Posts Tagged ‘Guns’

The Case Against Handguns, Or Why US Progressives Don’t Progress

August 18, 2020

Selling handguns to the civilian population, is a US specificity. Most handguns in the world, aside from military possession, are owned by US civilians. Some carry 40 bullets or so… There is no justification for it… except for killing and maiming many US residents (a laudable goal, according to some, I must admit).

Outlawing handguns for non-military, non-police, non-threatened civilians: basic civilization 101.
Cause everybody knows criminals always obey the law.
Law enforcement, like health care, is best done by professionals. Police rarely assassinates unjustly a la George Floyd (70 cases a year?) Civilians, though kill dozens of thousands of people they didn’t even want to kill really, once they know all the disagreements that entails… every year…)
Several points here: there were 1004 fatal police shootings in the USA in 2019. The most recent year for all shootings is 2017, and it shows 39,773 deaths from guns. Most gun deaths (including self-inflicted) are from a significant other. In the case of Black Lives Matter, more than 90% of male Black Lives killed violently are killed by other male Black Lives. Some will say; Oh, but Black Lives live among Black Lives, so Black Lives live, cook, sleep and kill together, this is completely normal.
The Black Lives Matter Movement, formed in 2013, financed by plutocrats and their corporations, has protested police brutality in the U.S. by organizing “die-ins”, marches, and demonstrations in response to the killings of black men and women by police. There are around 200 Black Lives killed by police a year in the USA. In 2017, 457 whites were killed by police.

Those who are anti-police think Black Lives Matter so much, they should be free to kill each other as much as they want…

As Black Homicide Victimization puts it:…”black homicide victimization rate is four times the national homicide victimization rate, and more than six times the homicide victimization rate for whites. More than 85 percent of black homicide victims are shot and killed with guns. These facts are both appalling and unacceptable. An important part of ending the gun violence epidemic is to reduce homicides in the African-American community.
So one would think that great progressive Sanders is against handguns. Think again. But he will not tell you this outright. Instead, Bernie is a master of dissimulation. (Don’t accuse me to hate Bernie Sanders, I don’t have Political Derangement Syndrome, PDS: I voted for Bernie Sanders several times…) Here is Bernie Sanders’ gun program, from his web site, it’s most significant for what it doesn’t say:
  • Take on the NRA and its corrupting effect on Washington.
  • Expand background checks.
  • End the gun show loophole. All gun purchases should be subject to the same background check standards.
  • Ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons. Assault weapons are designed and sold as tools of war. There is absolutely no reason why these firearms should be sold to civilians.
  • Prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.
  • Implement a buyback program to get assault weapons off the streets.
  • Regulate assault weapons in the same way that we currently regulate fully automatic weapons — a system that essentially makes them unlawful to own.
  • Crack down on “straw purchases” where people buy guns for criminals.
  • Support “red flag” laws and legislation to ensure we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers
  • Ban the 3-D printing of firearms and bump stocks

(Bump stocks can make automatic weapons of any gun.) I approve all these measures, of course. But they are all about military weapons… The sort of weapons explaining why US police tends to be trigger happy… There are at least 20 million assault rifles in the USA.

But handguns? Progressive Bernie has never heard of them, he won’t progress that way. The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms. This amounts to “120.5 firearms for every 100 residents.”

More than 85 percent of black homicide victims are shot and killed with guns. Bernie Sanders does not mind. The guns. Black Lives Matter not as much as guns.

So today Bernie spoke at the Democratic Convention, supporting for president a guy who didn’t just crucially collaborate to invade Iraq in 2003, but also avoided 500,000 dollars of healthcare tax in two years by posing as an S Corporation. Hey Biden made only 13 million dollars in these two years.

Bernie Sanders attacks the National Rifle Association (see above). It reminds me of Hitler attacking plutocrats (who got him elected). Indeed the NRA financed Bernie Sanders. Official enemies, but, actually collaborators! The NRA did this by handsomely financing attack ads against Sanders opponents…

Sanders lies about guns. Biden lies about health care, or even having common decency. With progressives like that, who needs regression?

How to get out of this mess? By telling the truth. But if one tells the truth about Trump or the Democrats, one gets badly insulted by ignorant, hateful people, so it hurts. But it can be sustained, precisely because they are hateful, ignorant people, similar to mosquitoes, those stinging, ignorant creatures.

Truth hurts, but it is the Truth. And that’s the truth. 

(Trump spent most of his life as a very noisy anti-establishment, anti-globalization Democrat; things got sour when Obama personally attacked him… Then Trump took over the Republican Party; this is why the Republican plutocratic establishment prefers Biden: they hate the We The People agenda of Trump… and love Bernie, or Biden aptitude for lying…)

The truth shall not make us free, but it is a divinity worth worshipping.

Patrice Ayme

Land of the Crazy Gunfighters, Irrational Slaves to their Masters

February 23, 2018

When Masters want slaves they teach them to think irrationally, about anything but the task that they were ordered to do: 

Trump wants to give “concealed guns” to teachers who have “military or special training experience.” Is then the solution to insanity ever more insanity? OK, in all fairness, Trump also pointed out that guns should be less available to the insane, and schools should be made as secure as banks. Yes, they should be more secure than banks. And, yes, Congress is suddenly worried that it would have to do something about guns, after eight years of lofty hypocrisy from Obama, moving his mouth parts, Trump seems to mean business…

The easiest solution to reduce the availability of guns in the USA would be a referendum… Indeed, politicians are hopelessly corrupted by the electoral process: to be elected politicians have to please power, hence money, thus the NRA.

(Presently elected, extremely influential politicians, all the way up to the president, and senators, got dozens of millions of dollars to be elected, from the NRA alone! Trump got 30 millions, Senator McCain, ex-presidential candidate of the Republicans, got 5 million dollars, etc.)

However a referendum is not authorized by the US Constitution! This is a general problem in the US democracy: it is not a democracy: We The People decides NOTHING! Only oligarchs, some of them “elected” do! (Elected by whom? The oligarchy owned media?) It is just what is called, misleadingly, a “representative” democracy, truly literally an oligarchy, where less than 2,000 individuals decide of everything (and most of them are unelected). 

US America: I can’t think, therefore I will shoot.

And this lack of democracy affects not just US “democracy”: the elected “representatives” being corrupted… by the electoral process, Switzerland and California use referenda. The results are excellent in Switzerland, and go a long way to explain the wealth of that country (laws passed directly by We The Swiss People have to then be voted by the Swiss Parliament, after an arbitration of sorts).

While waiting for a change of the US Constitution, the only hope is to persuade the plutocratically owned, or influenced media to drum up a campaign against guns, pointing out to the case of Australia. In Australia, a brutal gun ban proved safe and effective.

So yes, the gun situation is crazy in the US. Guns are used mostly to gun down friends and family: only 16% of lethal attacks against women are caused by strangers. And in most of the 84% of attacks left, guns caused death.

So why this crazy situation? As early as primary school, US children are taught team sports with their emotional aura of “us against them”. Instead of knowledge, wisdom, a restrictive behavior is imprinted: “us against them”, as the MOST important behavior to embrace. No wonder it ends up with a will to shoot, as the most significant behavior to be dominated by.

