Posts Tagged ‘Erdogan’

There Is No Aristocracy But For Democracy. Meanwhile Plutocracy Is Just Evil Power. And Absolute Power of a Few, Intrinsically Evil.

October 24, 2018

[This is a much expanded version of a comment of mine dutifully censored by the New York Times, who knows well how to make it so that it’s readership is not poisoned by true and most relevant ideas. The article I commented on was Erdogan Says Saudis Planned Khashoggi’s Killing, and Demands Answers.

Conclusion of the NYT article: Turkish president Erdogan does not want a direct fight with Saudi Arabia. He does not want to turn this into a bilateral argument between Saudi Arabia and Turkey. He wants it to be on one side M.B.S. and on the other a murdered journalist.”]


The NYT article was basic, and cautious. Some altitude was needed, to address that debate properly, I reckoned. That “murdered journalist”, Khashoggi, was much more than just a journalist, but also a part of the Saudi establishment, prior, and a propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood, for decades, and, lately, made himself an excellent advocate for democracy in the Middle East. Erdogan himself exerts dictatorial powers of the Turkish media reminiscent of those exerted by president Xi in China.  

What the Khashoggi affair calls into question is the fact that it is considered Politically Correct, worldwide, to bestow huge powers on some individuals. Having heads of state ordering murders is OK for the PC crowd (because it doesn’t actively condemn it, and instead implicitly admired the mass murder by drone prone Obama). It shouldn’t be…

(The Saudis, as a part of an elaborate plot, had a double of Khashoggi go around Istanbul after murdering the original, in order to make people believe he had not been killed… They had not expected Khashoggi’s fiancée to be waiting outside, and the intense Turkish surveillance of, the Consulate…)


“Aristocracy” means power of the best: a self-glorification. In truth, aristocracy is just plutocracy, power of Pluto, the god of hell. Too much power doesn’t just corrupt, it turns individuals into demons. Mohammed bin Salman, MBS is not just a perpetrator, but victim of a mental process no one warned him about!

Leaders have so much power nowadays, ordering the killing of others expeditiously proves all too irresistible. We can all turn into Khashoggis all too easily.

Khashoggi, carefree, firmly entering the Saudi Consulate. Questions remaining: was he dismembered, starting with his fingers, he typed insolent statements with, while conscious, and did MBS order that old fashion punishment explicitly?

So Khashoggi entered the Saudi Consulate, for the second time in two days, to receive a statement confirming his divorce from his establishment wife (who disapproved of Khashoggi’s critics against MBS). “Saud” is the name of a family who owns Arabia. Having seized it by force, after making a conspiracy of mutual aid with the Islamist fanatic Wahhab. Late the UK, and then the US would make another conspiracy with the Saud patriarch about oil and finance.

Just ask the relatives of those who, in various places the USA was not at war with, innocently gathered, and all were killed in a drone strike!.. Because the gathering had the “signature” of terrorism, we were told by the US government. At least when Khashoggi was hacked into piece, only him died, not the whole neighborhood.

The solution to lethal, arbitrary leadership, all over the world? Not just reduce the power of  MBS, but reduce the power of “leaders”, all over.

The West may as well lead towards much more democracy, the rest will (be forced to) follow. Just criticizing Saudi Arabia is not enough.

Evil loves the Dark, already observed the Persian religion 4,000 years ago. Throwing a light on how Khashoggi died is a good thing. It would be even better to throw a light on the entanglement of CIA, SIA, and Bin Laden in the 1990s… Or how exactly the Afghan War started… And the role of the USA in that (hint: it was primordial).

The USA actually pushed, for years before that, Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence, to create a Muslim Fundamentalist war in Afghanistan. So it was not just a question of Democratic President Jimmy Carter. The drivers of US fundamental policies in the Middle East wanted to cause a Muslim Fundamentalist war in the Muslim world, to create there a factor of division. Once people are divided and at each other’s’ throats, they can be easily manipulated.

So Afghanistan was turned from a heaven of peace and advanced civilization into a house of horrors (my parents went there quite a bit in the 1970s: it was very safe, and secular… As I explained somewhere else, my friends of my father were mandated by governments in France and Afghanistan to find out about the considerable mineral riches of Afghanistan. That effort was not instigated by US plutocrats, so was intolerable…)

So let’s dig into Saudi Arabian potentates’ evil ways. But let’s not forget who pulled the strings to start with… Not just a geographical superpower, the US, but a mood animating the USA, and not just the USA, all of Western Civilization, which the Saudi princes have attempted to reproduce, namely using fascist power (generally found in the Qur’an, but also well beyond that), to instill a reign of terror.


