The Mongol empire extended from Croatia to Iran, India and South China. Yet, the Mongol army was composed of only twenty tumens of 10,000 cavaliers each. Superbly efficient military ethics made it like clockwork. Yes, even morality can help an army directly.

Genghis Khan, like Muhammad before him, taught his followers that they should keep all their energy to fight others, rather than to kill each other.

Xi Xia Could Not Fly Away

Xi Xia Could Not Fly Away

Yet, morality is not sufficient to rule. And morality is not just about posing. First, morality is about being smart, as instructed by history.

We don’t have the money to feed the hungry, whine the silly ones, and they propose to cut fundamental research about life or the universe. For the silly ones, understanding the universe is a deeply felt tragedy. After all, it goes against their grain.

The truth, though, is that hunger has to do with war. And war is something that needs to be understood, because war has always been the ultimate arbiter of the fate of civilizations.

Under Stalin’s USSR, one hundred million adult Russians ruled over half a billion people, then 20% of humanity.

The greatest Buddhist polity, ever, was an empire, the Western Xia, the Xi Xia, south of Mongolia.

Bad Location For Weakness

Bad Location For Weakness

Xi Xia got the bad idea to enslave a young Genghis Khan. Xi Xia was eradicated, just as the Buddhist empire that covered most of India earlier, was eradicated. Thereafter, Buddhism lost influence.

Repeating word for word dictator Putin’s lies is no way to understand war, or history. But it’s a good way to let plutocracy, led by a brute, triumph, and bury civilization.

The average wealth of 110 million adult Russians in 2013 was $11,000. However the median wealth was $870. Thus, if wealth was equally distributed in Russia, the average Russian would be 12 times richer. But don’t worry, oh silly ones who love Putin because he is a strong master of weakness: revolution in Russia won’t happen tomorrow. 110 Russian billionaires, Putin’s Pretorian guard from hell, detain 35% of Russia’s wealth.

The first time that I heard that giving food to people as if they were pigeons was more important than learning to think better, I was a child and men were landing on the Moon. A family of austere European people, oozing with contempt, informed me that my moral system was completely skewed. Instead of watching the lunar surface, mesmerized, I should have empathy about feeding the poor, and spite for those who had preoccupations that went beyond filling the plates.

However, I was from Africa. And what I gathered on that deprived continent, was that understanding is the most important food there is. Food and peace come from understanding, not the other way around. And understanding is one: what we learn from nature bring us models that carry to humanity, as humanity, and its world, are of and within, nature.

If one wants to fight malnutrition in Africa, one had to understand the world, first.  Those European people who denied that struck me, not just as posers, but as hypocrites on the side of exploitation, whether they knew it, or not (BTW, BHL falls directly under that critique, as I explained in the past!).

I knew well that people were not starving from lack of food, but from lack of organization to provide them with food.

In the following decades, it turned out that starvation and war ravaged Africa. It was certainly from empires, the wrong sort of empires.

The empires of plutocrats and local kinglets and warlords. For example the philosopher BHL ravaged the primary forests of Africa, and made lots of money, power and influence for himself, with the complicity of the French presidents. He was one of many. The crimes of those associated to Coltan, Rwanda and some high tech companies in the USA were much greater: more than 6 million died in the ensuing war.

At this point, the potential world agricultural food production is enough for about 12 billion people. However, subsidies are given for agriculture in the richest countries: that is a sneaky form of exploitation, as it makes the less developed parts of the world dependent upon the agribusiness of the richest, by killing local food production (and thus, in the long run, killing by starvation the local population).

Advanced countries agricultural subsidies are a form of war and exploitation of the most disadvantaged (and also a war against the biosphere, as they typically involve unsustainable methods).

This also means that, wherever there are starving people it’s from war. As observed. Thus, putting a bag of rice on one’s shoulder is not optimal: it’s an irrelevance, and an hypocrisy.

What’s needed is an empire, an empire of justice, not an empire of more rice. Justice brings rice, rice does not bring justice.

Imperial Fail: What’s Left Of Xia

Imperial Fail: What’s Left Of Xia

This has been understood to some (small) extent: the International Criminal Court has judged exclusively (so far) African leaders.

One needs much more understanding in how the human mind works.

Fortunately, Hitler, and his cortege of plutocrats was seen before. Now that Putin and his cortege of plutocrats is in plain sight, there may be enough understanding to not repeat the same mistakes about how to treat the collective madness.

All the more as, and I explained this thoroughly, see my: “Reverse Yalta, Free Ukraine!”, the present madness is a direct continuation of one started more than 100 years ago. The study systems of thoughts can exhibit astounding continuity, from the Kaiser, to Czar Putin.

