Posts Tagged ‘Libya’

Logic Is Not Everything: It Can Be Anything

February 24, 2016

A common mistake among many of the simple ones, is that, as long as we keep calm and use logic, we can solve any conflict. It was understandable that one could do such a mistake due to naivety and inexperience, before the Twentieth Century. However, we have now, black on white and well known, demonstrations to the contrary, in formal systems studied by professional logicians. Besides, as The French Republic is demonstrating in Libya again, in collaboration with the USA, war has a logic which squashable critters don’t have.

Yes, I am also thinking of the famous Incompleteness Theorems, but, obviously, not only. There is way worse.

This Means All Important Choice Have to Do With Love, Esthetics, Will, Power, Craziness, The Proverbial Human Factors. Logic Can't Go Where The Heart Rules. Or Then Go Into METAlogic.

This Means All Important Choice Have to Do With Love, Esthetics, Will, Power, Craziness, The Proverbial Human Factors. Logic Can’t Go Where The Heart Rules. Or Then Go Into METAlogic.

Before I get in incompleteness and further evils, let me recap some of the traditional approach. I thank in passing Massimo P, for calling my attention to this.

The value of logic, February 23, 2016, Massimo

logicThis is going to be short and rather self-explanatory, with no additional commentary on my part necessary at all. Here is the full transcription of Epictetus’ Discourses, II.25, a gem to keep in mind for future use:

“When one of his audience said, ‘Convince me that logic is useful,’ he said, Would you have me demonstrate it?

‘Yes.’

Well, then, must I not use a demonstrative argument? And, when the other agreed, he said, How then shall you know if I impose upon you?

And when the man had no answer, he said, You see how you yourself admit that logic is necessary, if without it you are not even able to learn this much–whether it is necessary or not.”

Actually Epictetus uses “logic”, it seems to me, rather in its original sense, a discourse. Yet Massimo, like the moderns, will tend to use logic as it was meant in, say, 1900, just before Bertrand Russell objected to Frege’s forgetfulness of the “Liar Paradox” in his formal system justifying arithmetic. A further exploitation of the Liar Paradox brought the incompleteness theorems.

Logic is indeed how human beings communicate. Logic enables debate, and debate is the equivalent of sex, among ideas. It generates entirely new species. However post Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, logic has progressed much.

Modern studies in logic show formal logic can be pretty much anything. Formal systems contradicting the most cherished axioms have been found to be consistent. Some have cute names, such as “paradoxical logic”, “fuzzy logic”, “linear logic”. Thus, Logical Pluralism has been discovered. “Classical Logic” (which neither complete nor coherent) is just a particular case. In some logics, a proposition can be neither true, nor false.

Along the line of ones of the greatest logician and mathematicians of the 20th Century, Generalized Tarski Thesis (GTT):
An argument is valid if and only if in every case in which the premises are true, so is the conclusion.
So yes, madness can be logical. “Logic”, per se, is not much of a constraint. It’s only a set of coherent rules to draw a conclusion. The only constraint is to keep on talking.
The Ancient Greeks would have been very surprised.

So if logic is not the end-all, be all, what is?

Knowledge. Knowledge of the details. In other words, knowledge of evil. That is why, when I demonstrate, using knowledge, that Marcus Aurelius, supposedly the big time Stoic philosopher, makes the apology of Intellectual Fascism, I hear the cries of the Beotians, whose pathetic logic have crushed underfoot. What happened? I went outside of their logic. So they insult me. (Should I spurn them, and make them feel that I have nothing to say, or insult them back, by showing them, and others, what idiots they are? Sitting on one’s hand in front of rabid fascism is neither wise, nor safe!)

In other news, French special forces are operating on the ground in Libya, helping, among other things, very precise US strikes. This is a case of using the same logic as the enemy. The Islamists terrorize and kill: a logic which is pretty drastic. It can also be adopted. Let see how it goes, when the country with the greatest, longest military tradition, adopts it too. (France has a long history of drastic war against invading Islamists, since the Battle of Toulouse, in 721 CE)

Speaking of the enemy, the French Internal Revenue Service is forcing Google Inc., the famous monopoly. to pay back taxes. Google has sent the clown it uses as CEO to Paris. Google was transferring profits it made in France through Ireland, and then Bermuda. The bill? 1.6 BILLION Euros. Great Britain has a similar situation and economy, but is asking for only a tenth of that. Such is plutocracy: greater in the UK than in France.