Rushed hush ushers sheep best:

My original NYT comment was much shorter, of course. Yet, apparently the NYT disapproves of allusions to the fact the USA is who, ultimately, pulls the strings in the Middle East… and started the Afghan war, now the longest war of the USA, by a long shot. Actually, the alliance between the Saud family and the UK was signed in massive blood by the 1920s (and not just Ottoman blood, during WWI, see Lawrence of Arabia… which was fair, as the Ottomans occupied Arabia, but Arab blood, a more dubious situation…). US plutocrats and oilmen came around in the 1930s, to culminate in the Great Bitter Lake Conspiracy we enjoy to this (by “we” I mean that, although the conspiracy has been organized by the USA, Europeans countries profit from it, including France, as they run on Saudi oil…)

Conspiracies are managed best, when they are secret, or, at least discrete, and not a matter of public debate. This is why the NYT wanted its public not be exposed to my Chomsky-like revelations, this time again, as with many other times before that (especially as I am often better documented, and more balanced: I don’t just decry evil as the PC crowd does, bleating perfically, in fake outrage, except when their favorites: Clinton, Obamas, Bushes attacking Iraq, do it… Instead I try to understand evil ways, and see how justified or unavoidable they were…)

Absolute power corrupts. Everything. Not just those who directly profit from it. But also the very institutions which tolerate it, and the People who enjoy it.

Aristos: best. Kratia: power.

Want the best to govern? Want Aristocracy then? Well, the best form of government is total democracy, enabling total debate, and no straying into violations of human rights.

The light should shine on all as its name is truth. 

Patrice Ayme



Let’s ponder again:

Aristos: best. Kratia: power.

Want the best to govern? Want Aristocracy then? Well, the best form of government is total democracy, enabling total debate, and no straying into violations of human rights.

How to enact it? What went wrong with Athenian total democracy was the lack of democratic institutions enforcing no straying out of proper, full informed debate, and no institution enforcing human rights (ostracism was used willy-nilly in Athens, and the national assembly was often hysterical, not just mass murderous and idiotic…)

Now we do have democratic institutions (although not perfect… they are best in existence than not)…


Save Kobani, Remember Ibn Khaldun

October 8, 2014

Before the Syrian civil war, 400,000 people lived in, and around the Kurdish city of Kobani. The region is now mostly under Islamic State, aka “Caliphate”, ISIL, Daech, control. Hundreds of villages around have been evacuated. The Turkish border is along the city, just to the north. An estimated 180,000 from the region fled to Turkey in recent weeks. But many civilians are still stuck inside Kobani.

Defenders have only light weapons. The Islamists used bigger and better weapons, such as infantry hiding behind and around modern tanks.

Turkish tanks have been staying just outside, but have not intervened yet.

Erdogan, the new Turkish president (and strongman of Turkey) knows that its Western Allies, in Europe and NATO, wants him to order its tanks to roll inside Syria, and kill the Islamists.

Kurds inside Turkey have been furious against Erdogan’s inaction and demonstrated violently. More than a dozen died, just in one night. The Kurds know that Ankara fears and dislikes them: naturally Armenia and Kurdistan, nations which are several times older than Ottoman Turkey, ought to be made into free states recognized by the United Nations. Ankara, in that way, is similar to Putin’s Kremlin.

Thus Erdogan, all too happy to find an excuse to let a lot of Kurds die, does not want to intervene, he says, as long as its Western Allies do not formally establish a “No Fly” zone over Northern Syria. He claims to be afraid that Assad’s Air Force will intervene (Turkey has only heavy F16s not necessarily capable against more recent Russian fighters).

Hypocritically the USA claims that Erdogan is an hypocrite, because he should have noticed there is a de facto “No Fly” zone over Northern Syria. But, of course, Erdogan wins that one: he wants a FORMAL declaration, just to MAKE SURE.

For Erdogan to decide to use his army to help the Kurds is a huge decision, smacking of a near contradiction. For Washington, “No Fly” is just a signature on an order.

Erdogan is also peeved that he is asked to send ground forces officially and massively, into combat, while its Allies crow that they would not do such a thing, on a matter of principle (although the Western Allies do officially have “advisers” on the ground).