(The obsession with team sports is para-military, and used as a melting pot in US society. Thereof, the countless brutal, obscure sport analogies used by top male decision makers in the USA; fathers teach their sons, obsessively hundreds of scores of hundreds of team, preferentially in American football and basket ball: this is what is used as a parody of culture in the USA; it is macho and totally brain-dead: few of these people ever practiced American football.)

This crazy obsession with team sports, macho and brain-dead, with long lists of scores, shapes herd mentality, brainless herd mentality, as intended. Because a team is fundamentally a herd. It is also a related to the Texas mentality proudly brandished by the present Secretary of State, the mentality of the “brand”. In Texas, the morality is that one “fights for the brand”, as if it were a religion. Branding is what one does to cattle, or slaves, using a red-hot iron to leave… a brand on the skin, an awful scar of third degree burn, symbolizing, and marking the owner’s possession. Rex Tillerson is very proud of having one soul’s owned by the brand It doesn’t matter if the brand is right, or wrong. The important idea is to fight for whom employes you, employment is the supreme morality . (Notice that this is pretty identical to the mentality promoted by Kant and Hitler, the Fuehrerprinzip: just put that Swastika on, and proceed, obey orders, kill the Indians, no questions asked…)

The end result of that compulsion into team sports, characteristic of US education, is that, after coming out of school, US children are ready to enter the army, or the corporation, or obey “brands” and their plutocratic masters, blindly. As intended! Thinking creatively is not an option. Once a top, senior US born architect foamed at the mouth telling me I was insane to think of changing the US Constitution (by allowing referenda). Apparently, I was more than insane, I was infuriating: he was positively enraged, and I was baffled that such a minor suggestion would be the cause of such a fury. All the more as his Berkeley mansion was plastered by various works of Tibetan Buddhism he referred to in hushed tones, as if the various deities were going on to punish him, should we stray from those Buddhist notions. Now I understand better: the brand is the USA, take it, or leave it! The USA is the temple, as it is, and if you don’t respect that temple, off with your head.  

Skeptics will point out to the vibrancy of the US economy, South African born Elon Musk, etc. And then claim the USA is very innovative. However, that apparent innovation is related to another problem: why is change stifled more in Europe than China? Thus, that’s another debate: the size of the US economy, and its empire makes US companies dominant, and actually anything US dominant, even when not the best…

This teaching of individual irrationality, and submission to the herd, love of the herd, frenzy to belong to a herd, a team, an Internet hate group, a brand, is why the US is full of guns, and why nobody can rationally defend this, and most of these non-defenders don’t mind to be unable to justify their own behavior. The gun debate, or lack thereof, is a testimony of the inability of US citizens to think, while promoting that dearth of reason, proudly, righteously. That’s why great progressive president Obama preached god, every occasion he had, including all and any shooting, while doing strictly nothing about it: god, a friend of his, is the head of the herd which Obama wants to lead too. In spite of a supermajority, Obama and his herd of pseudo progressives could do nothing about guns (nor about the “Dreamers”, nor reconstituting Glass-Segal, the Banking Act of 1933, nor anything disrupting the established order…)

Right now, on the Internet, US influence is overwhelming, the entire world is thinking US American. And this tends to make the entire planet subject to the same low quality thinking. Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am”. Does that mean that if one thinks less one is less? It does! Somebody who thinks just as masters want her, or him, to think is less, maybe less than a free human: a slave… Slaves to guns, because slave to those who want to divide them…

Patrice Aymé

Guns Kill (The details)

December 20, 2012

Since I wrote the original essay on USA Gunning For Guns, things changed. The adversary is mutating, now claiming the gun problem is mostly about mental health. Right, the mental health of an entire civilization, not individuals.

So I decided to separate the more technical part of the previous essay from its main thesis.

My main thesis is that a society where citizens are killing each other is the ideal universe to establish plutocracy, plutocracy being vigilantism writ large. Thus guns are pushed by plutocracy, as they constitute the ideal ecology of it to thrive.

Here I shoot down all the alternatives.
The question of guns is all about REGULATION, and was framed by the USA Constitution that way, right from the start. Look at the Second Amendment. It starts with: “A well regulated militia”… (1791). At the time the USA had no police, and no standing army (a few years later appeared a very small, but very bold Navy and Marines).
Where is there such a well regulated militia? All over! Not just the French Gendarmerie. The Swiss army is a good example. Switzerland has an extremely high rate of semi-automatic guns, but it’s only a third as deadly as the USA.
However Suisse is thirteen times firearm deadlier as Great Britain, where guns are very regulated. The comparison between Britain and Switzerland makes it clear. So the best regulation is eradication.
Comparing between European countries is instructive, as always. France has millions of (registered) boar hunting rifles (boars are very big, very tough, and very numerous in France, a pretty wild country where they cause quite a bit of destruction). Occasionally such a gun is use for mass murder, but it’s very rare, because boar riffles shoot only twice (typically).
I had myself suggest that, the more guns, the more the insane would have a chance to get their hands on them.
All the more as there are no controls on resale, possession, and no license, registration, age control or fee is needed to purchase ammunition (all obvious areas to target for regulation).
However the experts, and, even more, the numbers, disagree:
The connection between mental illness and guns is weak.
As the author, a MD, expert in this field, has it: “All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.”
In other words, everybody gets mad, sometimes. It’s a mad civilization that overlooks this. On top of this, alcohol and other drugs abuses are generally involved in murder.
There are probably as many crazies in Europe as in the USA, but mass murders are rarer there by an order of magnitude, at least. The maniac in Norway (77 killed) was not much more maniacal than the 900,000 who voluntarily entered the Himmler’s SS. At least that is what experts found in Norway.

Mentally sick ideas are much worse than mentally sick people, because they affect otherwise healthy individuals.

Thinking all and any normal people should have semi-automatic gun in hand, bearing hundreds of rounds, each and any time when they may happen to very angry, is insane. That is, not sane. It’s that idea, fabricated by the NRA and its plutocratic masters that is insane, not so much the trigger men (the Bushmaster 223 used for the school massacre, is made by a company owned by Freedom Group, owned by Cerberus, a conspiracy of billionaires).

The trigger men are, mad, true, but, mostly only momentarily, mad. Guns turn that momentary madness into something eternally evil.
Human anger is cathartic, it helps mental phase changes. It’s a good thing for the evolution of ideas, and the promotion of fairness. But, mass murdering gun in hand, anger makes massacres. And a society continually terrified.
Well, the answer is obvious, depending upon who is truly organizing society…

Who originated the programming of run of the mill Americans into killer robots? Why so many middle age blonde American women, all over the TV, teaching their (underage!) children to use guns? Are “guns” a new form of racism? Who made it so that the media of the USA is continually telling people that the answer to violence is even greater violence, using brute force instead of solidarity?

Well, obviously those who live by violence, from violence, in private enclaves, even private cities, guarded by private armies. What’s their name, the name of their class? The sort of people who go to dinner in Sao Paulo by helicopter, because the streets are not safe. (The situation in Mexico and Brazil is similar to that in the USA, sometimes even worse.)

Thus, plutocracy, obviously, profits from violence as it creates a society in its own image. Solving problems by wanting to shoot holes into people, psychologically encourage the mightiest to go further, and shoot holes in the Constitution.

The exact same scheme, making an unsafe society, a dog eat dog society, was used in the Late Roman empire to destroy whatever was left of the republic and civil society, as citizens got increasingly terrified of each other until they ran for lords to protect them.