Indeed fascist imperialist Prussian Plutos were best friends with Lenin and Stalin. After the latter were ferried by the former in a special train from Switzerland (always neutral except in the matter of making money) to Russia, the latter promptly made peace, offering to the Kaiser Eastern Europe. The alliance between Stalinists and Hitlerists became official in August 1939, in a vain attempt to dissuade the French Republic to launch a world war. But that alliance had been going on, all along, as the USSR allowed renascent German fascism to turn around the safeguards the Versailles Treaty had set against massive German re-militarization.

Psychologically, we have the same set-up as usual: the plutocrats in Moscow, with their giant bank accounts in Londongrad, feel they have the Western democracies by the throat, same as their ancestors in the 1930s, when they called Berlin home.

Confronted to force serving evil, only a greater and smarter force can win. For once, Obama has been acting near to perfection. Putin did not attack this week, as he wants to look benign before the United Nations General Assembly vote tomorrow. But make no mistake: his generals are telling him time works against him, and the rest of Ukraine is for him to take.

As I explained in 1938?, Hitler moved against Austria before a free vote could be held. After conquering Austria, and Crimea, Hitler, and Putin, were able to organize referenda with exactly 97%, for their dictatorships.

Ukraine is to vote May 25. Putin’s tanks will attack before that, except if he gets persuaded something horrendous lays in his future, should he do so. Can the West look sufficiently scary? That is the question.

War primes everything. War makes history. That, Putin, former head of the Russian Gestapo (KGB, FSB) knows all too well.

Patrice Aymé


March 24, 2014

It may seems counter-intuitive to laud the concept of empire, just when, for the first time since 1938, a great power has invaded another country, while evoking the same exact reasons as Adolf Hitler.

But who stopped Hitler? The empire of the West (don’t tell me it was Stalin, far from it). So it’s not surprising that extolling empire as the core of civilization is exactly what I will do.

The basic idea of empire is simple: law makes civilization possible, but only force can implement it. Let me repeat, with more details:

The law says what ought to be done, and what cannot be done, so that civilization can survive. As civilization progresses, so does the law. As civilization penetrates every nook and cranny, all the way down to atoms, so does the law.

Frankish Fasces: Twice The Blade

Frankish Fasces: Twice The Blade

However, one cannot just have the law. “Dura Lex, Sed Lex.” Said the Romans: the law is hard, but it is the law. How is law made hard? Through the application of power.

The symbol of the Roman state was the fasces. A bunch of weak rods, representing the People, bound together, around a fearsome axe, representing the lethal power of the state in its application of justice.

In the symbolic of the fasces one finds many ideas: the People makes one of the many (“E Pluribus Unum”), and that makes the People strong, and People’s justice can cut through infamy.

The fasces was adopted as the symbol of both the American and French republics.

To implement the law one needs, ultimately armed force, and that’s directed by “imperium”, the all-encompassing authority top Roman generals were endowed with. In its most frequent original version, the imperium was exerted by a Consul, the top executive and justice officer of the Roman state. The Consul had enormous power, but just for one month (then the power rotated to their colleague, also elected for just one year).

An empire is just a place over which the law can be implemented.

The notion has been much abused. There had been terrible empires. Or empires with terrible episodes: Congo as the heart of darkness, when the king of Belgium treated it as its personal property; Namibia under the crazed, racist Prussians; even South Africa, when the UK went feral on the Boers; the Mongols destroying Kiev, etc..

Yet, without empire, there is no law, and thus no civilization.

Fasces Dwarf Politicians: USA Congress

Fasces Dwarf Politicians: USA Congress

Some of the “politically correct” are sure to howl, when told that empires are a necessity. Howling is what they do best, and why they are “politically correct” to start with.

Intelligence is about mastering many emotions, logics, semantics, data, and distinctions. All too many who present themselves as “progressive”, or “anti-Neo-Cons”, or from the self-proclaimed left, and not just in the USA, have long identified empire, fascism, Nazism, capitalism, Neo-Cons, the West, etc.

Now they have been joined, loud and clear, by full blown plutocrats and Putin himself. Silicon Valley plutocrats scream that their critics, such as yours truly, are Neo-Nazis, and Putin has followed the American tycoons, to claim exactly the same.

(Those familiar with Hitler’s Big Lie technique will recognize it, for what it is. Similarly, Hitler, an agent of the plutocracy, claimed to be against “plutocrats”, for peace, and the rights of minorities. At some point at least half a billion people believe him: the German speakers, the Italians, the Japanese, Spaniards, Soviets, and many others.)

The world is divided nowadays in three major empires: the West, Russia and China. There are also minor powers, such as Pakistan, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran.

There is just one dominant civilization, though, and its instrument of implementation is the United Nations. Even China and Russia are supposed to submit to that (when the USSR refused to take part to the UN, it found itself with the UN intervening in Korea).

What are we going to make of the necessity of empire?