Ah, the French Defense Ministry is not denying media reports that the French army is in combat, on the ground, in Libya. Instead, the French government has announced the start of an inquiry for finding out who compromised National Defense. In other words, it wants it to be known. Or there is much more coming, which it wants to hide. Or then American paranoia is contagious.

In other news, Belgium, historically a part of Gaul, has closed its border with France, as if Belgium were Great Britain, and France, full of Huns (instead of only Afghans). Amusingly, and a testimony of how much old gripes have subsidized, the Franco-German border stays open.

Logic is not all. Facts are much more important, including facts on the ground.

Patrice Ayme’

A Simple Request: That Legal Religions Do Not Call For Killing People

December 11, 2015

If The Romans Already Did It, Why Can’t We?

Indeed, the Romans outlawed any religion conducive to human sacrifice. Let’s heed their example. Each time someone preaches, in the name of god, dog, or the local camel messenger, to kill some category of people, let’s put them in jail for ten years. And if they keep on preaching there, makes that solitary confinement (hey, that’s what Sultan Saladin imposed in the Twelfth Century: I have the best advisers!)

We hear this, we hear that. Some people say we should not fear religions who want to kill us, or which want to kill entire categories of people we view as innocent. Out of respect. What? Respect for whom? The executioners? I have nothing against executioners, as long as they execute for good reasons.

We also hear that what is good for one, is bad for the other, and vice versa, so it all does not matter, everything is relative. Except, not everything is relative. Poincare’ named the “Principle of Relativity”, relativity of UNIFORM motion. Accelerated motion is something else entirely. It is not relative. Actually a twin accelerated close to light speed lives longer, because she is the one accelerating at some point. So physics does not say all is relative, far from it.

State of Islamists: Killing (Ethiopian) Christians, Just Because They Are Christians

State of Islamists: Killing (Ethiopian) Christians, Just Because They Are Christians

[Men straddling squirming men: cheap sexual thrill?]

Who is “we”? The Charter of the United Nations, in other words the Rights of Man and the Citizen. That, too, is not relative. The Rights of Man are anchored in human ethology, the Cult of Man.

I was watching a debate on German TV, brandishing approvingly considerations of Mr. Macron, the plutocratic French finance minister, claiming “Muslim violence” was related to poverty and exclusion.  I subscribe myself to this thesis, and have done so for ever. However, it’s getting to be so much yesterday.

Material poverty can be boosted by intellectual poverty. Ordering all of one’s life around “reciting” the same little book, makes for a very small brain.

Exclusion is no doubt facilitated by a literally religious urge, to kill one’s neighbors, and all sorts of them. I have provided with enough quotes to make it clear that so it is with the “Cult of Death’s” most sacred texts.

Here are quotes I did not use before, and found in the Hadith, the indispensable, loquacious companion to the all-too short Qur’an:

Muhammad Got His Critics Killed (Think Charlie Hebdo):

Hadith from Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’

Hadith from Ishaq 551: “Another victim was Huwayrith. He used to insult Muhammad in Mecca. Huwayrith was put to death by Ali.

Ishaq:597 “When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized and insulted him. The scared poets who were left, ran away in all directions.”

State of Islamists: Slicing Throats Of Egyptian Christians Just As Muhammad In The Hadith

State of Islamists: Slicing Throats Of Egyptian Christians Just As Muhammad In The Hadith

[Yes, gory again, and I don’t condone goriness; however those who avert their eyes, DO condone it, because they refuse their hearts to get agitated by horrors: that makes them anxious to live in good intelligence with horror. There again, Christians were assassinated just for being Christians who happened to be in Libya, a land which was Christian for six centuries, before being invaded by Islamists propelled by Muhammad’s Hadith and Qur’an; comment below the picture is a translation from the Islamist State; Egypt retaliated by bombing the Islamist State.]

Serious doctors and students of the Islamist Faith know that, interpreted textually, literally, as it is, the Faith is completely incompatible with civilization. For civilization to survive, this has to be understood in a timely manner. In a more timely manner than was understood with Christianism. (Which nearly destroyed civilization, especially around 400 CE.)

Muhammad Punished Well:

Ishaq 595 “The Apostle said, ‘Get him away from me and cut off his tongue.””

Ishaq:316 “Following Badr, Muhammad sent a number of raiders with orders to capture some of the Meccans and burn them alive.”