Trust the 70% who cannot wait to shoot their fellow citizen to understand nothing of this, and just below their rage by repeating word for word the lessons their powerful masters taught them.
Freedom of madness? Is madness a form of freedom?

Another shooting in a school of the USA. A primary school. Obama was deeply hurt by it. He did not hide his tears. All what these small children were going to be, all these children had the right to be. Right. Notice that word: right. And now, after suffering horror, each shot multiple times like vermin, they were not. Is it because, behind its soothing words and hypocritical mien, the USA is organized by the brutes, for the brutes, and their bestial ways?

The shooter used a semi-automatic rifle similar to those used by the U.S. army in Afghanistan, to shoot Taliban. A powerful gun the lunatic used to shoot down plate glass and get into the school.
The immediate reaction of the gun lobby, all over the media was to say that, if the staff at the school had been armed with an arsenal the shooter could have been killed earlier, and so the anti-gun people caused the massacre. Thus, making guns more readily available in schools is the answer to preventing violence with guns in schools. If we take this further, then giving everyone nuclear weapons will insure peace.

One would also have to walk in 30 pounds of body armor too. All day long, every day.

It was a very good thing, the president showing what the shooting meant, the pain, the cost that American violence extracts from love. The president has to educate and that does not mean just conveying ideas, but also emotions.

What is the madness about? Academic studies have shown that having a gun in a home nearly triples the probability of being shot and killed.

Still idiots keep on repeating the slogan that they have a right to have mass murdering guns, to defend themselves. Assuredly, it’s not to defend themselves against bullets as those are three times more likely to penetrate the gun totters than others. So what is their true reason?

What are they defending against? Well, reason. Reason. Yes, reason and reasoning. Facts and statistics. And anything telling them, the bleating sheep, that they are not gods, the principal compensation in their mediocre existence.

Americans have war guns at home precisely so that they can go on a rampage, and feel like gods for a moment. It’s all in the moment, like buying on credit. The potentiality for (mass) murders is precisely what they are after.

The shooter at the primary school, 20 year old, had been propagandized into guns by his own mother, a gun totting enthusiast, who, small justice, was the first one to be shot. Ms Lanza idiotically thought she needed a vast gun collection to defend herself during what she described as the coming economic collapse of the USA. She lived in a large colonial home. She had been a stockbroker, and her divorced husband is an executive at GE, the tax dodging oldest company in the Dow Jones Industrial average. So, if she was not part of the plutocracy, she had been quite close to it.

The USA has not been more pro-gun than it has been in decades. Guess what? The USA has never been more plutocratic, ever. Are both facts related? Are guns and plutocracy related? I will argue that they are, and in multiple ways.

The gun lobby gives millions to gun advocates in elections, and millions more in indirect campaigns. The media makes a continual campaign for half a dozen false and idiotic ideas about guns. The idiots, all over repeat these stupidities in a sort of collective black mass. It’s hard to reason with ants.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Notice the phrasing. There is logic in the order in which concepts are presented. The Second Amendment means FIRST that one should have a “well regulated militia”. “Keeping and bearing Arms” is only in the context of a well regulated Militia. It does not mean that a deranged child should bear as many huge guns as he can carry.

At the time, 1791 CE, armies were armed with muskets. If the killer had only a musket, he could not even have got in the school (as he used his rifle to demolish plate glass). If he had, it would have been difficult to kill more than one or two children. (There was a similar attack in China against a primary school, the same week, 22 children got injured by knife, none died.)

Gun advocates feign to view every single citizen of the USA as a “well regulated militia”. That’s sheer lunacy. Wait. What? Lunacy? What to do? Outlaw the usage not of guns, but of the concept of lunacy… “the continued use of this pejorative term has no place in the U.S. Code,” legislated the (democratically controlled) Senate of the USA in May 2012. “Pejorative” means: making worse, from Latin peoir, worse. Using guns is viewed as ameliorative.

Obama looked at his notes for the longest time, silently, at loss for words, overwhelmed by the inadequacy what he had to say, wanting to say something else, not politically smart. He had to deplore the loss, but he wanted to outlaw the guns. However he does not write the laws, the Tea Party “republican” Congress does. (Something Europeans tend NOT to understand about the presidency of the USA.)

The civil right that Americans, in their confusion, seem the most attached to, at this point, is that of shooting each other. But that right, the right to kill, is a civil right that denies all others. And this, my friends, come to think of it, is exactly what plutocracy wants.
Obama has to pick his fights. So Obama grimly said what he was expected to say.

An approach to guns is to declare them a public health issue. Indeed, at the present rate, over someone’s average lifetime, eight million citizens of the USA will get killed or wounded by guns. And 300 millions, terrorized.

But this approach has not worked, because it has been barred by a wall of money.
This, by the way, proves my thesis: if the plutocratically controlled media is all about the pro-gun slogan, it is precisely because the gun psychosis is crucial to keep enough violence in society to justify a thriving plutocracy: guns are related to the elite not paying taxes… And activities such as the war in Iraq. The demented violence against Iraq was using the same sort of argument that the gun lobby uses all the time, transposed to a foreign country.

As the soft approach did not work, it is time for heavy philosophical gunfire. Firing guns, totting guns, training with guns goes well with fracking and denying that the biosphere will explode from too much heat trapping industrial gases and carbonic acid. It’s the same general idea:”We kill, therefore we are.”
The threat of guns, of being shot, especially with more and more concealed weapons “laws”, has an impact on the mental health of all citizens of the USA. This is a hidden form of abuse, and insanity.

To want to kill people is very American: extremely violent imagery (“I’m going to kill her/him”, “I am going to fire him/her”) is routinely used. After, all, they killed Indians, did not they? And, it worked well, did not it? Without killing the Indians, what would the alternative have been? No USA? Shooting bad people is the essential American creation saga. The Indians were very bad, but, thanks to the gun and the right of Americans to defend themselves, the Indians are now in the care of the All Almighty, Amen.

Thus, philosophically speaking, using guns (and that means the perspective, training and psychological readiness to fire or purchase guns, and general excitement about guns blatant in gun enthusiasts orgasming when they evoke the shooting of their heavy load) is part of the exploitative and extractive mentality.

The whole idea about killing somebody, is depriving someone else of the most basic human right. Thus the attachment of Americans to that right is an attachment to the greatest tradition of the Anglo-Saxon American colony, namely violating civil and human rights, of everybody who shows up, down the barrel of a gun.

How long will it take for Americans to realize that the Civil Rights movement is not over, as long as there are small children, and they get shot?

But is this Civil Right aspect the whole story? No. There is the overall reason for this entire mess, for this weakness of character, disposition, and intellectual faculties.
The propaganda of the NRA is highly reinforcing of plutocracy (NRA = National Rifle Association, aka Nihilistic Rats Atrocity).

According to some, the Plutocrats’ greatest fear must surely be that one day the plebs will wake up to their crimes and rise up against them, so the last thing they would wish is for the plebs to be armed. That’s a crafty anti-idea.
For example that the People needs semi-automatic guns to prevent the (plutocratic or not) government to take over. But that’s as ridiculous as claiming that the sheep will avoid the slaughter by bearing arms. A sheep is a sheep. Sheep is controlled with the mind, not at the point of a gun.

