Posts Tagged ‘Hollande’

Charlie Manson & The Qur’an

December 4, 2015

Madness, A Mood, Can Be Contagious:

Madness is not just a disease, but also controlled, and impelled, to some extent, as a mood. Moreover, tolerance to madness is itself a contagious disease.

One modern proof? Some forms of madness in individuals can be mitigated by drugs. However, the patients’ state is improved if they undergo “Cognitive (Behavioral or not) Therapy”. They can learn that they are subject to madness (and when it’s coming), and learn to mitigate their crises..

Madness in individuals is not viewed as madness, in a mad society. Believing that the “Free Market” was a civilization, belongs to the same general tolerance to madness as the Qur’an is a civilization. A youngish French pundit (totally white and not at all Muslim, but a vague leftist) just boldly asserted on ONPC, one of the most popular show in France, that the Islamist State had nothing to do with the Qur’an. Clearly, he never read the Qur’an. I propose that he goes to Raqqa and teach the Qur’an to the Islamist State, this way, the world will be safer: what is more dangerous that unfathomable stupidity?

Smiling Manson: Thought Criminal Convicted To Nine Life Terms For Thought Crime Inducing Lethal Inclinations

Smiling Manson: Thought Criminal Convicted To Nine Life Terms For Thought Crime Inducing Lethal Inclinations

[The BBC published this photo, after erasing the Swastika, weirdly enough. That shows a drastic lack of culture on its part: just as Hitler found his “Fuererprinzip” in the Qur’an (see below), he found the Swastika in Indian religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism(s). Hitler was apparently better read than (some at) the BBC.]

One ancient proof that madness arise from culture-wide moods?

Watch the Romans dissecting chickens before a potential battle, to see if it should be engaged. That was obviously idiotic. One of the first Roman admirals was told by the local Imam (‘augure”) that the sacred chickens would not drink, a bad omen, and thus that battle should not be engaged, according to the respected Roman state religion. Irritated, the admiral grabbed the chickens, and threw them in the sea:’Now they will drink!’ (He lost the battle.)

Ultimately, the superstitious Roman religion was put in doubt by the tolerance extended to all the non-human sacrificial religions: the Roman saw that religions could be anything. However emperors could also see that Monotheism, started by an Egyptian Pharaoh, then amplified by the Jews, would be most useful to their rule.

Monotheism extends the Fascist Principle to the universe: everybody has a chief, everybody obeys that chief absolutely. Adolf Hitler may well as found in the Qur’an (as Sura IV, Verse 59).

“O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.

Charlie Manson was a Californian sect leader who was accused to have indoctrinated followers in such a way that they engaged in several deadly attacks (the eighth month pregnant wife of Roman Polanski, the actress Sharon tate, was butchered alive in one of these). Manson was condemned to death (commuted later to life).

The prosecution argued the triggering of “Helter Skelter” was Manson’s main motive. Manson had been impressed by a song in the Beatles’ White Album. References to that song were left (pig, rise, helter skelter). Manson predicted that the murders blacks would commit at the outset of Helter Skelter would involve the writing of “pigs” on walls in victims’ blood. Manson was viewed as responsible, although he was not at the crime scene, nor gave direct orders.

It was all completely insane. But human minds are fragile. As long as criminally insane discourses are held in books claiming to be orders from god, one should not be surprised that the unsatisfied and frustrated will find all the excuses they need there to get on a rampage.

This has now happened several times in the USA. The terrorism in San Bernardino, by a couple who pledged obedience to the Islamist State, is the latest example.

We are victims: everywhere an ambiance of terror is rising (schools, for example, have to prepare for the worst, a worst that was unimaginable in the 1960s: only the Nazis attacked schools). It brings up the police state.

And all this because a religion of hatred was preached. Several Imams in France and Switzerland, are, suddenly, under criminal investigation (at least three were financed by Saudi princes)… for preaching the sacred book, as it is. Why did it take so long? Because the mood was that Islamophilia was anti-racism?

What is the difference between a “sacred” book full of hatred and explicit orders to kill, with Charlie Manson’s  rambling, viciously aggressive discourses? Philosophers want to know. All right, I am unfair to Charlie Manson, who was not convicted for giving explicit orders to kill. The general mood Manson created was viewed as responsible enough, of the murders which happened.

The French president, last week, in stroke of Enlightenment, declared that the present war was not a clash of civilization:

“We are not committed to a war of civilizations, because these assassins don’t represent any civilization,” Hollande said. “We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world.”

A religion was indeed never a civilization. At least in the West (be it only because, in the West, there were always several religions, Judaism one of them, in spite of centuries of frantic mass murdering by Christian fanatics.)

Christian Civilization” never existed: the law used in Europe, except in the most savage parts and times, was actually ROMAN LAW (or Frankish/Salian law… which had been written by Roman lawyers, in Latin). Saint Louis wanted to kill Jews and Unbelievers (!), but he recognized that was against the law, he wrote. Roman Law itself was pretty much independent from Roman Superstition (aka Roman Religion). When Roman emperor Justinian ordered a refurbishment of Roman Law around 540 CE, he explicitly ordered to separate the religious/superstitious aspects from SECULAR LAW.

So, indeed, “We are in a war against terrorism, Jihadism, which threatens the whole world.”

Yes, and please remind me who wrote, and where is written, the theory of Jihadism? And why is that theory of Jihadism, that those who kill as ordered by Allah go directly to Paradise, still preached? You want safety? Make it unlawful. Or, more precisely, just apply existing laws against hate crimes. And then punish it so hard, that it will stop.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Pantheon Pathos

May 27, 2015

CHOOSE ALL YOUR GODS WELL.

Today, the French government inducted another four resistance fighters to the Pantheon. Good point: they could keep on doing this for a million years. Bad point: Why should most resistance fighters and their descendants would have to wait thousands of years to be recognized as equally worthy?

Worse: this shows that the French republic is (mis)guided, to this day, by (what I call) celebritism and arbitrariness (what makes those four resistance fighters more valuable than others? That they were connected to a general, De Gaulle, one of them by genes)? And even worse: but I better reserve this for the punch line.

Diminishing French President Dwarfed By Pantheon

Diminishing French President Dwarfed By Pantheon

Pan-Theon: All Gods. Choose your gods well, don’t just pick up a few, and make others angry.  Yes, silly and erroneous decisions diminish civilization. Be it indirectly giving weapons to the so-called Islamist State (as Obama worried he would, and then did!), or just pointing at a few, as they were Muhammad, worthy of a discriminatory cult.

Why to worry so much about France, some will sneer? One of my USA friends recently, slightly infuriated as she was (thanks, in no small measure to my finely tuned devilish ways), told me “Nobody cares about France anymore, the place has become so irrelevant. Look at me, I learned French, and my children are learning Spanish.”

Most people do not know why France is so important, but a hint is that France gave birth to both England as we know it, and gave enough of a shove to England in America, to give birth to the USA (something finalized at Yorktown, when the three French commanders, La Fayette, Rochambeau, De Grasse, and the American commander, Washington brought the rendition of the British Army and its German troops). The USA itself, at this point, is just an addendum to Frankish history. That’s not just a slight, but a heavy duty.

The truth, and the French are the first to forget it, is that the Imperium Francorum (“Empire of the Franks”) was the successor state of the Roman Empire, SPQR, the Senātus PopulusQue Rōmānus, or more directly, of the Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire). After four centuries of Frankish recovery (including stopping and reversing the Islamist invasion), the Roman Empire was officially re-launched at Christmas 800 CE, when Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope one and only Roman Emperor in Rome (to Constantinople’s rage).

So all of Western Europe is actually the set of Frankish successor states.

Thus it matters what France is doing today. It was good that the Frankish Franco-German leaders, Hollande (because, as the Franks, is ancestors came from there) and Merkel proposed greater unification for the Eurozone. (Ahead, and because of, Cameron hair brained des-unifying proposals.)

So today, the French government decided to install four resistance fighters to the Pantheon.

Coffins representing the two women and two men — Genevieve de Gaulle-Anthonioz, Germaine Tillion, Pierre Brossolette and Jean Zay — were escorted through Paris streets to be interred Thursday after a sound-and-light show Wednesday night.

The women’s coffins contain only soil from their gravesites: their families didn’t want the bodies exhumed. Maybe they knew, deep down inside, that the ceremony is unfair, and that it is just political exploitation.

Indeed, why not to honor all resistance fighters? And these two women did not die under torture, actually, they did not die at all. Others died under torture from the Gestapo and its minions. At the very least, those who died under torture ought to get to the Pantheon too. The point is that, although these two women resisted, they did not resist to such a degree that they would have been worth of the torture chambers, right away.

Many others were; including British female agents, parachuted in France to conduct sabotage; many were tortured to death by the Nazis. We know this, for example from SS Commander Barbie’s Memoirs. Those girls who parachuted over France knew the risk: to be caught, and tortured to death. But why are they not parachuted, as they deserve, in the Pantheon? And don’t try to tell me they were not French: the moment they parachuted into Nazi occupied France with weapons, they became French, as far as I am concerned.