The question is this: If the USA and company are proud of refusing to fight on the ground, claiming that’s Politically Correct, why would they expect Turkey to do any differently?

The latest airstrikes were spectacular, they looked like mini nukes. And they may well work. And Kobani, were many Kurdish civilians are apparently still stuck, maybe saved. And it better be (although Erdogan announced it will fall, and so did some of its Allies).

However, moral superiority is where winning a war is at.

Moral superiority starts with moral coherence. So don’t ask the Turkish army to do the dirty work, while claiming urbi et orbi, that it is not Politically Correct, to do said dirty work.

The Tunisian born historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 CE), comes to the rescue here, to explain what is going on. Khaldun was from an upper class political and judicial Arab family who had just been expelled from Andalusia by the Reconquista.

This to say that his cultural background was rich, as is often the case with superior thinkers.

Ibn Khaldun explained his way, and correctly the growth of plutocracy (he nearly said what I said). He also disserted at length on the nature of (some) empires.

Basically Khaldun said empires were about peace (this is certainly true for the large empires which lasted long. Here is an example: before the Goths stormed the core of the Greco-Roman empire, around 250 CE, the region had known 300 years of Pax Romana).

Thus, says Ibn Khaldun, the empire becomes so peaceful inside, that it is forced to recruit barbarians, outside, to defend it. Certainly, the Greco-Roman empire switched to that model after Princeps Augustus decided he was best defended by devoted, and very well paid, German troops.

Ibn Khaldun no doubt had the vivid example of the Muslim plutocrats in Spain calling to the rescue savages from Africa such as the Almoravides; I mentioned in “Walls Of Common Lies” that the ferocity of the Almoravides explains much of the bad moods that arose later in Europe, against, well, Islamists.

Ibn Khaldun thought that the high point of a civilization entails a period of decay (from the growth of a luxury economy, something I rephrase as the growth of plutocracy). The next cohesive group that conquers the diminishing civilization comes from the barbarians who were asked to defend it.

Then Khaldun says the barbarians then become refined, repeating the cycle; this is no doubt the story of the Muslim empire.

However, Khaldun’s cycles do not apply to Europe. Yes, indeed, the Franks became more refined: some Roman lawyers wrote in Latin a law for the Franks, a Lex Sallica, and Roman generals (starting with Constantine), incorporated them as the elite of the Roman army.

Yet, the Franks did not repeat the cycle… As they have clung to power ever since: all the present Western regimes descend from the Frankish empire (except for Russia’s Putin, and it shows; right, he is not really Western).

How did the Franks not repeat the cycle? By staying sufficiently barbarian; by cutting regularly, by force, the growth of plutocracy (hence the French passion for revolution). Equality under inheritance and near-equality in gender (and thus near equality in the inheritance of women… Although not as much as in Sparta), led to constant wars among factions, and wealthy, powerful families, thus preventing the growth of full blown plutocracy (that took nearly a millennium to blossom… And was soon under threat of multiple revolutions).

By the Fourth Century, the Franks fought their wars by themselves, and for themselves (although the French used a majority of German and Polish forces in the ill fated attack on Moscow in 1812, and then again, more successfully, massive amounts of African troops in the Twentieth Century against Prussian racist fascism… Including my own dad).

What Ibn Khaldun did not say was that the peace inside a vast empire is not just a benefit (as it sure was in Rome, or China, or India). Torpor inside was also a plutocratic trick to put to sleep an increasingly subjugated population.

When the West asks Turkey to send ground troops while refusing to send its own, it is therefore engaged in a plutocratic trick so old, that Ibn Khaldun already had described it, black on white, more than 6 centuries ago. It’s already bad enough that the Kurds are asked to fight with inferior weapons.

There is nothing wrong, but everything good, to fight the Islamists to death. And if it causes dormant cells and sympathizers to engage in terrorism, so much the better: being terrorized of irking terrorists is exactly how terrorism works.

And if fighting plutocrats in the Middle Earth makes Western youth impatient to fight those plutocrats who rule at home, that will be an even more striking progress.

Wanting to crush infamy, is an absolute good. Infamous is the belief that it does not matter what happens to children who live a few hours away. Protecting children is an absolute good. Protecting children, even other people’s children, carries  primordial moral weight.

Patrice Ayme’