Citizens of the USA have been brainwashed into believing that the key to their safety resides not in firing bankers and plutocrats, but in shooting each other. This they do with great enthusiasm: 100,000 get killed or wounded by gunfire, each year. The USA is in a chronic civil war (which kills nearly as much as the one in Syria! In absolute numbers, except, it never ends…).
I have had “friends” who stridently defended their right to have the trunk of their cars full of war weapons. I put “friend” in quotation, because how can I be friend with the deeply deranged?
Talking to them I was exposed to non sensical arguments about how well defended their arsenal made them. Never mind that most gun deaths are from a gun in the home!

They just faithfully repeated the inanities of the extreme right-wing media.
I know differently. I came within millimeters of violent death a few times, and, each time, surprise was the main enabling factor in my near demise. All military treaties, Chinese or Western, say the same: surprise enables aggression as much as all other factors combined. Thus, to prevent aggression, of individuals or civilization, one has to reduce the surprise factor. Having weapons of mass destruction around is one such risk. And certainly a modern military gun is such a weapon.

The bad guys know that the first thing to do is to shoot first. A Congress Representative, who was shot through the brain, and a judge who was killed in the same shooting, both loud gun advocates, had claimed, loud and clear, throughout the media, that they were excellent shooters. They trained at the same gun club. With gun in hand, they could protect all and any. They both owned Glocks, and, in a form of justice the great god has at the ready, they were both shot by a Glock.
Unsurprisingly, when the time came, those two fools were surprised, and before they could draw like at OK Corral, their topology got irreversibly modified. Maybe thankfully, otherwise probably more would have died in the crossfire.
The bad ones know the most basic thing about war: that the first thing to do is to shoot first.
Glocks’ magazines for sale in the USA can carry up to 33 bullets. In the rest of the world, only police and the military use such weapons (and rarely!). But, in the USA, the 70% who love guns are apparently police or military at heart.

The deepest aspect of it all is that citizens of the USA have been brainwashed into violating common sense. And it goes further than that: as they live in a society where they get increasingly violated, they displace their self esteem into believing that they can take others out, and that they are omnipotent that way.

What to do when the leading nation is losing its mind because it is goose stepping behind the corporations that have seized control of its common sense?

Not much. This is no accident. The masters of the USA have persuaded common people that they, the common people, are the problem, and it would just be solved if they all could shoot those among them who are bad.

Plutocracy is intrinsically not compatible with a civil society. So plutocracy taught citizens of the USA to shoot each other, to be sure that there would be no civil society. And that’s something they do very well, as the eager servants of their masters. If one wants plutocracy, one needs to insure that society is not civil. Shooting each other, and expecting to be shot is a good first step that way. Bad health care, bad justice, expensive education are complementary ways to achieve an uncivil society.

Plutocracy is not just about wealth, it’s not just about the Dark Side, it’s also about hell. Not just about living through hell, organizing hell, but also about having a taste for it. Taxing the rich, not carbon burning the planet anymore, removing the guns from holier-than-thou mental retards are various aspects of the same problem. Fighting plutocracy encroaching upon civilization.

What could the president do practically? Exposing the mechanism above is difficult. It basically boils down to telling gun fanatics that they are deluded, hateful sheep living in a fantasy world, due to their lack of cognitive and logical abilities. Moreover that mood they enjoy to wallop in contributes to making the USA far short of its human, educative and economic potential, and it hurts the entire planet, when they insist to burn, or sell, ever more carbon to consume.

However, a well chosen gun task force, similar to the one Ronald Reagan has called after the space shuttle Challenger disaster, but with more and quicker powers, could make the necessary educational work, pointing out, for example, that guns nearly triple the probability of homicide inside a home (and certainly 10 times more in a societal context: the USA has 50 times more firearms murders as Great Britain, per 100,000 people!).

Unfortunately, Richard Feynman is dead, but a number of smart scientist, psychologists, philosophers, etc could certainly be put together, to arrive to the obvious conclusions anybody really smart would arrive at. After all, emperor Justinian instituted something similar for law, 15 centuries ago, when he set up a commission headed by an esteemed atheist (!) law professor. Now Justinian reigned 40 years, and Obama does not have that sort of time. So things have to move fast.

I am pleased to report did this right after the first version of this essay came out.
The first thing to do is to try to renew the ban on assault rifles, which expired in 2004, under the mandate of the invader and torturer of Iraq, G.W. Bush (not a coincidence). Executive orders could be used. Even they fail, they will have the advantage of exposing those who offer children in sacrifice to Pluto, as the Carthaginians did to Moloch.
In the USA, a child is 13 times more likely to be shot by a firearm than in any other country in the world. Public opinion, and the NRA may be somewhat surprised by the primary school massacre. They are surprised, so they have to be attacked vigorously, now. Assaulting with the right ideas in the name of justice is how goodness imposes itself.
Of course the plutocrats and the darkest mood they foster are mighty. It makes fighting them all the more interesting.
The most sold brand of Assault Rifle in the USA, Bushmaster Firearms International, is part of the Freedom Group, owned by Cerberus Capital Management, itself the property of a number of billionaires, some of them gun fanatics. Cerberus is the triple headed dog guarding Hades, and it apparently thrives in Manhattan nowadays. (Thanks to Allexi Helligar for reminding me of this.)

Time to throw the gauntlet to the partisans of brute violence, the fanatics of shooting and murder as freedom. If nobody will throw the gaunlet to infamy, how is infamy going to feel bad about itself? Time to persuade swing states voters that they were morally decrepit all along, and their redemption lays into turning to other ideas, instead of pushing that trigger spastically, again and again and again, because they know of nothing better to do with their brains.
Patrice Ayme
Note 1: Tale of two constitutions: The obsession with France, is obvious in the outlawing of French cheeses. One is forced to have when studying the subject, because the constitutional debates in France and the USA have always been entangled. That comes from the entangled Franco-American Revolutions, culminating with those diverging, but related, constitutions the two countries ratified within a few weeks in 1789. One constitution choose human rights, the other, mild plutocracy and implicit slavery; Lincoln and Martin Luther King found very costly to rectify the constitution from 1789; but not all that ought to be clarified has been clarified yet, such as the 2nd Amendment from 1791.

Note 2: The usual well paid idiots came up with the argument that if the courageous principal had been armed, she would have killed the murderer, and protect the children. And true, the principal gave her life, without a weapon, to protect the children. However the killings had apparently already started (remember the surprise effect). In the general case, the logic is flawed. The density of lunatics is whatever it is, and the mass killings occur when a lunatic and a mass destruction weapon find themselves in the same neighborhood. This is proportional to the product of the density of lunatics by the density of weapons. Only the later can be controlled, and be brought down to zero.

Note 3: The last of five massacres in 12 years, killed 35 people in Tasmania. The Australian government instituted a buy-back program of 600,000 semi-automatic guns (which fired every time the trigger is pulled). Regulations brought the murders down by 60%.

Why USA Is Gunning For Guns

December 17, 2012

Abstract: DOES THE USA HAVE HUMANITY AT THE POINT OF A GUN? The obsession 70% of Americans have with shooting other Americans is the most violent violation of Civil Rights imaginable. That’s why they want it. The will to shoot others is worse than the will to enslave them. Who would profit from such a mentality? How did it come about? Why is the pro-gun obsession progressing in the USA, in parallel with the progression of plutocracy?