Hollande apologists will point at rising anti-Judaism (euphemistically, and grotesquely called “anti-Semitism”), and that celebrating resistance to Nazism helps to fight it. Yes, agreed, but my objection stands: why those four, and only those four. Because they were favored? De Gaulle’s niece was carefully not killed, because Heinrich Himmler thought she could be exchanged. She was also from some small French nobility.

So what’s truly celebrated here? Celebritism? At least, in part, and, as far as I am concerned, too much. Celebritism ought to be condemned, it’s something for civilization to leave behind. Celebritism is exactly why we have to choose between Clinton and Bush, as usual. And why Bush’s grandfather was one of Hitler’s most precious collaborators. Celebritism is also why income and wealth inequality has reached much higher level than during the Late Imperium Romanum (which did die, fundamentally, from said inequality… Or, at least, so I claim).

Celebritism supports oligarchy, which supports plutocracy, which supports intellectual fascism, which supports stupidity. Turtles all the way down to hell. Kill celebritism, and, ultimately, you will kill the cult of stupidity. It should not require much brains to realize that being obsessed by those who are famous for being famous is rather hare brained.

The French Republic has a duty to do better, because, historically, it guided civilization. The clowns presently in charge ought to be reminded of their shortcomings. (But, naturally, if too stupid, they can’t understand any of the preceding.)

Patrice Ayme’

Note 1: So far there were only 71 persons in the French Pantheon, including one woman (Ms. Curie; why her Nobel Laureate, and discoverer of nuclear energy, daughter, Irene, is not there is another mystery to me). All the “just”, those who harbored Jews at the risk of their lives, as my grandparents did, are there. So there is a precedent for admitting a CLASS, at the Pantheon.

Note 2: The original Pantheon still stands in Rome. To this day, it’s the tallest free standing (purely) concrete structure in the world. (That’s probably why the Christians did not destroy it: too tough, and no stone to steal to build their Vatican and what not…)

Armenian Holocaust Versus The Empire of Goodness

April 23, 2015

If the empire of goodness does not rule, the empire of badness will.

If children have been exposed, when young, to the empire of badness, the habit is hard to kick.

If acts of mass murdering horror are not punished, but, instead, make a state live long and posper, it is to be feared that the horror will be emulated.

It is no accident that the Armenian genocide happened in the presence of German officers. It is likely that the Armenian genocide (1.5 million dead, just for the 1914-1918 period), inspired the Nazis.

At some period of its history, Turkey became a so-called “Caliphate”, a type of dictatorship justified by a reading of Islam (Caliph means successor… of Muhammad, a famous war chieftain).

Turks Crucified Thousands Of Armenian Women. Here Arab Bedouins Are Rescuing Some Crucified Armenian Women

Turks Crucified Thousands Of Armenian Women. Here Arab Bedouins Are Rescuing Some Crucified Armenian Women

[In interviews, Turkish soldiers justified at the time the crucifixions of women and girls as young as 16, by claiming they had not been “submissive”. An inside joke on Islam (“Submission”)]

The full story of the state called “Turkey” is amusing, and instructive: the Turks are from Central Asia, not far from Mongolia. They are old Indo-European stock. Peoples from Central Asia always find reproduction easier to achieve than production: the steppe is deprived of much resources.

Thus Central Asian populations tend to explode (as those of several other deserts). Should such a population grow beyond the land carrying capacity, should the natives stop killing each other (as the Mongols, under Genghis Khan’s firm hand, or the Arabs of Muhammad, for that matter), then they have to invade (or die in the attempt).

So the Turkish army, 300,000 strong, decided to invade richer areas, as Central Asian peoples periodically do: just ask those who decided to build the Great Wall of China. They equipped themselves with the deadliest weapon: Islam, literally interpreted.

Within a generation, the Turks reached the Mediterranean, and had the Oriental Roman empire on the ropes (this empire was the so-called Byzantium; however the people from Constantinople called themselves “Romans”, and they were, although they spoke Greek… As did Julius Caesar as a baby).

The Romans of Constantinople called the Franks to the rescue.

The Romans had helped the Franks to throw out the Saracens terrifying Europe from their basis in Provence during the Tenth Century, a century earlier. The Romans dispatched a fleet with Grecian Fire spitting ships at the battle of Saint Tropez.

The cry for help from Constantinople launched the Crusades. After all, both the Franks and the Romans in the Orient were all part of the Roman Empire (although the French King asserted his superiority by claiming to be “emperor in his own kingdom“).

Fast forward eight centuries.

By 1900 CE, the Caliphate had long become a disaster, because, not just a dictatorship, it fought ideas and terribly destabilizing high tech such as printing.

The “Young Turks” decided to seize power. They had some great and modern ideas. Enough to hate Islam. But still, Islam is what they had learned young. Islamist logic may not have ruled their minds, but Islamist emotions still did.

Whatever their reasons, the Young Turks conducted a xenophobic policy.

The Young Turks dared to finish what the Turkish invaders had started, centuries earlier: the Young Turks kicked out, and otherwise destroyed, Greeks and Armenians.

The Greeks had lived in Anatolia for more than three millennia. The Armenians had founded the first Christian state (yes, two generations before the Roman Empire became de facto Christian under emperor Theodosius).

At the hands of the “Young Turks” several millions died or were thrown out of their country. Sometimes full war was used, sieging Greek cities for months, burning them to a crisp.

The “Young Turks” proclaimed a republic in “Turkey”.

The “Young Turks” said they committed no genocide, no holocaust, no ethnic cleansing. They were lying, and their successors (Caliphs?) are lying. Not just that, but their successors profit from, and still exploit the Holocausts against Armenians (and Greeks).

Barack Obama, when he ran for president, pretended that he would recognize the Armenian genocide. Now Obama does not use the word “genocide” about Armenia.

What is Obama afraid of?

Obama is not just afraid of making accusations. Obama is afraid of Turkey.

Tomorrow one remembers the 100th anniversary of Armenian genocide, a holocaust at the hands of Turks, and an emotional interpretation of the Islamist ideology.

The Turks, most Turks, say such a thing, the Armenian holocaust, did not happen. When the Pope mentioned it a few days ago, Turkey recalled its ambassador. (I doubt Turkey will recall the ambassador to France, though… France has more Special Forces than the Pope.)

A substantial part of present Turkey rests on Armenian territory. Turkey would have to regurgitate the land it stole, should Turkey recognize history for what it is.

Don’t bet on it.

Tomorrow president Francois Hollande of France and his homologue Vladimir Putin of Russia travel to Armenia, to express the importance they attach to reality and holocaust. This is unusually courageous for Putin, who wants to make nice with Turkey’s semi-dictator, Erdogan (a question of fossil fuels in part as major pipe-lines are being built, to avoid Ukraine).

Putin and Hollande will be very much alone in Armenia, commemorating. No other significant heads of state are coming. Hollande announced they will talk about Ukraine (while Obama hides from reality on golf courses; worrying even China, which is starting to get worried by North Korea’ s huge nuclear arsenal: soon 40 nukes, says the PRC, and capable to reach the USA ).

Why are France and Russia less afraid of Turkey than the USA?

Maybe, and certainly just a question of character of the leaders.

And how does one fight an empire of badness?

By an empire of goodness.

Time for Europe to man up, and stop the causes of the massive unlawful immigration into Europe.

Last year, Italy caught more than 171,000 unlawful immigrants from Africa. And more than 50,000, from the Middle East. Thousands died at sea.

If nobody uses force for goodness, if goodness has no force, evil will win.

Time for force. Even be it just the force of ideas and representation. So kudos to the French and Russian Presidents tomorrow in Yerevan, Armenia. And shame onto the others. Those despicable characters are not just cowards. They are accomplices. And not just of what happened in Armenia, or under the Nazis. The cowards are accomplices of holocausts to come.

If Obama cannot confront Turkey, how can he confront North Korea and its 40 nuclear weapons?

Patrice Ayme’

Note: 43 states of the USA have recognized the Armenian genocide (Obama is “leading from behind”). 20 nations recognize the Armenian genocide. The German president just used the word. On April 25, while Putin and Hollande were presenting their respects in Yerevan, Armenia, front and center, the German parliament overwhelmingly approved on Friday a resolution branding the mass killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Young Turkish forces a century ago as “genocide”. The Austrian Republic did so a few days ago, and received the appropriate threats from Ankara in return.

Don’t Feed the Bear: All Putin Needs Is Comfy War

February 11, 2015

YOU WANT PEACE? MAKE WAR COSTLY

The French and German leaders are meeting again with Putin to make him recover reason: it reminds me of Munich, 1938, when the French and British leaders were trying to make Hitler reasonable.

France and Germany together have a slightly larger population than Russia, but three and a half time the GDP. (By the way, what happened to Britain? Well London is full of Russian plutocrats and banking institutions keen to make Assad and Putin possible; hence the British discretion.)