Well, it’s exactly as with nuclear power: if one has to deal with it, one should concentrate not on denial, but on making the situation better.

Lincoln Power Rests On Fasces For All To See

Lincoln Power Rests On Fasces For All To See

The problem with Putin is not that he wants to be part of an empire, but the kind of empire he wants Putin calls what he wants the “Eurasian Union”, a good concept. However, instead of being articulated around the Rights of Man, it’s articulated around the rights of Putin, as perceived by Putin.

The biosphere needs an empire of the Rights of Man. Real progressives ought to embrace it, and nobody else could seriously deny it. The pseudo-left, Putin’s, and plutocracy’s, best friend, cannot brandish fake versions of history, as we brandish the Rights of Man.  Because the Rights of Man trump the past. Especially when the past is fake.

What does this means in the situation at hand? Putin has violated international law by invading a country without any international law fig leaf (as the Bushes and Clinton had when attacking Iraq; or Afghanistan in 2001). The empire of the West is immensely more powerful than Putin’s.

So why did Putin attack? For the same reason as Hitler attacked.

Hitler, just as Putin, came to be persuaded that their friends the plutocrats control the West, and thus that democracy is weak. This is sort-of-true, I can’t deny.

However, in 1939, Hitler underestimated the French Republic and the Polish nation which, in spite of the obvious danger, decided, grimly, to go to war against Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, and the infernal cortege of thousands of American plutocrats and their corporations (who were the creatures Hitler counted on, to conquer the world).

Britain and the Commonwealth courageously followed. By then it was clear that, barring a miracle, Hitler had lost of the war. However, in May-June 1940, such a near-miracle happened: the astounding defeat of France, caused by a confluence of many unexpected and weird circumstances.

In any case the fact remains that France and Britain did not make in 1939 the mistake they had made in 1938: wearily, they finally went to war against Satan (for want of a better word).

On this small planet, this small cosmic spaceship, there is space for just one imperium. The law, the only law compatible with civilization, needs to be imposed, from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, to Moscow. One of course needs to be tolerant and lenient.

However, when plutocrats, or their allies (Putin, Hitler) decide that a new regime, a purely diabolical one, can now rule, that democracy is dead, that’s exactly the best time for democracy to be born again from its ashes, and incinerate all those who call the People “Nazi” for refusing to live on its knees.

Humans are minds, and minds can’t live on their knees.

Patrice Ayme

Dysfunction Chronicles I

October 6, 2013

Abstract: Connections between financial and health care pirates, Obamian stasis, and the necessity of (good!) empire.

Krugman in Shorting Out The Wiring: Bush was treated as a highly effective leader who knew what he was doing right up to Katrina, while Clinton — now viewed with such respect — was treated as a bungling interloper for much of his presidency.

Tyranosopher: Clinton now viewed with such respect”. Why to proffer such an absurdity? Just because Clinton is filthy rich, now that he has cashed in? Viewed with respect by whom? Big time plutocrats?

Clinton brought the reign of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Sheryl Sandberg (lover and pet of the preceding one), and Geithner. Seriously:

1) Bill Clinton dismantled the separation of money creation (large deposit banks) and “investment” banks (Wall Street private-public casino). That separation (Banking Act of 1933) was Roosevelt’s greatest reform. So, domestically speaking, Clinton was the anti-Roosevelt. A sort of anti-democrat, a demonstrative demon emphatic for the people as the spider to the fly. (And now big time advising his boy Obama to hang tough.)

2) Bill Clinton allowed the expansion of financial and commodity derivative trading to the point of complete dementia (up to $750 trillion for financial derivatives trades, $50 trillion for real economy trades, worldwide)

Yes derivatives are an order of magnitude greater than world GDP. People do not understand what it means. It means that the WORLD’s money creation machine has been highjacked by a few pirates, the largest “banks”… that the Public is still financing through Quantitative Easing.

None of this has to do with the free market, capitalism, whatever. It’s about a gang having captured the economic and social flying deck of the planet, and Bill Clinton gave them the keys. Thus now viewed with such respect.

All this tanks to Clinton’s minder Rubin and his pet Summers (that would make multi-billionairess Sandberg the pet of a pet).

Why is Krugman uttering plutocratic propaganda (pro-plutocratic decisions are now viewed with such respect)? Is Krugman conscious, or simply saying something because people around him are saying it, and that’s how to get a modicum of respect?

Krugman: Hitting the Ceiling: Disastrous or Utterly Disastrous?

Tyranosopher: How far do you want the Machiavellian analysis to go (I know that you know that I know that you know, etc…)?

People on the supposed left should have long seen it coming. The blockage of Obamacare was all highly predictable. By differing health reform implementation for 5 years, Obama invited this.

Medicare For All would have taken one minute, on the first hour of his presidency, and could have been implemented right away (by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with providers, and that could be done by executive decision).