This essay explains why plutocracy pushes guns onto society. It opens new perspectives sure to make the nasty scream, and reveal who, among us, deep down inside, overflow with nastiness at heart. It may shame the majority whose action enables child killers (see teachers financing Assault Rifles makers).

Guns in the USA against all and any reason, but the most abject, is not just an Americano-American problem. Life at the point of a gun imposes, in the world’s leading nation, a mentality of privileging violence over reason, and hatred over empathy. That mentality, in turn, is forced onto the rest of the planet (say from movies, universities, opinion, diplomacy).

The Grossest Propaganda Works the Best

The Grossest Propaganda Works the Best

Most legislators in the USA are millionaires, and that’s not from their salary! But by doing exactly what their plutocratic masters want them to do. And one fundamental lesson to legislate is: France Bad, Guns Good.
[See note.]
The gun mentality plays the central role in the greenhouse-acid seas disaster: no nation has been so keen to block meaningful action as the USA. The most influential right fanatics who insist upon making the USA into a gun society are those who want plutocracy and maximal fossil fuel burning. Everybody is afraid of them. Letting them shoot their way through civilization, the most basic humanity, and common sense, is not how matters will improve on this planet. (But, of course, making things worse is exactly what they want, and that’s why they caress their warm guns.)

Those who have little time can read my main thesis immediately following (the rest of the 5,000 words of the essay just buttress that main thesis by going into the nitty-gritty, including the direct implication of plutocrats):

Main Thesis:
GUNS ARE NOT JUST ABOUT SHOOTING PEOPLE, BUT ALSO ABOUT SHOOTING DOWN LOVE, REASON, By, And While Embracing The Very Mood That Enables Cruel & Violent Masters To Reign:

Possessing guns to kill people with, is about imposing one’s own violence as the ultimate arbitrage. Many Americans claim to view this as the ultimate expression of the American sense of freedom. Call it the freedom to inflict carnage.
The mood dominating the present USA depends upon commoners accepting violence as an overriding principle, and guns symbolize that. Instead of trying to understand things, the way Europeans have learned to do, not knowing enough to know any better is erected as definitive, glorious, all-American.
So right from the start gun advocates are tied in to the worst of man, the Darkest Side, when thoughts are only directed towards murder. Getting them out of that spiral of horror means giving them the courage, and knowledge to recognize that they have made a pact with the devil: their souls, against the orgasmic feeling a warm gun give them. They represent, they have made into an idolatry, the worst of man.

Moreover, gun fanatics succumb that way, not because they are free, but precisely because they are slaves, not because they are courageous, but because they are cowards.
The preceding is not insulting, but objectively descriptive. Insults claim what is not. An accurate depiction is not an insult.
If I describe a garbage pile, that I am contemplating, it’s not an insult. If I describe an angel as a garbage pile, it’s an insult, to the angel, and to reason.
By turning innocent little children regularly into garbage, the gun advocates of America are insulting humanity, as they claim to have the freedom to make holes into children. All the more as gun fanatics cover it all by holier than thou inanities. This essay will come up will plenty of reasons to justify the preceding, turning what precedes not into insults, but into faithful representation of what is.

A plutocracy is not a civil society. Thus, to have a plutocracy, one needs, first, to have a society that is not civil. Guns help to achieve this lack of civility indispensable to plutocracy. This is why the plutocracy insures, through the mass media enough mind control to make sure that, in the USA, people attack each other like rats in cage, with the biggest weapons they can find.

Through its control of mass media, and unending repetition, of the same lies and idiocies, the plutocrats have made the citizens of the USA believe half a dozen absurdities about gun ownership. The result is exactly what the plutocrats wanted: a society where everybody is afraid of everybody, and where the most basic human right, the right to life, is violated. Once the most basic civil and human right is violated, other violations shall easily follow. Such as having the richest and nastiest pay no, or very little taxes. Yes, my point is that the gun problem is just one aspect, part and parcel, one more way to help enable plutocracy.

More subtle, the trite idiot thoughts supporting massive gun usage have made people deeply stupid. The cowards blurt:We have to defend ourselves!” and grab a gun. Never mind if children get killed. It sounds good to them, so they believe in it, all the more since the rest of them also bleat that way. However, statistics and observations contradict the argument that they have guns to defend themselves. Actually they have guns to kill themselves. Not only are they sadists, but they are also suicidal narcissistic masochists. (The lunatic at the primary school still had hundreds of rounds, but as the police closed in, he killed himself, proving the point that his fundamental mission was to take out his despicably low life. This is typical.)

In the USA, keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. Never mind! They believe in it! It’s all about faith! Gun and God! Gun is god, and bullets make the only points they can understand.
Gun ownership is not about reason, it’s all about the opposite. Gun ownership is about violating reason: the more one says guns are for defense, and the less true it is, the better! Thus the little minds learn that reason is irrelevant, that what their masters, the plutocrats they venerate, told them, is dominant.

Thus, symbolically, Civil and Human Rights, and reason itself, are exhibited as secondary to what gun fanatics have been told to believe in, namely their right to murder. And they have been told that, again and again and again, by big money, all over the media they control, by the wealthy ones who devise the American discourse. That is all what the plutocrats want their commoners to believe.

Conclusion: A guns totting society is scared, divided, prone to violence against itself, stupid, and, having no time or inclination to establish a class consciousness, cannot organize itself against cruel abuse, as it is too busy dodging bullets. What a better place to establish plutocracy, which is vigilantism writ enormous, for the benefit of the few? And if small people are small vigilantes, is not it natural that the plutocrats employ armies of lobbyists and politicians, let alone body guards and private enclaves, to, well, defend themselves, too?
It goes without saying that the internal violence of the USA comes out externally, and that is why the USA has sabotaged all efforts against heat trapping industrial gases, in the last 30 years.

Interestingly, the same situation exactly, of violence unchained, brought down the Late Roman empire, when plutocracy mutated into the feudal order. Not a coincidence.
Now for the details.
Patrice Ayme

Some Stupidities Which Rule

January 16, 2011


(A Week In The History Of Ideas And Stupidities.)


Abstract: The American People is manipulated into despising France and loving guns. Another two cognitive strategies contrived by plutocracy to capture not just hearts and minds, but shrivel them into the hellish context, impotence and mental retardation, that evil and wealth are made to dominate. Comparing with the reality of history and what is happening in Tunisia, helps to put this sort of mental conspiracy into perspective… and suggests that awareness itself would be most of the needed remedy.



Nice philosophy from Barack Obama in Arizona during the memorial for the latest senseless shooting there. "We should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations." He said even better than that

Obama has to be extremely careful. He could not talk about handguns directly, and why selling them freely ought to be outlawed. If he had, he would have been called a progressive, a socialist, or, may be the right wing nuts would have hurled against him the worst insult they know, and call him French. So Obama has to go around, and from behind, by resetting the basic emotionality of the USA, which is not working right. And he did an excellent job as father of the nation, a role that no American president has done well since Kennedy.

Obama caused already great turmoil this week for saying an obvious truth that American plutocracy hates. Said Obama: “We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.” (I removed the bold on Sarkozy, because Sarkozy, in this context, is only a detail of history.)

More pro-American than Sarkozy, indeed, is hard to do. Except for myself and I, your humble servant, of course. But there are several versions of America; just ask Abe Lincoln.