An Ukrainian in the street interviewed by German TV said it was out of the question to give territory to Putin: if one gives him a finger, he will take the entire arm.

Putin Wants "The Big Country" Back, & Its Prospect of Endless War

Putin Wants “The Big Country” Back, & Its Prospect of Endless War

In the West, cowardly pacifists say: do not provoke Putin, do as he says, he has nukes and will attack, if lethal defensive weapons are sent to Ukraine. That makes them collaborators of evil.

This is rather curious that pacifists use a fundamentally bellicose argument: don’t try to stop the mad man, he may get offended, and kill everybody.

Indeed, a mad man’s madness with criminal insanity overtones, makes the case for the greatest severity. So the essence of the pacifist whining call for the greatest severity to be applied on Putin, right away.

Because what are pacifists saying? Putin is the most dangerous Leader, ever. So let’s be nice to him.

It is now known that, had the USA and Britain be as firm as France against Hitler in the 1930s, Hitler’s own generals would have made a coup against him.

But, instead, Britain and the USA made concession after concession to Hitler. So Hitler flew from success to success, undermining any mood critical of him. How can one criticize a winner? Clearly, it was unpatriotic. It made the top German generals and marshals who thought that the dictator was completely crazy, and a danger to Germany look like traitors.

Something similar is developing with Putin. As he occupied and annexed territory in Georgia, Moldavia, and now Ukraine, and the West proved incapable to stop him, he looks ever more like a winner. Putin’s avowed goal is to bring back what he calls the “New Russia” (half of Ukraine) and the “Big Country” (the USSR). Pacifists say that the fundamental strategic interest of Russia is at play, so . di, Putin flies from success to success.

So where does Putin stop? This is what pacifists have to know, if they do not want to be simple collaborators of evil.

But of course, they don’t know.

Should we then keep our fingers cross, and hope for the best?

Why?

Because Putin killed only 100,000 in Chechnya? Because Catherine the Great stopped 80 kilometers from Berlin? Not a safe bet: Catherine did not have nukes.

Behaving now as nothing will stop Putin, but for the application of overwhelming force is not safe, but it is the safest strategy. If Putin is completely crazy, overwhelming force won’t stop him. But nothing will anyway, especially after he has fully armed himself, as he is presently doing, Hitler-like.

If Putin is not completely crazy, the threat of overwhelming force will stop him.

Not trying to stop him, if he is not completely crazy, will certainly make Putin completely crazy. Be it completely crazy with greed.

As I tried to explain, Putin, like Hitler before him, and Napoleon, and many (not all) conquerors before him, has discovered that war unites the People behind him, and make all the People think as one, and the name of that one, is Putin. This is what I call the fascist instinct. It is crucial to enable a (relatively) weak primate, far from any tree, to conquer the Savannah and Steppe, heretofore ruled by formidable predators.

Putin’s rule has been a disaster. Thus he needs to activate the fascist instinct in the Russian People. Thus he needs war.

Thus, if pacifists give him Ukraine, Putin will be deeply unhappy: he did not want Ukraine. He wanted war. War gives him fascism, thus the ability to rule. In this light, the reign of Louis XIV of France can be better understood.

After millions of Protestants had left France, and France has lost considerable territory in continuous wars, Louis XIV of France, the self-described “Sun-King” (“Roi-Soleil”) feebly bleated that his advisers had poorly advised him about Protestants: it had not been a good idea to have harassed, despoiled, and submit them to “Dragonades” (occupation of Protestant households by elite troops called “Dragons”).

However, Louis XIV, a dedicated fascist, hater of the “Republic”, lied (as fascists are wont to). Louis XIV had continual wars, and particularly against innocent civilians, because he needed continual wars, because that justified his fascist, personal rule.

Louis XIV was not afraid of war, he was afraid of peace, because peace meant the Parliament may want to re-establish the Republic again (which is what the “Fronde” was all about).

Napoleon faithfully executed the same scheme (because De Sade, one of the Revolution’s principals, had criticized the aggressive, expansionist war making, Napoleon put him in a mental asylum).

The same exact mechanism caused the First World War, with the Kaiser playing the role of Louis XIV. The Jews played the role of the Protestants under Louis XIV.

Soon Stalin would institute continual internal war, to justify the dictatorship of the Politburo which he headed. Hitler repeated the method.

So are we condemned to repeat history? Not so, if we learn how it works.

Putin got his 85% approval rating, from his activation of the fascist instinct.

However, the very latest polls show that the Russian People is getting wary of Putin’s protest of innocence about the war: 70 percent stated that Russia was assisting the breakaway rebels of Donetsk and Luhansk. Good. However, the same polling show that now most Russians think that establishing “Novorossia” (“New Russia”) is a good idea.

In other words, Russians are turning t the Dark Side: they know their dictator is making war in a foreign nation, but they are starting to approve the invasion of that nation, and its annexation.

Why?

Same story as what happened in the German collective psyche after Hitler annexed the Republic of Austria. Then the Germans became favorable to other annexations (Czechoslovakia, some Baltic states, much of Poland, etc.) Because Hitler had proven to be a winner.

As far as the Russians are concerned, Putin is a winner, so he has got to be right. Not right on the facts, but morally right: Ukraine, like Georgia or Moldova, is Russian property.

Want to turn Putin into a loser? Do it on the battlefield. And do like him: play dirty, send efficient weapons stealthily first.

Patrice

Pacifist Disease: Kneeling To Evil

February 6, 2015

Merkel and Hollande went together to see the president of Ukraine and the Russian dictator, in a last ditch effort before Putin sends his tanks across southern Ukraine (after a barrage of Russian rockets killed scores of civilians in the large Ukrainian town of Mariopol).

The meeting with Putin was icy. Defeated by the Russians, the Ukrainians have to negotiate. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees are evacuating. Putting requested a meeting with Merkel and Hollande alone. He wants the large city of Mariopol (so that, in a few months, he can dash towards Crimea, and then Odessa). Putin also wants twice the territory his agents control in Ukraine. We have seen this sort of methods in Munich, 1938.

OK, let’s be the devil’s advocate. Let’s talk in the name of peace. What does peace fear? War. The president of France just said there was war in Ukraine (the definition of a war is 1,000 killed; more than 6,000 were killed in the war in Ukraine, so far).

What Putin Wants: Russia, the Big Country. World War Would Be Even Better

What Putin Wants: Russia, the Big Country. World War Would Be Even Better

“Pacifists” pontificate that no French, German or American, should die for Ukraine: Putin wants Ukraine, let him have it. Who cares about Ukraine? Sounds good, elevated. Peace will follow. If it sounds good, peace ought to follow: that’s pacifying logic. Logic done with a pacifier.

Then “pacifists” preen, deeply self-satisfied with their own goodness, friendliness, generosity, and general standing as higher human beings. They look themselves in the mirror, they love what they see. They call themselves progressive, and view others as imperialists, hopeless colonialists, violent serial offenders. If only the rest of humanity could be so detached, as they, the pacifists, themselves are.

But then the job of the philosophers is to be critical. It is never to opt for the easy way out. Philosophers never follow the herd, stampeding towards happiness. Philosophers ask: why does Putin want Ukraine so much? Putin says Ukraine was always Russian, that Russia owned all of Ukraine, or, at least, half of Ukraine, etc.

These are enormous lies: Ukraine was highly civilized, a millennium ago, and owned Crimea then, when Moscow was not even on any map. Moscow literally did not exist then. Descendants of Ukrainians and Vikings had not gone that far to the east.

In truth, it’s the other way around: demographically, civilizationally, linguistically, historically Russia is a colony of Ukraine. Russia is a poorly educated brat.

And not just that: Russia is, arguably, a degenerate form. Ukraine resisted the Mongols, and got defeated and devastated by them. Moscow then made peace, and collaborated, with the Mongols, and became like them. Just look at Putin, and in particular his slanted eyes: obviously his ancestors were in the sack with Mongols. Maybe Putin is so anxious to show himself a Russian patriot, because, like Lenin, he has slanted eyes? Maybe he wants to show that he is of pure, Russian, white essence?

This mock racist argument is not funny anymore when Putin’s most savage behavior is contemplated. Annexing territory is exactly what Mongols did.

If pacifists want to give Ukraine to Putin, they have to answer this: why?

Just because he wants it? So when the next Mafioso comes along and wants to kill ten million people, just because he wants it, they are going to agree?

At this point, our friends the pacifists look rather criminal. Let’s press them on. Let’s ask: ‘Does Putin wants all this property for the same reason as Hitler wanted the property of the Jews in 1938?”

What, say our friends the pacifists: history is not their forte. Indeed, Hitler attacked the Jews because his massive militarization program had impoverished Germany. He needed wealth and to look victorious.

So Putin is stealing Ukraine, because he wants to look like the one who brings, gifts, the one who augments. This is so true, Octavian, Caesar grand nephew, and heir, was named “Augustus”, the one who augments.