When he was elected president, Obama could do anything he wanted. He had a majority in Congress, a super majority in the Senate.

Newly elected executives controlling the legislative can do a lot. The newly elected Prime Minister of Australia, as soon as elected, launched a campaign to outlaw Australia’s Carbon Tax. Tony Abbott declared: “Today is not just a ceremonial day, it’s an action day,” the 55-year-old said in a statement. …”people expect us to get straight down to business, and that’s exactly what this government will do. We hope to be judged by what we have done, rather than by what we have said we would do.”

However Abbott’s party controls only 33 of the Australian Senate’s 76 seats. That’s not an easy position to be in. It’s very different from the total control Obama had.

Instead, once elected, Obama celebrated his blackness, as if he were a narcissist, and proceeded with Bush’s policies, as far as the eye can see, . That allowed him not to focus on what he could do to help people with health care.  It is as if Obama had been elected President of the Tea Party (OK, there was no Tea Party yet, my point entirely). 

But what Obama said is that he wanted to become bisexual bipartisan. Why? What did becoming bisexual bipartisan had to do with implementing reforms? What’s the difference between bisexualism, and bipartisanship? In the end, two years later, he did not get one single Republican vote (Republicans do not want to pose as bisexual bipartisan, apparently.) Anyway all this bi-something killed lots of time, as intended.

Having celebrated his blackness has proven highly profitable for Obama; I was listening to some European based talking head who was going black in the face screaming that it was all a racist plot against the “black” president. Whatever “it” was.

Krugman: The aim of Obamacare is to give coverage to the poor.

Apparently, except for Alaska, with subsidies, the cost will be $100 dollar a month for the colored plan (“bronze”; the cheapest). Top demoncrats are so disconnected with reality they don’t know that:

1) basic health care is free in other advanced countries.

2) the 50 millions of the USA underclass cannot afford durably $100 a month.

What could have helped people was to lower the COST of health care (about double that of any other country per GDP/capita).

But lowering the cost of health spending would have been a disaster for health care plutocrats.

Indeed, Medicare for All would have served Buffet not (Obama was going around calling Buffet “my friend”, when he was working on Obamacare; Buffet personally made billions from health care gouging). All what history will remember, from all this, is that Obama’s presidency was a disaster, and it got so from pseudo liberal sycophants filling up their pockets (Summers, Geithner and countless others are examples).

Krugman: Down with the Euro!

Tyranosopher: Well, yes, now that the dollar is not the only world reserve currency, nobody cares as much as they used to about a USA default. For reference, the EU has no debt. Nada. The USA has more debt than its GDP ($16.7 trillion, although Krugman, alone in the world, loves to say less than 10, by making specious distinctions…)

Europe is indeed a terrible place. At least 300 dead from just one boat trying to make it to European soil. Not only does Europe kills, but it kills by attracting people like flies, like one of these carnivorous flowers. What to do? Right now, the boats are confiscated, with the hope international crime syndicates doing the boating will run out of boats.

Not easy to control, those borders: Romania has 2,000 kilometers of borders to control, to prevent entry of the great unwashed inside the European Union. The American/Israeli solution is to build a wall (and actually, to enter the EU, Poland had to build such a wall!) But walls are expensive.

This being said, Europe has a demographic, not just democratic deficit…

So what to do? Go imperial, of course. If Europe is so good, it needs to be defended. In an age when major human vehicles weighing as much as an ancient Greek trireme can cover 8,000 kilometers in 15 minutes, the empire of the Republic extends worldwide. Whatever pseudo-leftist whiners will say, to satisfy their moronic holier-than-thou auto-celebration.

What does that mean? What does empire mean? “Imperare” means to order (well, imperially). Imperators were top Roman generals, with pretty much right of life and death over anybody in their way So imperators had rights similar to those of Consuls and Proconsuls (ex-Consuls mandated anew by Consuls). Under the pure Republic.

In this spirit, the USA just struck with two targeted raids in Libya and Somalia, to neutralize two terrorists chiefs. It seems to have been well done in Libya (live capture, differently from the somewhat lamentable Osama bin Laden raid). Capture them and make them talk (and remember as was discovered in the Middle Ages, that torture is counterproductive).

However, the raid on the Somalian coast, although not as bungled as the French one, deep in the interior, a few months ago, was not the sort of success one would more readily get, if, for example, the French and the Americans cooperated.

Having a worldwide empire is the only way out. But it has to be a good empire. A very good empire. Not a very evil empire where authorities are hunting those who reveal important malversations (Manning, Snowden), while earning respect by financing the richest (as Clinton did), or confusing wealth care exchanges for the richest with health care for the People.

By showing that he has some of what it takes, by striking terrorists, Obama may be able to earn back some of the respect he clearly needs in Washington…


Patrice Ayme