This is an essay about guns in the USA, however it relates to the super rich, the plutocracy, and the frantic anti-French propaganda of the media of the USA. These are all aspects of the same system of thought, or, shall we say, exploitation.



The anti-French mood in the USA uses continual misinformation that stops nowhere, and apparently all Americans are asked to memorize. Here is, during the last week, in what passes as serious commentary, Argus Hamilton, the host comedian at The Comedy Store in Hollywood. He dissembled ( a form of lying) thus:"Barack Obama angered people in both Britain and the U.S. Wednesday when he told Nicolas Sarkozy that the U.S. has no better friend than France. Britain fights with us in Afghanistan but France needs our help with their food prices. The reason Obama`s a Democrat is because he only likes people who need, not people who fight."

Thunders "The Telegraph", apparently consumed by the anxiety that London will not be chosen to make Wall Street’s dirty work anymore: “To suggest that Paris and not London is Washington’s strongest partner is simply ludicrous.” Right, London helped to refurbish the White House by burning it to an empty shell in 1814. And London boosted further the American GDP by rampaging around the USA during the war of 1812-1815. Is that why it’s called the "Special Relationship"? And more special than France’s? As I said, the specialitude, not to say speciousness of the relationship, has more to do with Wall Street, and its conspiracies. Example: AIG (American International Group) went to London to lose 182 billions of US taxpayer money, because it was an ocean away from the SEC of the USA.

“The Telegraph” is distorting what Obama was saying, and ought to know better, because France and Britain are unifying militarily, creating what is clearly a military superpower. And by the way, French GDP and population are bigger than Britain.

Now to answer vaguely the other fool, who represents some of the latest anti-French buzz. Food prices? France? France is the second agricultural exporter in the world. (With roughly two-thirds of the total revenue in agricultural exports of the USA.) In spite of a significantly overvalued currency.

France? Not fighting? Is it not that cute… Is not that cutely insolent: the French are crazed rugby players. Rugby is the original, hard root of that soft degeneracy known as American football. Rugby is played without all these artificial gimmicks and aids such as helmets, comfort pads, steroids, and constant suspensions to play commercials, so that the plutocrats can entice the People to give them more money. Equipment for American football does not serve ice cream and French fries yet, to be even more fat and comfortable, but it’s coming. that would allow to take even longer commercial breaks to serve Mammon

Average Americans, who have studied all too little history at school, and do not know that France is engaged in heavy fighting against Salafists in more countries than the USA, as we speak, and has done so for decades (France and the USA cooperate in several of these, not even discreetly) like to say this sort of things. Why? Because they are paid to, if they are part of the media, it’s as simple as that, and the people who pay them are the same that make propaganda for guns… or financial derivatives, or banks.



Hating France is of the utmost importance to the plutocracy of the USA. Even loving guns pale in insignificance. The war against the fellow republic, has to lay heavily on all American minds, lest they notice that some things, are done better there, precisely because the search for financial profit, at all cost, is kept away, sometimes.

To call the French non combative, is beyond grotesque. The French are so combative, they made the Nazis look like cows trembling with bovine encephalitis. France declared war to the Nazis, after all. However, one can sometimes get too aggressive for one’s comfort.

French aggressivity was very well known to Hitler (all his comrades had died at French hands in WWI). Astutely, Hitler attacked the neutral Netherlands to exploit that French characteristic. Hitler correctly guessed that the Dutch would whine to high heavens, and beg the French to come to rescue them from the big bad Nazis. There Hitler would set his trap for the overconfident, romantic French, dashing in shining, formidable armor, in the best tradition of Agincourt. (Amusingly, the stupid overconfidence of French knights charging English archers in the mud during the Middle Ages is well known. But what happened in May 1940, when the French charged into the Netherlands with their armored reserve, was a much greater battle, the stupidity was infinitely greater, and the consequences were much more astronomically catastrophic: 50 million dead. At least. The holocaust of WWII would not have happened if the French had kept their mobile armored reserve, in reserve. But French armor was superior in quality and quantity to Nazi armor, that was happened was never considered possible. And it was precisely knowing all this, and that his situation was desperate to start with, that Hitler, used as he was to bar fighting and street fighting, let alone years in the trenches of WWI, devised his far-fetched strategy.

Moved to the core by Dutch wailing, in one the most absurd feats of military history, the French high Command threw their rapid deployment force of seven armored divisions, the French reserve, the Seventh French army, to link with the Dutch, who had already retreated when it got there, and without air support. Tanks, at the time, could not go back and forth 800 kilometers in 3 days, and the French reserve got destroyed.

Several things: 1) Hitler could be a good psychologist, and he ascertained well the French character. 2) The move was so stupid that a trial of high treason of the French high Command was undertaken (under the occupation!). 3) The Nazis had only ten armored divisions. If the seventh army had been kept in reserve, it would have cut the Nazis from behind. De Gaulle with just one heavy armored division, the Quatrieme Division Cuirassee, half cut the Nazis’sickle thrust , and nearly killed their generals. 4) The French love to go in the streets to fight their government, just for fun, and to insure that free speech is alive and well. Reciprocally, how supine are those who never protest?



Of course France has been in Afghanistan since day one. Out of 26 allies fighting with the USA there which suffered fatalities, France is in third position in the number of soldiers killed. For Americans who think not enough French soldiers are getting killed in Afghanistan, they should realize that France has been fighting terrorists in the many countries of the Sahel and Sahara, non-stop, for decades, something Canada and Britain do not do.

Anybody who has studied a bit of world history knows that no country has a more aggressive military past than France. None. Even Rome pales in comparison. The Franks sent spies as soon as Muhammad became prominent, and tricked the invading Muslim army at Toulouse in 721 CE, inflicting Islam its first disaster in a land battle. And it was a terrible disaster. It would take 11 years for the Arab Caliphate to try again. It was just as disastrous (Poitier, 732).

Just last week in Niger an al Qaeda commando captured two young Frenchmen in the middle of the capital of Niger. French planes tracked the Al Qaeda’s SUV convoy, and French special forces attacked in Mali, killing many terrorists, capturing others (the hostages were assassinated at some point to be determined). Among those the French caught were some army personnel of a pretended ally…

French aggressivity is not restricted to the military domain. The intellect and romance are preferred fields of combat, and even the abominable Napoleon thought he had to demonstrate his superiority in these domains. In many ways the French and the Americans are very similar, and it is not by accident.


The relationship between France and the USA is unique, because without France, there would have been very probably no successful American "revolution", and, perhaps, without the creation of the USA, no French revolution. They are co-dependent in rebellion.

Naturally, the relationship is much deeper than that, because France and the USA (and also Britain) are all successor regimes of the empire of the Franks. This is not just an historical fact, but a set philosophical initial conditions. There were several important philosophical differences between Franks and Romans. Basically the Franks re-established sanity, and humanity, while grabbing from rome what they viewed as superior (they started with the law, written in Latin, and the next acquisition was… fascism).

The Franks loved riches and capital, but spread it around. They esteemed Jesus, but had a definitively secular approach to god. Told how Jesus suffered death on the cross, Clovis grasped his double headed battle-ax fiercely and exclaimed: "If I had been there with my Franks I would have avenged him!" They forced the Catholics to accept schooling as their mission, and Jews and Muslim (civilians) as their brothers.