(A little horror is most persuasive!)

Muhammad Killed Refuseniks and Apostates:

Sunan Abu -Dawud,4390  “Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”

Ishaq:551: “The Messenger [Muhammad] ordered Miqyas’ assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”

Bukhari:V4B52N260: “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'”

Tabari VIII:143 ” He set out with fifteen men. He encountered a large force whom he summoned to Islam. They refused to respond so he killed all of them.”

Surprise Attacks on Villages Brings Booty and Captured Women:

Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer [Prayer of Fear] near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, ‘Allahu-Akbar!’ [Allah is Greatest] ‘ Then the inhabitants came out running on their roads. The Prophet had their men killed; their children and woman were taken as captives.”
The Prophet enjoyed 17 year old Safia as his share of booty.

Bukhari vol 3,Book46, No. 717: “Narrated Ibn Aun: The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.” (Reference: Waqqidi, Tabari)

So why have we become weaker morally than the Romans? The Romans of the Republic?

Because, meanwhile, lethally minded, apocalyptically longing Christianism passed by, and Islamism is its mentally retarded desert progeny (although Judaism was the other participant of this hellish union). Because also, more recently, plutocrats have realized their colleagues in Saudi Arabia and the like, were their natural allies and collaborators. Thus, the more severe Islamism, natural enemy of civilization, was favored. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, thought plutocrats, and they control the media, so they could make it so, and program the public for its own destruction.

Plutocrats control not just the media , but also the politicians, and, also, all those who passed, all too long, for the wisest philosophers the world could produce. And were nothing of the sort: celebrity philosophers (Sartre, Camus, “French Theorists” etc.) who, in the end, just preached the destruction of the civilization which harbor them, should be abhorred, rather than harbored.

Meanwhile, in Paris, at the CO2 conference, the possibility of limiting warming to 1.5 degree Centigrade was seriously considered.
To do so, though, one will have to touch all forms of transportation, including air transport, which emits 12% of transport CO2. However the COP 21 Paris conference excluded air transportation from the talks.

It’s the same problem as with the Cult of Death: why to make exceptions? Why to exclude the Cult of Death from the spirit of the law? Why to exclude air transportation from the spirit of the law? Should not the law apply to all equally?

If one is a plutocrat, or an obsequious servant of plutocrats, one knows the answer to this: of course not. The very fundamental principle of plutocracy is inequality. Pain and evil are made to be applied by the masters, and the low lives’ existence is justified only as the indispensable servants and recipients of pain and evil.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

Pluto’s Dictators & Their Enablers

February 3, 2014

Plutocracy is bad, but it can be bent. Even some plutocrats develop hearts and minds. An example is the Warner Brothers (who were of Polish-Jewish origin). Their anti-Nazi campaign, started as early as 1933, and, no doubt, helped, for the best.

Sadly, Warner Brothers’ under order from Washington, would produce “Mission to Moscow”, which depicted Stalin the monster as a benevolent uncle. Stalin had invaded Poland, with his friend and ally Hitler, and proceeded to help massacre 15% of the population.

Never, ever, will we forget, or forgive, what happened. Thankfully German TV mentions Nazi horrors several times a day. (In the next part of its enlightenment, Germany may want to explain 1933 with the messianic fascist dictatorship it lived under 1918). This is how to terminate Plutocrats, when they go too far:

French Air Force Terminating Qaddafi’s Henchmen, 11/7/2011, Sirte, Libya.

French Air Force Terminating Qaddafi’s Henchmen, 11/7/2011, Sirte, Libya.

The Nazis ordered the arrest of 22,000 Jews in Paris during the Raffle du Velodrome d’Hiver (July 16, 1942). Because of help from the population only 13,000 were killed.

However, 4050 children were deported, and after months of torture, executed. Some of these children, while in detention, wrote heart breaking letters. Factual letters, full of dignity, asking for help, and the most basic decency. They did not get it. All they got was French adults horrified by the tortures the children were submitted to. Those adults narrated what they had seen, and it no doubt helped in the Nazi rout, two years later.

Reading from a ten year old girl, Marie, asking her papa, gently, to send a picture of him, and her mom, because she did not see them for so long, and wanted to be with them. Unbeknownst to all, the Nazis had already assassinated her mom in Auschwitz. How, why, so much evil?