Putin augmented Russia, already Earth’s largest country, by a very long shot, by annexing Crimea. That made him “Augustus”. And 85% Russians now love him, because Putin has augmented their tiny minds. In part thanks to relentless propaganda.

We have seen that before, when all Germans loved Hitler, the more he used his propaganda on them. And even after millions of Germans had been killed, thanks to Hitler.

To be loved more, maybe Putin should kill more people, and even more Russians.

What else? Putin is remaking his entire military, all the way to nuclear forces, as if he knew world war was coming. It cost a gigantic amount of resources. So Russia is getting impoverished, and Putin has to look as the “Augmenter” the hard way: through massive theft.

This is exactly the politico-psychological process Hitler went through.

“Pacifists” said: let Hitler have the Jews, that’s what he wants. No French, British, let alone American, should die for Jews.

Hitler wanted the Austrian Republic? Let him have it. After all, Austria spoke German. Austrian Jews such as Freud could always go live in England. Less fortunate ones could go to Italy, or France.

So hear this, pacifists: there was a matter of principle: can we let the leader of a great nation use massive lethal force to steal massive property? Can we tolerate crimes against humanity?

And think a bit, pacifists: if stealing other countries alleviate the pain the attacking dictator would otherwise suffer, where does it stop?

Putin is the first to annex territory in Eurasia, since Hitler.

Some warn: don’t make Putin mad, he is Hitler, with nukes. Those who give the mad man a reason to attack are maniacs, culprit of war mongering.

Such pacifists are not really even arguing they are pacifists, just that they are cowards, and that cowardice is a most admirable strategy. Those peace mongers are not just dumb and self-satisfied, as usual pacifists are, but they aggravate their case by being cowardly, to the point of unreason.

Not provoking a mad man is no strategy. The question is why is the mad man becoming ever more mad? As I said above, it’s because the economy of his militarizing dictatorship is going down. He has to militarize, to create the impression that Russia, by far the largest country on Earth, is under attack: that activates the fascist reflex. All the Russian baboons then gather behind their chief, and do exactly what their chief is telling them to do. This insures the power of the chief.

Putin is sick, he has to be cured.

Question: why was Putin not acting like Hitler before? Because, before, he was afraid. Afraid of the power of the West. Now he is not. (I explained it had to do with not eliminating the criminal Assad personally; that too, let to the rise of extreme Islam fanatics; but there are other factors, such as a diminution of the military capability of the West, greatly caused by USA stealth planes not working, and Europeans doing austerity on defense… Except for neutral Sweden, which noticed Putin’s madness).

Thus, to make Putin stop, one has to scare him.

Pacifism means to look scary. The Romans put it this way: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.

Some will say it’s too scary to try to scare Putin.

Why?

Because, because, because, well, Putin behaves like Hitler, whine the “pacifists”.

Then the question is this: did appeasers not learn history? Trying to make friends with evil does not just endanger peace, it’s a crime.

ELECTING EVIL IN ISRAEL? NOT CLEAR:

Israel is a case in many ways opposite to Russia. Israel is tiny, Russia 70% larger than the three largest countries after it (Canada, USA, China). Israel was founded by people whose country (Israel) was stolen by the fascist Roman state, as punishment for rebellion… But then the Catholics, such as “Saint” Augustine made a morality from what was meant as non-permanent situation.

Netanyahu (nicknamed “Bibi”) is running for re-election, and may well win. With his reassuring baritone. His brother, a crack commando commander, was the only fatality in the hyper daring Entebbe raid he led. Bibi is sort of extreme, he tends to King David’s Israel, the Greater Israel, with all the pesky Palestinians somewhere else. If wars come long and thick enough, the Greater Israel may well become a reality.

Differently from Putin’s mad dream of reconstituting what he calls the “Big Country” makes survival sense. Israel, as it is, is 1,100 times smaller than the empire Putin dreams aloud of.

Bibi can be a baby, as long as Arabs stay even more infantile. As it is, this cannot end well, so the party of Armageddon may as well rule. As long as some participant(s) is(are) looking for a final solution, the others may as well. One cannot make peace alone. But one can make war alone. Bibi is occupying a vacuum.

As long as Israel has good reason to fear for its survival, Bibi and, or, his ideas, and moods will rule. It’s a matter of survival, the best reason there ever was, for most people, most of the time.

Jordan got seriously angry against Daesh (aka “Islamic state”) and conducted air raids against it, after its young F16 pilot with green eyes got burned alive.

Jordan’s anger is healthy. It’s a change of values. The Middle East will bloom, if it aligns its values on the best ones the West ever offered. Look at China: why does it do so well? Because China adopted the high performance aspect of learning long championed, and monopolized, by the West.

Ultimately, the Chinese effort will fail, or, as in Germany a century ago, will have horribly deviant consequences, if it does not embrace the learning of criticism, that is, the learning of going meta, relative to the knowledge we have.

In either case, the West has to remember history, and roll back an educational system where real data is shown, and absorbed (especially at the meta level).

Much of the rise of plutocrats (including increasingly crazed maniac as Putin) is caused by an overall lack of education and a decrease capability to ascertain causation.

When pacifists believe that burrowing their heads in the sand works best to remove threats, they just lack education. There cannot be moralization without education.

Patrice Ayme’

Direct Democracy: Crucial Counterbalance To Vital Security State

January 12, 2015

So Obama was too scared to go to Paris (that’s the charitable explanation; the non-charitable theory is that he listens to dimwits too much). What when the self-declared leader of the Free, is a scared rabbit? Here is one drawback of Representative Democracy, “democracy” through “representatives”, or so-called “leaders”. Have you see a rabbit lead? When I run in the mountains, I see dozens of rabbits leading straight to the bushes (as in George W. Bush).

Not everybody can be as courageous as Israel’s Netanyahu (the only leader with

Franco-Germania Faces Hard Philosophy Ahead

Franco-Germania Faces Hard Philosophy Ahead

a personal guard in Paris, at his side always), Abbas (Palestinian president), Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Renzi (Italia), Rajoy (Espana), the Malian, Ukrainian presidents, and tens of other heads of state, who were also demonstrating in Paris. Even Russia sent to the Paris demonstration its fiercest specimen (short, maybe, of Putin), the Siberian hard man, Putin’s mentor, Ukrainian thirsty Foreign Minister Lavrov. Hopefully, Lavrov’s heart learned something.

The attack against Charlie Hebdo was, philosophically speaking, worst than 9/11: bin Laden was surprised that the towers fell, and 9/11 was construed by some hearts of stone, as a counter-attack against big capital, Wall Street, and the exploitative system of the Middle East financiers had helped to set-up.

But clearly the attack against satire is a direct attack against intelligence, and cannot be construed as an attack against exploiters (or an anti-racist attack: several collaborators of Charlie Hebdo were “Muslim”, two got assassinated, two survived). And the attack was planned by a collaboration of Al Qaeda and the Islamist State: the terrorists themselves said it. A video shot by one of the criminals AFTER killing a black policewoman, and grievously wounding others, was edited by ISIS, and put on the Internet two days later… From the Middle East.

The Security State cannot be avoided: as technology keeps exponentiating (a good thing), more and more lethal power can come in the hands of lunatics (a bad thing).

Thus the need to prevent mighty weapons to get in bad hands, and even very bad ideas to get installed in otherwise innocent minds. Hence the need for THOUGHT CONTROL (this means that Islam has to be put on rails which are defined by the Republic; it also means Internet control; some countries, such as the UK, already have it, France will get there within 6 weeks).

“Thought Control” is, of course, a very delicate problem: imagination, irreverence, satire have to be allowed, but not systems of thought leading to lethal issues.

Who is going to watch the watchers?

Well, We The People, directly.

Some of the commenters on this site rolled out the usual objection to Direct Democracy: the so-called “Madness Of The Crowds”.

Wisdom Of Crowds: Paris, 01/11/15.

Wisdom Of Crowds: Paris, 01/11/15.

Hazxan from the UK said: “Patrice, what really is “Democracy”? All my life, every day, it was programmed into me that we had a “democracy” that it was a rare and special thing that meant we lived in the best of possible worlds. Even that those who didn’t have this Democracy should be bombed and crushed until they had this Democracy whether they chose it or not (we chose it for them – begin to see the paradox?)”

Agreed that seems a paradox, but, when people do not live in democracy, they live in plutocratic dictatorships. It starts with dictators, but dictatorship is not stable, if it does not use demonic means, hence the adjective “plutocratic”.

This is not just theory, but practical considerations: look at Egypt now. Chief of the Army All Sissi had to make a coup against the Islamists. He went from military dictator (bad, but necessary) to elected president (re-establishment of representative democracy).

If Al Sissi had stayed a dictator (instead of becoming an elected president), he would have had to use more demonic means (because all those who voted for him would have been more or less against him, thus they would have had to be repressed).