A giant philosophical difference between the Franks and the Greco-Romans was slavery. Outlawing slavery forced the Franks to establish a socio-economy that entangled progress, technology, and fostering human rights in a non self contradictory way.

All of this rested on an amazing aggressivity which extended to Frankish clothing, multicolored and flamboyant.

Differently from the Romans, who could not handle the Germans alone, the Franks around the Tenth Century beat back simultaneous invasions by Viking, Danes, Mongols and Muslims. The Scandinavians were submitted and integrated, the Muslims thrown out of Rome. And Hungary was conquered again (next time the Mongols invaded it, in the 13C, their loses were such that they then wisely decided to ally with the Franks).

In any case, the Franks decided to reconquer the Roman empire, invaded as it had been by the followers of Sarah ("Sarasins"). After a little, but more profitable diversion, founding new Europes all over the planet, the mopping up of the degenerated, long suffering half of the Roman empire is now back on the front burner. Any questions about lack of aggressivity?



Even before France officially declared war to Britain, more than 90% of American cartridges were made in France, and even before that French agents had pushed Americans to sedition. At the time France was a super power, 11 times the population of 2.5 million English American colony.

The hyper costly American war of liberation broke French finances, to the point the American war budget was hidden in secret books, as it caused a super giant deficit.

Why was the France of Louis XVI so pro-American? Well, there was a whole mystique about the New World in France, in more ways than one. Losing Canada, and the freedom it breathed of, had been bitter. The enlightenment needed an outlet, and a world had been stolen.

Louis XVI was a study in contrasts. Louis was very much pro-enlightenment, pro-science, pro-progress, and also personally courageous. An idealist. Not only did he chose state of the art philosophers as top ministers, but he pushed the American liberation project beyond the reasonable. It could be said, in a way, that the greatest revolutionary of the time was Louis XVI himself. His reforms inside France, although attempted, came to nought, because he faltered and completely melted down each time the plutocracy gave him its marching orders (instead, a la Philippe Le Bel, or even Louis XIV, he should have sent some top plutocrats into the fire, or in prison).

Thereafter the American and French republic were completely entangled. The USA proclaimed itself a republic first. Then, in 1789, the USA wrote down a Constitution, and France decided to have a revolution, so she could do the same. The two constitutions came out within weeks of each other. France was still guided by the revolutionary (as I just said, contrarily to received wisdom), Louis XVI, and would have to wait another two years before becoming a republic (after Louis, misguided by his spy of a wife, tried to jump ship)..

The French constitution was more advanced as it had the world "universal" and "human rights" in it, differently from the American constitution’s "We The People" which could be, and was given, for a while, a tribal interpretation. Thus many an American racist has hated France ever since, as she is correctly seen as the enemy of slavery and racism (many famous historical French are of mixed blood, but nobody knows anything of it, as befits a non racist country; an amusing case is Alexandre Dumas, the quintessential French writer).

But let’s go back to the gun craze in the USA, and how it connects with banksters.



All politicians have to be very careful about guns in the USA. Even talking of them is dangerous. The National Rifle association has been going around imprinting all Americans will the fabulously stupid slogan:"Guns don’t kill people, people kill people." In other words, guns are innocent, but Americans are guilty. When an American sees another American, it should start shooting, then, according to the gun lobby, and Main Stream Media in the USA, since people kill people. This is exactly what happens. Advantage? As people are busy shooting people, no shooting at the plutocracy, behind its high walls, in its distant enclaves.

What about even more stupid slogans? Idiots don’t kill guns, idiots kill with guns?

This is why Barack was celebrating the central human tenet of rising up to the expectations of children and their magic belief for goodness

Instead of condemning that an obviously deranged maniac could legally buy a European gun with 31 shots bullets’ magazine, hiding it below his clothing (just as legally). A Eurozone gun which private citizens cannot buy in the European Union. (By the way, France makes nuclear warheads, maybe they want to buy some too?)

A little grandmother grabbed the maniac’s next 31 shots magazine, when, apparently following Sarah Palin’s advice for lunatics, "not to retreat, but to reload".

In "Helpless in the Face of Madness", the NYT’s Bob Herbert made an observation that had also struck me:

"… a photo and a headline on the front page of The New York Times this week gave us some insight into just how sick our society has become. The photo showed 11-year-old Dallas Green weeping and using his left arm to wipe his eyes during the funeral for his sister, Christina-Taylor Green, who was 9 years old and was killed in the attack in Tucson that took the lives of five other people and left Representative Gabrielle Giffords gravely wounded.

Beneath the photo was the headline: “Sadness Aside, No Shift Seen On Gun Laws.”

What is the matter with us? Are we really helpless in the face of the astounding toll that guns take on this society? More than 30,000 people die from gunfire every year. Another 66,000 or so are wounded, which means that nearly 100,000 men, women and children are shot in the United States annually. Have we really become so impotent as a society, so pathetically fearful in the face of the extremists, that we can’t even take the most modest of steps to begin curbing this horror?

Where is the leadership? We know who’s on the side of the gun crazies. Where is the leadership on the side of sanity?

For starters, assault weapons should be banned. Their raison d’être is to kill the maximum number of people — people, not animals — in the shortest amount of time."

Similarly the Euro-American magazine, "The Economist" made its cover, and leading editorial on the gun problem in the USA. It noticed gun control was going in the wrong direction, that 31 shots magazine were unlawful until very recently, etc. The Supreme Court decided in 2010 that cities did not have the right to make anti-gun-to-kill-people laws, etc… We may have to wait for another maniac to shoot the entire Supreme Court, before it changes its mind.

What is the matter? Why so much regression? Why, whereas the rest of the world progress enthusiastically, do the USA regress rabidly? Is it because Fox News, the hyper powerful TV channel, has turned "progressive" into the worst word in American English? (The talking heads at Fox have campaigned against "progressive" for years, mentioning the word in derogatory contexts at least 100 times a day, as if it was part of their lucrative contract with Murderoch the Great).

Herbert and "The Economist" do not explain what the mechanism of American regression could be. So I sent a version of the following to the NYT, which had the kindness to publish it:



Societies drifting into insanity are not infrequent in history, especially when they think obsessively of themselves as "exceptional". (Not believing in American exceptionalism is akin to an un-American activity in the USA.)

A century ago, we had the plutocracy known as the "Second German empire" drifting that way. Germany had the fastest growing economy, the biggest army, the biggest population, the highest literacy, etc.

What Germany did not have, though, was a minimum of introspection. After Britain massacred Boers in South Africa, it reconsidered. Why? Democratic introspection (OK, the Boers were also white…). That was helped by a free press.

However, next door, in Namibia, the German empire proceeded to effect a holocaust, as blatantly as possible, copying the methods of the Massachusetts’ colonists, 250 years earlier (paying for scalps). The broad idea, co-opted by the Nazis later, was that, if the Americans could have make holocausts work, so could the much smarter and educated Germans. (Along these lines, the "special commandos" exterminating Jews were mostly made of lawyers and PhDs.)

This, by the way, show that bad examples, and bad ideas once they have been made honorable, can be tried again under the metaprinciple that if it worked once, and was made honorable it could happen again: NOTHING IS AS MORAL AS SUCCESS. Right, But the American success with ethnic cleansing was mostly due to; 1) facing early Neolithics. 2) using immorality of such a high level that it proved unsustainable in Europe.