Some will say, it cannot happen today. Sorry, it does. Maybe not quantitatively, but qualitatively.

Just have a good, cold look at what Bush and Obama have been doing. (Hitler was very good at claiming he had nothing to do with it, whatever it was; Adolf was all for peace, and excellent for posing as a victim: naive idiots, all over, still repeat word for word what Hitler was saying about the Versailles Treaty, and nearly cry.)

When Obama proclaims himself judge and executioner of civilians by drone, worldwide, and add that “ordinary people” are safe from the secret services, that’s the same inhumanity that he is projecting. OK, it’s less industrial. Less industrial at this point, but more obvious.

No wonder Obama’s popularity is low, in spite of the booming economy (in his stupidity, he does not know why he is getting so unpopular, because he does not understand he crossed a moral Rubicon, for all to see. And all have seen, precisely. Something wrong with a giver of lessons that acts in the exact opposite manner.

If we want to avoid the return of horrors such as Nazism or Stalinism. We have to be vigilant, and have tolerance zero for leaders showing patterns of abuse, against anybody whosoever.

The USA, at governmental level has, not just cooperated with infamy, but even organized it: see the complicated four way war set-up by Reagan, ordering Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, while selling to Iran weapons paying for Contra weapons transferred to Nicaragua, thanks to the airport of the governor of Arkansas (skirt chaser Bill Clinton).

A more recent example was the three way deal between Tony Liar Blair, George W. Bush, and Libyan dictator and torturer, Muammar Qaddafi. (The deal left France mostly out, and that proved a mistake, at least for Qaddafi.)

Anyway, the Oblabla administration is trying to make as if it wanted to clean house a bit. Here is the Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2014:

Probe Widens Into Dealings Between Finance Firms, Libya

Justice Department Joins Probe on Possible Violation of Antibribery Laws by Banks, Funds

The Justice Department has joined a widening investigation of banks, private-equity firms and hedge funds that may have violated antibribery laws in their dealings with Libya’s government-run investment fund, people familiar with the matter said. 

The criminal investigation, which has intensified in recent months, is proceeding alongside a civil probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission that began in 2011 and initially homed in on Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS -2.62%  The Justice Department’s involvement hasn’t been reported previously. 

In addition to Goldman Sachs, federal investigators are examining Credit Suisse Group , J.P. Morgan Chase, Société Générale, private-equity firm Blackstone Group and hedge-fund operator Och-Ziff Capital Management Group these people said…

Authorities are examining investment deals made around the time of the financial crisis and afterward, these people said. In the years leading up to Libya’s 2011 revolution, Western firms—encouraged by the U.S. government—raced to attract investment money from the North African nation, which was benefiting from oil sales and recently had opened to foreign investment.

Investigators are trying to determine whether the firms violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act…The 1977 law prohibits U.S. companies and companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges from paying bribes to foreign officials. U.S. authorities consider employees of state-owned investment funds, such as the Libyan Investment Authority, to be foreign officials.”

Qaddafi ran one of the world’s worst regimes. I am happy to have, hopefully, contributed to his demise, by being the first philosopher to call for the dictatorship’s demise.

(Present troubles in Libya are pretty much part of the on-going liberations struggles, some from populations with their own 3,000 year old civilization, which have been oppressed for at least 13 centuries).

Next, of course, should be the butcher of Syria and the dictator of Ukraine. The former ought to be executed, as a matter of principle. Same overriding principle as with Hitler, and the like (too bad Stalin died in his bed; if he had not, maybe Putin would be more careful, and, thus, considerate!)

Notice that the definition of corruption according to today’s Washington, is very narrow: paying “bribes”, whatever that means. When Bill Clinton goes to Nigeria, one of the world’s most corrupt and poorest nations, and he is paid $100,000 for one hour of blah blah blah, is that a bribe? According to Washington, no. According to me, yes.

A bigger example? In 1933 FDR cracked down on Wall Street. Wall Street had provoked the 1929 crisis by speculating in finance instead of investing in the real economy, as its fiduciary duty should have been. In 2008-2009, though, Bush & Obama, instead of cracking down on Wall Street in a similar crisis, crawled down under Wall Street’s jackboot. Same crisis, opposed solution. The first moral, the second as plutocratic, thus immoral, as can be. No wonder We The People is starting to see through Mr. Obama mellifluous homilies.