Another frequent commenter, EugenR Lowy: “I have to disagree with you about direct democracy. Direct democracy is possible only at the local level and not at the level of big states. More than that I do not believe in the wisdom of the masses, as some obscure decision making theories claim. The masses at the end have tendency to turn to certain authority to lead them, when the situation is becoming too unstable and insecure, and we are back in the worst form of political leadership. To make right political decisions, the decision making must be aware of existence of realities as long term processes and not a stand-still state, which can be immediately corrected. How many among the masses understand this? Even the educated ones not necessarily are aware of this.”

I deeply believe in knowledge and wisdom, but I am not sure even a highly professional scientist is aware of the problematics of political and historical processes, knowledge that is necessary to formulate right opinion in the major political issues.”

There is every reason to believe that scientists are no experts at politics. Several Nobel Prize level scientists became Nazi Party members before Adolf Hitler (at least one of these Nobels had worked closely with Einstein).

Eugen’s point of view does not just condemn Direct Democracy, but even Representative Democracy: after all, in Representative Democracy it’s We The People who elects the representatives, all the way to the head of state.

Hitler’s Nazi Party got enough votes to control the Second Reich (!) Parliament. President Hindenburg thought he had no choice but to select Hitler as Chancellor, in a coalition government. Then the Nazis were able, through their “Patriot Act” to mangle German society enough to acquire total control.

Another example is the nephew of Napoleon I. Elected president of France, he made a coup against himself and baptized himself “Emperor”. Hitler actually copied that method, which had been inaugurated by Napoleon I.

Thus, when Eugen says We The People can make bad choices, it’s true, but it condemns all Democracy, Direct or not. It’s easy to make the argument that “Representative Democracy” is more dangerous than the direct form. Indeed, bad legislation can be reversed, whereas really bad leaders can’t be, once they have seized the Security apparatus.

Socrates and Plato had disserted about the subject of leadership ad nauseam. And incompetently. Whereas Pericles, earlier, advised by better philosophers, including his wife, made a splendid exposition of the “Open Society”. So it’s not a question of times long gone: Pericles expressed the thoughts of Progressive philosophers, whereas Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were of an increasingly fascist and plutocratic persuasion.

Plato’s solution was the Philosopher-King”. That’s an idiotic notion, because a real philosopher has neither the time, nor the inclination, to be king. Similarly a real king has no time, nor inclination, to be a philosopher.

There were many attempts in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century, to make philosopher-kings. Those who really contributed to civilization positively were few: mostly Henri III and Henri IV of France (and perhaps Francois I, or, paradoxically Louis XVI). Then, of course, Peter the Great.

Both Henri III and Peter were great because they did not hesitate to assassinate execute whom they viewed as the most potent enemies of the very progressive States they led… Against determined Salafists (The Catholic League for Henri III, the “Old Believers” for Peter).

Aristotle, a student of Plato, wrote quite a bit about politics. Differently from Plato who hypocritically brandished the concept of philosophy, Aristotle went all-out for monarchy. His students, friends, executors of his will, were the plutocrats who destroyed Greek democracies, and launched the “Hellenistic States” (which lost on the battlefield, but later won the battles of ideas with the Roman Republic). So Aristotle Destroyed Democracy.

Modern Solution: The Grand Democratic Synthesis:

Socrates bemoaned that Athens voted on anything, and elected everybody, including generals. That, he said, made people who did not know how to make shoes in charge of making shoes.

The solution to this was found by the Roman State, and blossomed during the Middle-Ages. It was what I called DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.

Those use the principles of representative democracy and meritocracy inside, while, outside, being strictly subordinated to the government. Guilds, Academic, Medical, Judicial, Engineering organizations are examples. And the Army and Police ought to be foremost.

Example: In the modern German army, soldiers are supposed not just to obey the Military Code, but the German Constitution. In general, all armies ought to take their oath to the Constitution first… Or even its spirit (hence Egypt’s Al Sissi was correct).

Modern Solution: We The People Ought To Legislate:

The model is very simple: Switzerland.

Whereas plutocrats need, with the present system, to just buy 2,000 “representatives” to control the entire planet, they cannot buy billions of people: that would defeat their motivation, which is to rule over We The People, not buy them (that’s the taxation we need to apply to them).

So Who Is The Government?

There, to some extent, Switzerland again comes to the fore: it has an executive council of seven, and the president is elected for a year. The Army has only colonels. Generals are elected in case of imminent war.

The historical model here is the Roman Republic. Its executive system ought to be greatly imitated: A Consul had full powers for just one month (on the following month the other Consul had the powers).

In truth, the Roman Republic worked pretty much as a Direct Democracy, although this system was immensely, and way too complicated.

Instead, we should imitate the Athenian Directly Democratic system. With the Internet, the main problem of Athens, namely that voters found very difficult to come speak, debate, and vote at the National Assembly, can be easily solved.

So what about the objection that We The People is dumb, ill-informed, fickle, prone to madness? As I said, this is Plato-Aristotle objection, and just an excuse for plutocracy (preferably with the “philosopher” on top, gorging himself, as Aristotle did).

Those who do not get educated, and are not motivated for education, stay, indeed, dumb, ill-informed, fickle, prone to madness. But what we see in Switzerland is that the Direct Democracy has made We The People ever more motivated to learn stuff, ever more knowledgeable and wise. One can see the Swiss electorate think and change: as a proposition goes to a “votation”, the polls show opinions changing wildly as the weeks go by, and the debate evolves.

We The People can be educated, learn, and grow in wisdom as children do. Given a chance. The 2,000 individuals who presently rule the world, and their sponsors, who telerobotize them, and increasingly own the planet, quite a bit as the Saudi family does, do not want We The People to be given that chance. So let’s grab it.

Patrice Ayme

Obama Right On Syria

September 24, 2014

Might does not make right, but right needs might.

My frienemies at the New York Times thought smart to pose as superior moral characters with two front pages editorials today on Syria, both entitled “Wrong On Syria”. They lambasted president Obama for doing what I told him to do (at last someone who listens to me!). What did I tell him to do? Bomb (the bad guys in) Syria. First I wanted to do in Assad the Plutocrat, but I admit that the Caliphate is an even juicier objective.

Once upon a time a Frankish-Mongol army entered Damascus (that was not long after the same characters, with Armenian and Georgian help, had destroyed the Caliphate in Baghdad). History does not just repeat itself, its very rich.

Civilization has to be defended. Obama has understood this. Annual spending, in constant dollars, by the Department of Energy and the Atomic Energy Commission on nuclear weapons research, development, testing and production:

Morality & Justice Without Force Are Not To Be

Morality & Justice Without Force Are Not To Be

[It’s all right that you be wrong, as long as I can flatten you.]

One does not want to make the Roman mistake of edifying what came to known as the “Limes”… The limit of the empire, a succession of walls, forts, garrisons, and legions, all around the Empire. Thus, when the bad guys broke through the limes, there was nothing to stop them: the interior of the Empire was essentially defenseless. Very rich, and very defenseless. When the Goths rampaged through Roman Asia, the Balkans, and Greece, in the middle of the Third Century, it took years to send a Roman army after them (they immediately fled).

On December 31, 406 CE, the Rhine froze so thoroughly and suddenly, that entire German nations galloped across. Among them, the Vandals. By then, thanks to an austerity program, the Roman army was actually the Frankish army. The Franks, who had beaten the Germans several times in years prior, in Bavaria, were taken by complete surprise, thanks to this freak weather event. After a torrent of German nations (reminiscent of the “torrent of German tanks” of May 1940) pierced through the Alsatian plain, there was nothing to stop them. The Vandals charged through Gaul, and then Spain. They soon invaded rich and completely defenseless Africa, which had known peace, the famed Pax Romana, for 5 centuries.

Italy, and Rome, never recovered from this.

History exists, to inform us. Syria and Mesopotamia used to be part of the Roman empire, so Obama can argue we are back home.

Even earlier in history, recent, 2014 genetic studies show that Mesopotamian, Fertile Crescent farming came to Europe under the form of the farmers who knew how to do it. This result was obtained by genetic analysis of Greeks… who are therefore, at least, partly, Iraqis.

So the West ought to relax: the Middle Earth is where it’s coming from. Russia is eleven time zones across, but Mesopotamia is just a time zone away from Paris and London. It’s the suburbs. Time to take care of them, by subjugating the awful systems of ideas that festered there (without naming it, of course, some of the critique of Obama at the UN could be viewed as pointed straight towards the Qur’an, which contains therein an evil system of thought, in no way less Satanic than the one in the Bible, as the Cathars no doubt noticed).

The New York Times editorials stupidly argued that Obama and Hollande had no right to bomb Iraq, and needed a UN Security Council authorization. That’s doubly dumb: first, common sense, human rights, the teaching of history, can override the UNSC. Although India just successfully sent a probe to Mars, the UN, and is predecessor, the SDN, were fundamentally French ideas which were finally implemented by the USA in 1944 (San Francisco, Bretton Woods).

Secondly, of course, Iraq is a sovereign nation. So if the legitimate government of Iraq wants France and the USA to bomb the bad guys on its territory, that is its sovereign prerogative. And that’s exactly what happened.