As the attitude relative to guns demonstrate, the incapacity to hold the most basic reasoning and to hold the standards of basic human decency is now blatant in the USA.

As it was blatant in Germany when Nietzsche flourished. Nietzsche found a few points in German popular behavior which showed him Germany had gone unhinged. Anti-Judaism, "mob mentality", "victorious" mentality, lack of refinement in thought and taste, and "incapacity to digest" contradictions, to celebrate differences, and whatever was superior were prominent German defects, of the most alarming nature according to Nietzsche. He was right: Germany was suffering moral and mental collapse, even before Hitler’s birth.

The point is this: when a country, a political class, a leader, or, for that matter an individual, go mad, it does not take too many facts, if they are crazy enough, to determine that insanity is setting in.

Fortunately, insanity in the USA has not yet reached the heights it reached in Germany before a mental Rubicon was crossed there on August 1, 1914 (although one could argue that mental Rubicon was crossed earlier in the German colony of Namibia).

The diversity of the USA has kept, so far, the madness in check (but the diversity could backfire: discrimination against Jews in Germany went up and down, before their holocaust; after WWI, the Kaiser’s "Jewish" advisers were made into scapegoats! For example if "black" Obama could be described as having failed big time, the white supremacists would come back with a vengeance, arguing that a "black" man did the worst job with America). However, the gun madness is all over the land. After the shooting in Arizona, gun sales augmented. apparently, killing a nine year old girls, the chief Federal judge and putting a bullet in the brain of representative Sarah Palin had put a rifle sight on, was excellent advertizing for the merit of guns.

Consider the stupidity of it all; the judge and the US representative boasted that they were pretty good shots. However, as Sun Tzu already said, most of the success of an attack consists into surprise. And this at a time when weapons were much less deadly than now. Nowadays, who can fire the first shot has killed. Except if all civilians, including nine year girls, are going to walk around carrying the armor of French soldiers in Afghanistan, at all times, in all places.

And you know what? This gun madness is all a red herring. The media, in the USA, is controlled by the plutocracy. So is the political leadership. The USA is not Tunisia. In Tunisia, the plutocracy did not control the media, so the dictatorial plutocracy had to close and harass the media all the time, for all to see. The media tried to say a lot that the plutocracy did not want the People to learn. But the plutocracy could not close the Internet.

In the USA the situation is different, because the plutocracy owns the media. There is no opposition, no contradiction. So all Americans know guns are good for them, a Constitutional right. never mind that the Constitution states that:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." the debate leading to the final amendment made clear that this was in the context of a military service (conscientious objectors were exempted). The National Guard is that militia.

In Pittsburgh, January 2010, a survey in urban neighborhoods found that 80% of young people knew someone who got shot. A study showed that, for three felons who avoided to commit a crime once because of a weapon, two were drawn to the challenge of confronting an armed victim. In other words, guns are criminogenic. As Wikipedia puts it: "Research and statistics have shown that guns intensify crime situations, and increase the likelihood of a more violent or lethal outcome."



So why the increase in guns, pro-gun laws, and gun propaganda? Because the media has decided so (including the notorious radio savages). In other another word; because the owners of the media , the plutocracy, want Americans to shoot each other.

There are three main reasons:

1) Justify The Private Use Of Force; That gives the plutocracy a pretext to be armed, and better. (That also means living in rich enclaves, a modern version of the castles of the Middle Ages, with private police: police, like schools, depend upon local taxes in the USA, differently from Europe.)

2) Promote Stupidity By Denying Causality; As I said in passing, the pro-handguns theoretical arsenal is incredibly stupid, self contradictory. Gabrielle Giffords boasted that she was a good shot with the Glocks gun that drove hot metal through her frontal lobe, in the direction of her speech area. Good shot? Come again? Palin, condemned by Giffords, for putting Giffords in cross hairs, now compares herself to a persecuted Jew during the depth of the European Middle Ages. Anti-Palinism as anti-Judaism.

These asinine debates may sound innocent, but, in truth, they make stupidity honorable, by having to worry decades after decades about how many ways idiots can split hair with their shaking brains. Such respect for stupidity "ought utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind" (to borrow a sentence of Nietzsche). But, in a country ruled by wealth and privilege, the higher ups want precisely to make the entire society below them as stupid as can be safely accomplished. Having unending debates about stupid things generate mental retardation, an intrinsic good in the many, for the few who dominate them. Thus, debating whether shooting guns through people save lives will be encouraged, to accompany the increasing presence of shooting metaphors, and an obsession with sport scores.

3) Shoot And Divide; As common Americans get shot by common Americans, they come to view their fellow citizens as the enemy. And thus cannot conceive of their real enemy, plutocracy, let alone organize against it. after all, the plutocracy is not shooting at them. They have no time for subtle exploitation; they have to return fire.

Release The Crazies; A related strategy was the cutting of mental health spending by Ronald Reagan. From the plutocratic point of view, that was excellent. Not only did it make society meaner, an intrinsic good, as a meaner society is friendlier to Hades. But, mostly, it augmented the shooting of innocent for not good reasons, thus increasing the general paranoia, fears, and divisions. Many of these crazies have been going around, and local authorities, who are unqualified, have been trying to detect them (which should truly be the work of police and government psychiatry).

If crazy is frequent, crazy will be viewed as normal, and that opens new possibilities to the crazed plutocracy; derivatives with your salad, anyone? And of course, whatever alienates reason is welcome.



Tunisians in revolt used solidarity networks, including on the Internet, to organize themselves against what the ambassador of the USA called "a quasi mafia" (WikiLeaks dixit). Solidarity is the key to revolution. The People is strong if, and only if, it can make one out of the many. (That was the long standing motto of the USA, before plutocracy found it dangerous to its rule, and tried to sweep it below the carpet.)

If the many are busy shooting each other, they will not stand as one. But the plutocracy, the CEO class, the hedge fund wolf packs, the banksters, stand as one. Divided the People get subjugated, idiotic the People submit. So let more bullets fly, and France get vilipended for whatever: thus the rule of Pluto hopes to proceed in the USA.

In many countries around the Middle East the plutocracy has long placed its faith in Salafist interpretations of Islam. That too allows to foster stupidity and divisiveness. Shooting those who don’t agree and calling them Al Qaeda also helps. Notice that bin Laden was on the very top of the Saudi Arabian plutocracy. Not to say that he planned it all as a deliberate agent of said plutocracy. But the rest of the Saudi Arabian plutocracy has found most convenient to justify its violent existence by calling anybody else evil. In Tunisia, Ben Ali justified its 23 year old kleptocratic dictatorship, as a rampart against Salafism, and being called Mr President by the leaders of democracies such as France and the USA. It is not just that the Ben Ali family used Tunisia as a private property. It prevented the average Tunisian to think as well as they could, wanted, and should. Not just for Tunisia’s sake, but for the sake of the entire planet.

And now to reiterate one of our little refrains. We need brains, ever more brains, as the world tumbles towards various catastrophes never heard of before. Otherwise said, we need full democracy. Plutocracy fosters stupidity, ignorance and erroneous logic, getting rid of it, worldwide, so we can think better, will be the essence of survival.


Patrice Ayme

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

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


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism

EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן

Thoughts about Global Economy and Existence