In other news, New York City has authorized the construction of 15 square meters apartments. That’s a bit less than ten feet by 17 feet. We The People is not just treated like sardines, it will now live as sardines do, inside the cans.

Patrice Aymé

Faith Crazed Raptors

March 4, 2012

FANATIC FASCISTS COME FROM THE TEMPLE:

Abstract: I will argue in an essay to come that faith and beliefs are fundamental to the genus Homo. They are something lesser animals neither posses, nor need.

However when murderous superstition is made the fundament of society (as in the Late Roman empire, Islam, or the Aztecs), this is savagery. Theocratic savagery is a cover for plutocracy unchained. That lethal disease is the surest way to kill a civilization.

For example, when the Mayas got struck by a prolonged, but mild drought, they did not get their religious priorities straight, and they killed each other, instead of sorting out the difference between their way of life, and ecological change. (Yes, it was not just “climate change”.)

When the Vice Leader of the USA covers himself with ashes, making a show of his superstitiously wrecked mind, supposedly to edify us, suspect the worst outcome.

Here below are a few historical examples of hijacking of the mental equipment of faith and belief by theocracy, plutocracy, and people who want to attack other .

People who want to invade other countries, such as Vice Biden, who, after all, attacked Afghans… for no good apparent reason, except the fact that, as he himself admits, is a self proclaimed abhorrent person.

I review the gathering primitivism of American politicians. Worse is Biden, who is trying to establish Catholicism as a religion, or the fanaticism of Christianity as an inspiration, using his official function to do so.

Then I explain why fanaticism came from the Temple, and the measures republican Rome took against that.

These measures were grossly violated by the Late Roman Catholic empire. (Is that what Biden wants to return to?) Islam imitated the whole Catholic disaster, just made it bigger (no separation of politics and religion, and law in Islam, differently from even Justinian’s Roman empire).

This brings us to Syria: no armed intervention there, as long as the West does not get secular guarantees, I say.

As I have argued in “Islam Against Civilization”, unreconstructed Islam is fundamentally an enemy of civilization (so my position on attacking the Syrian army is different from the one I had in Libya, where the situation was mostly secularist professionals and oppressed tribes versus a crazed gang of plutocrats; meanwhile in Egypt the Islamists, propped by the fortune of Saudis,  have been promoting their equation of their fanaticism with Egyptian citizenship).

But, should a united opposition around a secular program come to the fore, a bombing campaign as in Libya would be a good thing, if Assad keeps on massacring civilians, in his monstrous way.

This being said, as long as the USA, the leading nation, educates by promoting the return to superstitious savagery, it is difficult to teach Syrians or Iranians the secular state… The one endowed with the religious tolerance Rome at her imperial apogee was blessed with, 2,000 years ago.

***

RELIGIOUS FANATICISM: POLITICALLY CORRECT DECAY OF THE USA:

Markers and enforcers of civilization are going down in the USA, big time. A U. S. Supreme Court decree overruled plenty of laws, with “Citizen United“. The Supreme Court decided that money was free speech.

In other words: the USA is officially a plutocracy (Nancy Pelosi agreed, and she used the word “plutocracy“; I am not alone in using this concept anymore; I will argue here that plutocracy, fanaticism and fascism are words which go very well together).

When he was campaigning for president in 1960, John Kennedy called for the absolute separation of church and state. Rick Santorum, a young prominent presidential candidate in the USA, an ex Senator, lobbyist, and enormously financed by plutocrats, said in February 2012, that separation of church and state, and Kennedy’s discourse about it, made him want to vomit:

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up… What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?”

We don’t bet, Mr. Santorum, we think. You bet, because you are a money man.

The Economist intones that: …”the notion that any American politician could banish all but the faithless from the public square has become laughable. If anything, piety has become a prerequisite in politics. Thomas Jefferson may have been relaxed about such matters, but no modern candidate for the presidency would dare to profess no faith, or to question the existence of the Almighty. Barack Obama is a churchgoer. George Bush named Christ his favourite philosopher and started cabinet meetings with a prayer. Jimmy Carter prayed up to 25 times a day… Kennedy did call for the separation of church and state. So did Ronald Reagan—and, for that matter, John Locke a few centuries earlier.”

What Kennedy said was this: “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Article Six of the Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The First Amendment of the constitution of the USA states that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

By “Congress” is meant the House of Representatives, plus the Senate. The Vice President presides over the Senate.