OK, the situation is extremely messy: there are bad guys all over. But that does not mean goodness ought to sit on its hands. That was the mistake made in 1936, when the rogue African army of general Franco attacked the Spanish Republic. France announced loudly she would intervene, and then backed-off, while the Nazis and Italian fascists got emboldened. In the end, Franco and his professional killers assassinated millions of Spaniards, and the Nazis and fascists got trained in all sorts of ways. Meanwhile, the Western democracies got used to the idea that it was better to do nothing.

This time, the show of force is a lesson to the world. Obama said at the UN that force was the only language the killers understood. Yes, right. And one of these killers is Putin. The Kremlin dictator stands warned: if he wants war too much, he will get it.

Using extreme violence is not the best outcome for superior morality, but it is sometimes the one and only optimal outcome, as far as civilization is concerned. This is such a case. The New York Times can pose all it wants, it’s as wrong as it was in 2003, justifying the invasion of Iraq.

Patrice Ayme’

President Obalande?

February 14, 2014

One of the best evolution for civilization would be for France and the USA to get ever closer. France, hence Europe, as the latter is the latest ruse for an amplification of the former.

Well, and that’s very good, Barack Obama, differently from his dumb predecessors since the clever Kennedy (“Ich bin ein Berliner”… das ist, ich bin französisch…) has understood that France and the USA ought to be as close as possible.

After all, with a France-USA union of minds, there would have been no Iraq war, no Afghanistan war (Carter’s war against Afghanistan of 1979 was oriented against France, not just the USSR), no Hitler (FDR would have obeyed France in 1934, and cracked down against the Anglo-Saxon supports of Hitler), and no First World War (because, with the early and immediate help of the USA, either the Kaiser would not have attacked, or been quickly defeated by blockade).

The enlightened Obama (not to be confused with the drone rabid version) is turning things around. I saw the French president this week, in San Francisco’s Silicon Valley, of all places. I will relate the two things that astounded me most.

But first a bit of background:

The war between France and other colonists of the Americas, has been one of the longest: it is well in its fifth century. With Spain it was won, long ago: the Spanish king, more than three centuries ago, chose a Bourbon to succeed him (that started the world War of the Spanish Succession, and Louis XIV won it only by losing pieces of France… never recovered since.)

A generation earlier, after more than a century of war, the French army, having insured the creation and independence of the Netherlands (itself an 80 year long war) against fascist theocratic Spain, had defeated the (so far undefeated) “Spanish Squares”.

As I explained in the preceding essay, Jefferson, although a Francophile, was himself a philosophical battleground between the Liberty-Equality-Fraternity notion, the most human notion, and the Exploitative Principle, part of the Dark Side (which is to grab all what one can grab; recent experimental studies in human ethology have shown that the EP is extremely contagious.)

In all these conflicts, it’s all a matter of relative positions. France was more for Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, because that’s how the Franks established the successor regime of the pure Roman (-Catholic) state.

Spain was reconquered from a difference mentality, that of intolerance and revenge: the Reconquista. It applied not just to Muslims, but, less excusably, to Jews. At the same time some Jihad characteristics, such as Holy War, torture and slavery were kept as if they were precious gifts. Hence the clash with France (all the more as imperial Spain, having conquered all of Europe but for tiny England and large France, fed, as much as possible, seven religious civil wars in France, in the period 1550-1600 CE!)

So wars, contrarily to what clueless and lazy pacifists affect to believe, do not just arise from the badness of human nature, or making too many knives, but, all too often, deep down inside, wars arise from, and reflect, genuine philosophical differences… That can be settled only by war: think of the conflict between tiny Athens and the fascist plutocratic imperial Persian hyperpower.

Such wars, if the best philosophical side win, contribute positively to civilization.

The war of Athens against Persia was fundamentally a conflict between direct democracy and representative plutocracy (the Persian empire was an empire of nations).

So there I was. Listening to Hollande, the French Resident of the Élysée, in the San Francisco Bay Area.

My first astonishment was that all he said part of my own program. There was absolutely nothing I disagreed with. (That, of course, does not mean that Hollande’s vast world vision reduces to my much more cosmic grasp. Far from it!)

I had no disagreement with what he said, whatsoever, from Ukraine, to Syria, to using English (= Anglo-Normand, as I put it) in French education, to duplicating the successful techno-industrial-financial recipes of Silicon Valley (including “corporate venturing”, when a giant corporation, such as Cisco, Google or Microsoft  invest in start-ups).

I was pleasantly surprised when the French president, a socialist, breezingly stated that the making of what I call the Transatlantic Economic Area between the USA and the EU ought to be accelerated.

On this later point Hollande said the forces of opposition to the USA-EU union ought to be given no time to organize.

I believe that Obama desires to leave a more positive legacy than the two Bushes. He still has a chance: he can heavily reform Obamacare towards Medicare For All, he can find ways to decrease the greenhouse emissions of the USA (using the EPA)… and China (though customs threats), and he can cooperate with Europe.

A Transatlantic Economic Area would be a good occasion to ram positive reforms on both sides of the Atlantic, by arguing one has to duplicate the best, and throw away the bad, on each side of the pond.

A small example: In exchange for the anticipation of juicier profits, from a larger (USA-EU) market, Republicans may be willing to concede that poisoning Monarch Butterflies and bees is something that we could do without.

That union of unions would require that the cultural exception survives (lest the USA, or rather its army of Hollywood and its phalanx of plutocratic corporations, swallow everything). As Hollande pointed out, the cultural exception is not just about France.

Indeed France is big enough demographically and civilizationally to survive culturally… but not so most others (and that is basically nearly all other European countries; once one removes the six most populous countries of the EU; the average demographic size of the remainder is less than ten million, each of them a nation, with its own culture, history and civilization.)

The Transatlantic Economic Area (TEA) ought to go all the way to a free circulation of individuals and professions (extend Schengen!). Not to do so makes no sense, at least no sense between France (thus Germany!) and the USA.

What is the meaning of all this?

As I have explained countless times, France and the USA are two SISTER republics, THE sister republics. Those sister republics were born entangled together in 1789. Try as it may, the UK is not yet a republic. Try as he could, Bliar Blair left us with a Chamber of Lords.

Hollande reminded everybody in sight what I say all the time, namely that the United Nation Charter is a direct amplification of the 1789 Franco-American constitutional adventure (yes, France first, because the Franks’ Freedom obsession is from 17 centuries back).

The second thing that astonished me was the extravagant security. Secret Services, US Marshalls, local police and even “Federal Reserve Police “, with dogs, were there. And then there was French security. No less than 20 French Secret Service bodyguards were in full evidence around Hollande, but more were hidden as regular attendees (male and female). Twice apparent civilians showed me a badge discreetly and asked me to stop taking pictures of… security personel.

Most telling was the smart French military officer, complete with peaked white cap and cute gold ribbons. He was carrying the thick black computer case with the nuclear codes.

Imagine the French president ordering nuclear strikes from the Silicon Valley.

Well, this is actually a good sign. If America and France cooperate, it’s back to what it was 450 years ago, and where it ought to have always be.

Neither uncommon thoughts, nor uncommon individuals, arise from common situations. Fully integrating the American and European civilizations will bring us out of what has been all too common for centuries. From this higher point of view, greater conceptions will blossom.

Patrice Aymé

Note: What of Britain in all this? Well, it’s a psychiatric case. PM Cameron wants to ask the Brits if they want to part of the EU in a referendum. This shows that Britain is falling back in mental childhood. Not a serious partner. Proof? Well, Britain is experiencing the wettest winter in 250 years. What to do? Well, use the Princes (Harry Hairy, etc.), the army, but also, ask the European Union for a 200 million dollar emergency help…

Jefferson: Bountiful Barbarity

February 11, 2014

Jefferson was an abominable human being. That helped make him an irreplaceable Founding Father, and great American president.

Obama got the bright idea to celebrate the Francophile, long time Paris resident, and Franco-inspired Jefferson with Hollande, to celebrate their love and partnership. I want to thank him for giving me the occasion of firing a broadside at another celebrity, mounted on a colossal amount of darkness.

Civilizations are defined by, and articulated around, master ideas, and the celebrities that incarnated them. Jefferson became one of the greatest American presidents, because he was so abominable. Let me explain.

Why The USA Really Got Rid Of The Brits: To Invade Indian Lands

Why The USA Really Got Rid Of The Brits: To Invade Indian Lands

Sorry to break the spell: the USA did not revolt just because of taxation without representation, but because of a frontier with limitations. (Details in past and future essays.)

The president of the USA showed the president of France the neo-classical palace where Jefferson, the third president of the USA, held his slaves. They both admired whatever they were supposed to admire. Ironical.

Jefferson turned into a great enemy of both France and people of African descent. Jefferson’s purchase of gigantic Louisiana (1803) was the result of his massive CIA-NSA like secret support of the black rebellion in Haiti, to weaken France. In spite of his fear that “the blacks are out to murder us”. But, for Jefferson, greed proved stronger than fear.