So what did Vice President Biden do? He promoted an establishment of religion. On his forehead, for all to see. He is, not just a fanatic, but a loud one.

***

ASH-AMED VICE-PRESIDENT:

Biden showed up with that large, dirty ugly smudge on his forehead. Is it because he does not wash? Yes, but that’s not the point.

Biden has a dirty forehead because he “abhors” himself. And he wants everybody to know. As simple as that. 

Biden was promoting an old tradition tied to his sect, Roman Catholicism. Said sect was inspired by the mythical Jesus (a prophet whose execution was not recorded by the Roman authorities, whereas several  others at the time were, throwing a cloud of suspicion over the whole thing as a montage by Roman authorities, much later).

Jesus insisted that he came to enforce “the law“, the superstitious ensemble of orders found in the Bible, a book written by some Jews in Babylon. Part of “the law” is that man is abhorrent. Presumably only god, and, in particular. His representative on earth (the emperor or caliph), is not abhorrent.

So what did these Jews write, 25 centuries ago, that impresses the unconstitutional Biden so much to this day? Multiple quotes are made in the Bible (just as in the Qur’an, 11 centuries later) to inflict contempt on those who do not follow orders. The following quote is typical:

Job 42:3–6. Job says to God: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. The other eye wandereth of its own accord. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

The superstitious Biden, and his ilk, celebrate, and symbolically  re-enact this on “Ash Wednesday”, by covering themselves with ash.

Founding fathers, and first two presidents, Washington and Adams, had clearly signed a document, as presidents, specifying that “the USA is not a Christian nation“. But people such as Biden cling to superstition: it beats historical accuracy any day.

***

IS THE BIBLE THE WORK OF THE DEVIL?

The story of Job is fascinating: it starts when Allah (so called “God”) asks Satan for his advice about Job. God/Allah wonders if Job is as much of a believer as he appears to be. God is lost, Godd reaches to his friend for advice. So we see that the Bible tells us, not just that God is not omniscient. The Bible tells us that the god of Jews, Christians and Muslims is a clueless gossip who consults with…Satan.

This is an interrogation all sadists have, when facing their debased victims: how to make sure that their submission comes from the heart, and is thorough? How can the sadistic god make sure that he totally dominates his victim, Job?

To make sure, Satan suggests a course of action, making Job suffer in all possible ways, and see if he curses God. God (Allah) follows Satan’s advice. Satan advises to victimize and trash Job in all possible ways, and see if the tortured unfortunate still lauds God. In other words, God (Allah) does not just conspire with Satan, but appears to behave, on occasion, as Satan’s creature.

The same problem is repeated in the Qur’an: Allah conspire with Satan (and not just as he did in the Bible, but in new and different ways). In the Qur’an Allah Himself points out the difficulty, of witnessing the collaboration of Satan and Allah, before ominously declaring that whatever Allah does with the Prince of Darkness is none of the business of Believers. (As you can see, I have read the Qur’an well… and much better than the Bible, because it is much shorter! True, it’s just a 400 pages addendum…)  

This official congress between God and Satan explains why the Cathars came to think what they did, namely that Satan controlled the part of the universe in which Christians dwelled, and no wonder that the Catholic chiefs burned them all alive, including women and children.

As the Cathars no doubt remarked at the time, the pope and his agents were thus demonstrating, if need be,  that they were agents of Satan, just like the sadistic, murderous, torturing god they celebrate. The god Biden celebrates as Vice President, and head of the Senate, when he covers his ashamed self with ash. The god of relentless, torturous debasement.

Let’s observe in passing that there are 2.1 million Alawites in Syria (see below), but that there were perhaps 5 million Cathars, and that they were living in symbiosis with the even larger population of the south, all the way to the Balkans. Yet, nobody knows the Cathars now. Cathars were killed to the last, by the pope and his henchmen, the plutocrats in and around Paris.

***

WHAT IS SO ABHORRENT ABOUT BIDEN?

The “Catholic” president, Kennedy, was looking forward to secularism.

Secularism, that’s living in one’s own age. But Biden’s message is different. He looks forward living as people did seven centuries ago, in the age of Catholic terror in the West. With ashes on one’s forehead come the will to burn even more abhorrent people alive.

Burning miscreants is all over the Bible, it is another tradition: if you believe in ashes on your head, the next step is to turn people you are bound to like less than yourself, into ashes.