Jefferson was twice part of the crack diplomatic team in Paris coordinating crucial help from Louis XVI. The French police visited his residence and ordered him to pay his servants a living wage, and to free them, because slavery was unlawful in France. (Slavery had been unlawful for eleven centuries.) Jefferson is the nexus of the American Dark Side, the quintessential horror of winner take all exploitation.

When the time came to go home to fight the war, Jefferson’s slaves wanted to stay in Paris. However Jefferson promised them freedom. He lied. In his lifetime, Jefferson freed just two slaves.

Jefferson, one of the wealthiest plutocrats in Virginia, held more than 200 slaves. When Jefferson, an author of the Declaration of Independence wrote: “He has excited domestic insurrections among us,” he was actually condemning the English King for “inciting American Negroes to rise in arms against their masters.”

While governor of Virginia for years during the Revolution, Jefferson promoted military enlistment by offering white men “a healthy sound Negro…or £60 in gold or silver”. Hey boys, let’s boogie.

The cult of Jefferson is strong in Washington. Jefferson has his own memorial, much more interesting and beautiful than the massive, Nuremberg bunker like Lincoln Memorial. Inside engraved on the walls, soaring writings of Jefferson.

As president, Jefferson massacred Indians and stole their land. That was, of course, horrific. Only an abominable person could do such a thing. Jefferson was that abominable person. He had carefully trained by mistreating his slaves and raping children. (Sally Hemming, who he bedded when she was at most 14, was three quarter Caucasian.)

The Dark Side of Jefferson was strong. A friend of his, an idealistic Polish Count, who had fought in the American War of Independence, left Jefferson, in his will, a considerable amount of money, so that Jefferson could free his own slaves. Jefferson pocketed the money, and did not free his slaves.

Patriotic Americans, most of them more or less descendants of European immigrants to America (yes, even Michelle Obama) are supposed, implicitly, to be grateful to the child rapist, slave master, holocauster Jefferson. How do I know this? Well, that’s what the cult of Jefferson is all about. Or actually the cult of the USA, as the USA owes so much to Jefferson.

Let Jefferson speak in his own words:

our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians… it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi , as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation….this strategy would “get rid of this pest, without giving offence or umbrage to the Indians”.

In cases where Native tribes resisted assimilation, Jefferson believed that they should be forcefully sent west. Jefferson in a letter to no less than Alexander von Humboldt, 1813:

“You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. … On the commencement of our present war, we pressed on them the observance of peace and neutrality, but the interested and unprincipled policy of England has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.

Jefferson ordered his Secretary of War, General Henry Dearborn (top government official responsible for Indian affairs): “…we will never lay [the hatchet against any tribe] down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi”

Obama did good to celebrate Jefferson with Hollande in their presidential field trip. Jefferson, ultimately, celebrated the Enlightenment. But the road to light led through darkness.

And what if France and Britain, instead of fighting with each other, had kept control of North America? Well, the place would have got more civilized, much earlier, and Prussian anti-semitic racial fascism, and thus the USSR, would never have arisen. The USA may not have become as strong. But then, there would have been no need…

Last, but not least. Jefferson implemented further what I call the “exploitative mentality“. That’s the mood attending, but not reserved, to foundation of the English North American colony (think of the “Virginia Company and her sisters, properties of bloodied plutocrats, the West Country Men). Some, in their naivety, will smart that this is the past. Not so.

The dominant economist system of thought claims markets ought to decide all.

That system is called “Austrian” (because of Hayek and company). That anachronistic name cover-ups its sinister nature. The exploitative mentality is how the USA was founded. “Markets” loved slavery & Indian holocausts, and thus implemented them. Markets sell everything, even civilization.

Patrice Aymé

Microbes Also Make History

July 1, 2012

BAD LEADERS CAN RUIN A CIVILIZATION.

Sarkozy Made Merkel Crucially Bad. Most Big Powers Despise The Biosphere Officially. Obama Loves Fire.

***

Abstract: Three Italians named Marios have put Merkel on the ropes. It turns out, as the head of the German Socialists pointed out in parliament, six weeks after the presidency went to a socialist in France, conservative Merkel changed her music completely. She signed on measures she had insisted were against the German constitution. Such as the mutualization of the cost of defaulting banks (why should that be will be made clear below).

Not just that, but, having fallen in a trap the French socialists set for her, Merkel has already modified the German CONSTITUTION, to please them. Overnight, literally. (As I had predicted would happen.)

Americans don’t even remember when their constitution was changed last. Actually the USA does not change its constitution, just details, by “amending” it. The lack of change is built-in as the USA has NO constitutional court (strictly speaking, thus explaining SCOTUS‘ fear to be seen playing with the constitution). France and Germany, having learned from the past, have constitutional courts, and that is helpful as European construction requires continual constitutional changes.

There are broader lessons in this. If just one man, a small man who ran all the time, after his own legs, the French Nicholas Sarkozy, could, all by himself, put Europe and even the world, in a huge financial crisis, how many of these dangerous mongrels are out there?

If one lover of private bankers, Sarkozy, arrogant in his rabid stupidity, could, all by himself, keep hundreds of millions oppressed throughout Europe, how come more people are not waking up to throw similar rascals out?

It is interesting to observe that the dividing line is not so much between left and right, but between those who think the state should serve the richest folks for all to see, and those who aspire to more subtlety. The fact that the French socialists conspired instantaneously with the conservatives in Spain and Italy shows this.

What Sarkozy and Merkel did, was to enable further ruin of national states in Europe. As there is no European Federal state, that came down to transferring ever more power to those who manage the globally corrupt financial system and those who profit from it, the global plutocracy and its servants.

Similarly, the contempt of the most influential leaders for the biosphere, evident from their absence at the Rio United Nations Conference On Sustainable Development, is exemplary of their contempt for life. So what do they admire? As my essay “Sage of Obama” demonstrated, they admire the creatures who have sustainable power, even if based on criminal practice, upon most of the People (see also PM Cameron below for insufferable hypocrisy). This is another drawback of representative “democracy”: it selects the leadership of those who crave for power, amutually admiring society. 

***

THOSE WHO ADMIRE CRIME SHALL LIVE AS SERFS:

As long as one insists that mafiosi are good fellows, one will not get rid of the Mafia. So it was in the USA: the mafia was flourishing, until a  number of movies (Including the aptly named “The Godfather“, and “Good Fellows“) demonstrated to the vast public that mafiosi, although charming in many ways, and craving for honor, were not just pillars of society, but disgusting criminals perverting all of society.

That new found revulsion gave justice and law enforcement the necessary context and encouraging mood to treat the criminals, as the criminals they were.

The same job remains to be done in global finance. As long as one insists that global finance mafiosi are good fellows, one will not get rid of the global finance Mafia. Justice will come, only after a mood of revulsion will set in.

The criminal problem posed by global finance is of course not of the same order of magnitude as the Mafia. The Mafia never brought the entire world economy to a halt, and never threatened the biosphere as we know it, with extinction. Global finance and its allies do. The danger they present is immensely greater. (I have also argued forcefully that global plutocracy was behind the various fascisms of the 1930s, including Stalinism, as Lenin himself foresaw!)

Some have made the additions, and found that the 2008 banking crash (which is still unfolding) was 100 times greater than the Savings and Loans banking crash in the USA under Reagan and Bush I. However in the latter case, more than 10,000 prosecutions and 1,000 condemnations against bank managers were obtained.

Under Obama, so far, none. Where there is a will, there is a way. However, microbes don’t even need a will to find a way.

Just watch most of the global finance loving leaders: they did not even bother to go to the Rio de Janeiro world ecological summit. Of the important world leaders, only the French socialist president Hollande showed up. The other permanent members of the UN Security Council do not worry about the security threat presented by the rising of the seas. Germany’s Merkel, anxious to build another 26 new coal plants, of course did not show up either. Fossil fuel Merkel will be fondly remember when Hamburg fights the rising ocean.

Thousands of the most important men in global finance should not be lionized as Obama did with Warren Buffet, or Dimon, or Rubin, Summers (See “Sage of Obama”). The mood of blind admiration for financial pirates has to be changed. By the way, such  a change of mood happened with piracy, four or three centuries ago.

Piracy had started honorably (lettres de marque, corsairs). Francis Drake, who discovered the San Francisco Bay and beat off the Spanish Armada, was, with his colleagues, a corsair, a type of pirate. 150 years later the mood changed, because the pirates had gone too far, taking over entire island, making trade difficult for everybody. Then the states actively suppressed piracy. It did not take long, once Britain and France took the decision to do so: pirates were found, and hanged, from the Carribean, to the Indian ocean.

We are in a similar situation with financial piracy today: if the states cracked down, it would be over in a matter of weeks.