However, it is good to know that great leaders admit to be such scums, that they abhor themselves.

The immediate question is whether someone who “abhors himself” ought to be considered fit for the presidency of the world’s mightiest country. What’s next? Presidents who go around, advertizing that they are so abhorent to themselves that they ought to kill themselves?

If Biden abhors himself, that he covers himself with mud, should we abhor him too? Does Biden vote for somebody he abhors? If he cannot, should not vote for his abohrrent self, why should we vote for him?

***

WHY THE WISE IS NO FAN OF THE FANUM:

Against fanaticism, common decency itself, struggles in vain. Why so? Fanaticism, comes from the Latin, fanum, the temple. The Romans had already noticed that those coming out of there were not full human beings, but enraged, well, fanatics.

This is literally true: around 400 CE, ignorant monks, “men in black“, ravaged literature and thinkers, especially in the Oriental Part of the empire; this wanton destruction played no small role in the ultimate success of Islam, as most populations, from North Africa to Syria were deeply resentful of the tyranny of Constantinople’s theocracy. Thus they did not try to resist the Arabs too much in the initial invasion; for example Egypt revolted when it discovered that caliph Omar was even worse than the emperor in Constantinople. By then, it was too late!  

Why is the temple so conducive to, well, fanaticism?

Think about it: the temple is built, encouraged or tolerated by the state. It is part of the state, more or less, one way or another. The temple, as the Romans saw it, taught unbelievable things about the gods. However those who came out of there believed those things as if they were real. Things that those who manned the state, the powerful, wanted them to believe.

So the Roman republic made its religion not too serious a thing, and under the control of the People (the exact opposite of the Christian and Muslim theocracies, 7 to 10 centuries later, which were intimately tied to the state, especially Islam. Whereas in the Roman empire, law kept an independent existence).

Before soon all rites and religions were authorized in republican Rome, as long as they did not compromise public peace, or did not involve uncivilized behavior, such as human sacrifices (as the Celtic and Carthaginian religions did).

Moreover, the chief priest of the Roman republic’s religion (the Pontifex Maximus) was elected. Please inform the Ayatollahs in Iran of this.

***

TOO MUCH FANATICISM: THE SAD STORY OF THE JEWS:

Thus the state had interests that those unbelievable things would be believed. OK, sometimes the state is not really a state, it’s a pseudo state, a simulated state.

The arch example here comes from Judaism. The Jews (or people, or entire nations, such as around the sea of Azov, who had decided they were Jews) conspired very well among themselves, and with others, for millennia, using their religion as a pseudo state or conspiracy. Hence the importance for them of strange rituals such as sexual mutilation, to identify each other as a group, and a common sacrifice.

Jews often conspired with reigning plutocrats, in the generalized sense. Thus “anti-Semitic” eruptions often coincide with otherwise legitimate revolts. An example of this is when surprised Nazis found a thousands of Jews already massacred when they swept east in 1941: the Jews had collaborated with the occupying Russians, and were left behind to explain themselves with the natives.

In any case, the temple is the nexus of the state, and of the unbelievable stories the temple teaches. This incredible stories put minds to sleep, just as bed time stories do, with little children. And it’s not all innocent: the outrageous concept of “promised land” by “god” no less, caused untold misery. It also allowed Bible clutching Europeans to exterminate North Americans and enslave Africans.

The Jews are proud of their promised land notion. However, a huge proportion of the Roman empire was Jewish, and that means a huge proportion of the world was. then there was the absurd Judaica war. Josephus (its only reasonable Jewish rebel general), and others evaluate the number of death above one million. And there were more revolts. Ultimately the war of Jews against Jews and Romans resulted in Christians becoming just the same, and killing Jews, as Christ had more or less recommended.  

Nowadays there are not so many (“pure”) Jews. In absolute numbers less than under imperial Rome. But the European population (in the general sense, counting the Americas), plus the population descending of the ex-Roman empire (so called “Arabs”) is now well above 30 times Rome. In other words, Jews have become insignificant (all the more since many of these so called Jews happen to be blonde and the like, because their ancestors converted to Judaism under the Franks.