Actually, come to think of it, there was an even more spectacular precedent. Under the late Roman republic, preoccupied by civil war between the Populares and the plutocrats, piracy grew in the Mediterranean, to the point that there were pirate cities, pirate islands, and trade was being extinguished. When finally the distracted Roman government was forced to focus on the problem, it gave full powers to a young Pompeius Magnus to clean the Mediterranean of the pirates. It took him only three months, to everybody’s amazement.

Something similar happened in the Mediterranean, again, when France and Britain, shamed by the Navy of the USA, also took action against the pirates in Algiers and Tripoli. It is important to remember that what the naive and ignorant describe as simple colonial adventures did not start that way at all, but instead as military operations against imperialism (Napoleon in Egypt!), or against piracy (US Navy against Libya, then, decades later, Royal Navy against Algiers’pirates, followed, finally, another decade later, by French invasion… Or counter-invasion, as the French argued they represented Rome, which had been chased out by the Arab invasion of the late 7C). 

So mankind has to learn to view financial plutocrats as the criminals they are. Common people do not know that global finance has set-up a machine to divert all of the world money to itself. Instead, in their naivety, they attribute what is criminal to a form of genius. One is reminded of the Bible, where the people chose to save the king of the bandits rather than the righteous Christ.

Common folks are mystified by global finance, as practiced today. They cannot know that it is just organized crime, because the machine is hidden behind non linear mathematics, and common people don’t know mathematics, even much simpler than that.

The Godfather, as incarnated by Marlon Brando or Warren Buffet has undeniable charm, the fascist instinct in man wants such a grandfatherly leader, but that’s exactly what the state of law is not.

The huge and prestigious banks Barclays, which has its own skyscraper in London, was found to have manipulated interest rates to its own interest, illegally. It was condemned to a fine of more than 360 million Euros. But its chairman stayed in place.  

Curiously the daemons at the head of JP Morgan and Barclays, are named Dimon and Diamond. The former went to the USA House and Senate with giant presidential cuff links. The questions were polite: the senators and Congresspersons are on his payroll. And the other daemon, Diamond, in Britain, made sure to give to charity, for schools, millions.

They steal billions from taxpayers, and then give millions, and get to be called “philanthropists”. Singer Bono, for example, is a philanthropist; he makes billions from facebook, while singing about the poor, to enrich himself, and showing off with the president and other friendly plutocrats and their obsequious servants.

***

WITHOUT SARKOZY THE DISSEMBLER, MERKEL CRUMBLES:

Meanwhile the plutophile Merkel suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of the coalition led by Socialist France. Let me explain.

Mario Draghi was for six years a partner at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs has been in the habit of making partners in its lucrative organization Europeans with high responsibilities (such as EC commissioners, some German, or central bankers, such as Draghi). This way they can be paid, for their attention while serving Goldman as apparently independent agents. Goldman thus rewards those who had its interests at heart.

The drawback for global finance, is that such officials, should they betray the criminals, know the method of the global financial Mafia, and where some the bodies are buried.

Draghi is now head of the ECB, the European Central Bank, and he suggested in June 2012 that a European Banking Union was needed. As it is now, when a bank fails the state the bank nominally belongs to, is supposed to step in. This is unrealistic, as the banks in Europe straddle borders heavily.

For example Italian banks owe more than 310 billion euros to French banks. German banks owe more than 200 billions to French banks, about what British banks owe to French banks, and French banks owe more than 125 billion euros to German banks. meanwhile British banks owe nearly 400 billions euros to German banks. Those who want to amuse themselves with these numbers can consult the BBC website (with its apparently misleading title, “Eurozone debt“, or is it a Freudian slip that, after all, to tell the real truth, Britain is in the Eurozone?).

Financial markets responded favorably to the June 28-29 maneuver, with Irish borrowing costs for 10 years dropping to their lowest level since the month before the November 2010 EU-IMF bailout.

The maneuver consisted into creating, soon, a European equivalent of TARP. So in the future, when a bank will fail, a common European fund will europeanize it (in contrast with nationalizing it).

It is a first step to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns,” said European Council president Herman Van Rompuy.

Verily this circle is worldwide, even the Chinese Premier admitted that much… About supposedly communist China: he explained banks too big to fail, even in China, got their way, and that had to change.

***

MERKEL’S HUMILIATION:

The evening started badly for Merkel, who had hysterically celebrated the victory of Germany over Greece the week before (in the soccer cup). An Italian named Mario, black like charcoal, scored twice against Germany. Then he rushed to kiss his (white) mama, who had adopted him from Ghana at age two. Very touching.

Under Hitler, Germans whose fathers had been black French army soldiers, were forcibly sterilized to the German population’s rabid applause, characteristic of scared rodents. There were several thousands of those unfortunate mixed race Germans (as manly French soldiers occupied Germany a bit after the later refused to pay for its wanton and deliberate destruction of France and Belgium in 1914-1918).

Many Germans will say;”Oh, this was then, this is now, we Germans don’t revisit the past, and think guilt is passe'”. Well, now came from then. Some of what German officials said in recent weeks proved this again. Bundesbank official talked about the Greeks as if they were dogs. Just like then. Germans do not own the Greek currency anymore in 2012 than they did in 1941.

1941 was the year when Germany invaded Greece to extricate the army of the fascist Mussolini from its invasion of Greece in 1940, which had backfired. The Greeks were defeated by Hitler, but, just as the Battle of France a year earlier, the Battle of Greece caused enormous losses to the German armed forces. So, a few weeks later, it was a much diminished German army that attacked the USSR. For example the German paratroop corps was eliminated while taking over Crete, and would reappear, much diminished, only during the Vercors Battle of Spring 1944, the diversion insurrection that allowed D Day in Normandy to proceed (by diverting 20,000 elite German troops, including SS paratroopers).

There are human rights abuses in Germany now, some major ones, such as no minimum wage. One cannot claim to be superior when one uses slave labor, same as then. Does our children ever learn, as G.W. Bush, grandson of one of Hitler’s most famous collaborator, Prescott Bush, would say.

So back to Merkel. After the terrible black Mario had scored twice against the Mannschaft (“the team”), there she was meeting with the 26 other leaders of Europe. What an evening!

Suddenly, the conservatives in Spain and Italy made a united front. At 11pm, they said they were not signing the document they had in front of them. For all the talk of Germany’s crushing superiority, Spain’s Rajoy and Italy’s Mario Monti represent more than 100 million people, and more GDP than Germany.

At that point, unheard of in a European Union summit, ever, a leader rose and left. French president Hollande stepped out, in an implicit support to Spain and Italy. Merkel could not call on her mighty ally. She was all alone. where was Sarkozy the plutophile, when she needed him?

Several hours later, Merkel, and the plutocrats she represents, capitulated. Banks in need will henceforth be Europeanized, getting money directly from the ECB (thus not increasing the debts of states such as Italy or Spain anymore). Hollande came back, and signed. Merkel looked haggard. Two defeat at the hands of “super Marios” in 12 hours…

When Merkel went back to her Parliament to get the two thirds majority she needs to change the German Constitution, the (physically large) chief of the Socialists (she needed to sign on) ironically observed that what she declared, two weeks earlier, to be anti-Constitutional, now that the French socialist controlled the National Assembly, she pushed to make it into law.

Evil men can hide behind regulations, or lack thereof, but they can’t escape the justice of history.

To tell us there are no banksters does not help. One cannot stop the Mafia, if one call Mafiosi, good fellows.

***

WE CONSPIRE & HATE THE BIOSPHERE, What’s Your Problem?

If just Sarkozy could prevent progress on a banking union, what can a conspiracy of anti-ecological leaders do? At the Rio ecological summit, where the subject was saving the biosphere, none of the most major leaders were present, except, once again, France’s socialist president Hollande.

Dr. Merkel went back to Germany, busy, as she is, to build 26 new giant coal plants. Australian leaders did not show up: after all Australia lives off coal sold to Asia. Putin runs a petro-gas state. China breathes coal and the mercury vapor burning coal provides with, perfumes the atmosphere, forgive our mental retardation. Obama beams from fracking and the plutocrats he feeds, just as they feed him.

British PM Cameron is beyond any decent description: he now fights what he calls a “culture of entitlement“, by removing subsidies to those who cannot afford lodging. I guess, he fights himself, as he was born with ten gold spoon in his mouth. PM Cameron inherited a considerable entitlement, he is in the know. And see: he does not need help, this is the proper culture of entitlement.

Cameron’s father was a stock broker and then an off shore fund manager, presumably not to pay more taxes; an ancestor was king; the Sunday Times Rich List compiler Philip Beresford, said: “I put the combined family wealth of David and Samantha Cameron at £30 million plus. Both sides of the family are extremely wealthy.” Yes, let’s fight the entitled, Camie boy!

Meanwhile the USA is experiencing record high temperatures, fires are burning, Obama shows off with the muscular firefighters among the smoldering ruins. No need for a carbon tax, we are already burning. Pathogens make history. The Arctic icepack is tracking at record lows. The poles are melting, the plutocrats are reigning, what could go wrong?

***

Patrice Ayme