***

COMPARE THE FANATICISM OF THE JEWS WITH the Gallo-Roman integration:

All this because Jews went ballistic with their “promised land” fable. One can compare to the Gauls, who, had the same time got occupied by Caesar, at the end of a serious Gallo-Roman  war which lasted more than four centuries (both sides were imperialistic and viewed themselves as domineering, and they were). The Gauls occupied the city of Rome herself in 399 BCE. Yet, after Caesar had definitively defeated the Belgae, and crossed the Rhine into Germania, the Gauls never rebelled against their conquerors. Instead they gave up on their extremely plutocratic, primitive religion (only the elite could be admitted to reading, etc.), and worked at conquering the conquerors from inside (which was achieved thoroughly with the help of the Franks, five centuries later).

The astute will notice that about half of the Jewish population is now clustered to fulfill the promise on a small piece of land, clutching hundreds of nuclear weapons, while threatening Iran, the main surviving piece of an empire which often extended from Syria to India.

The Auschwitz death camp and its 100 (or so) satellite camps covered a region nearly as large as the habitated extent of present day Israel. This is not a reasoning: just an uncanny rapprochement. If wisdom did not come yesterday, will it come tomorrow?

OK, that’s my way of celebrating Netanyahu coming to Washington, to plot the war with Iran.

***

FAITH’S VERY PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES IN AFGHANISTAN:

In a few weeks, Afghan soldiers treacherously assassinated or wounded dozens of their NATO allies (in just one such attack, more than 20 unarmed, unarmored French soldiers training Afghan soldiers in a gym were chopped down by machine gun fire; Afghan president Karzai was summoned in Paris, but the attacks went on; in just one week the coalition suffered no deadly attack from the Taliban, but three separate attacks of Afghan soldiers killed six American troops, supposedly their brothers in arms).

By the way, let me say in passing that this illustrates the huge mistake arrogant Americans (think Bush and his advisers) by establishing an “ISLAMIST” republic in Afghanistan, and then proclaiming it an ally.

The essence of Western civilization, as imposed by imperator and consul Clovis and “his” Franks, has been the SECULAR republic (Frankish kings were elected, supposedly). Secular does not mean just that one does not believe in stories only toddlers ought to seriously believe.

Secular mainly means that one lives in one’s age. As determined by the science and technology at hand. (By the way, everything indicates that Muhammad would have agreed: one can see his highly secular personality through the lying representation caliph Uthman’s Qur’an made; yes, it’s possible to be both secular and superstitious.)

Afghan soldiers kill Europeans and Americans because those are “unbelievers”. This is directly traceable to the fact that Afghanistan is an ISLAMIST republic. The Qur’an is the Constitution of Afghanistan. So one would expect Afghan soldiers to enforce the Constitution, namely their interpretation of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the word of Abraham’s god, as allegedly related in the desert to an epileptic analphabet who had married into wealth.

The Qur’an is not too clear about what to do with “unbelievers”. At some point it claims there should be no coercion in religion, but then il also orders that “unbelievers” should be ambushed, killed, at every turn, etc. And certainly “Pagans” are to be killed. And also Muslims who denounce, or renounce, Islam. Killed. (Or maybe the Qur’an did not say the latter for sure, but certainly commenters of the Qur’an, and those who related the life of Muhammad, certainly said this, and all this is viewed as sacred by the majority Sunni Muslims.)

***

ATTACK SYRIA? ONLY AFTER SERIOUS SECULAR GUARANTEES:

I was the earliest serious advocate of a military intervention in Libya. Bernard Henri-Levy (BHL) followed, more than three months later, and very efficiently. He was able to persuade French president Sarkozy and his advisers to do something, and they did: French war planes unilaterally intervened first, crushing the attack on Benghazi of Qaddafi’s tank army (thanks to the active stealth fighter-bomber Rafales, the word’s best fighter plane). The French also finished the war, when a few Rafales pulverized Qaddafi 200 vehicles strong escape convoy.  

Now BHL wants to attack in Syria. No doubt, twenty French state of the art jets based in Cyprus with Turkey’s benediction (ha ha ha) could stop dead in their tracks all Assad’s tanks in a city such as Homs.

However, if it’s to help the party of “god is great!“, it is out of the question. Horrible applications of (what are for some) Islam sacred texts orders to kill unbelievers, pagan, and whoever is hated. Thus some rebels in Syria have apparently killed civilians for religious reasons. God is not great is not the correct faith. God is bad id the correct faith. This situation did not happen in Libya (because there everybody is Sunni, although

Many Sunni scholars view the Alawites in Syria as Pagans. This means that, should they lose power there, the Alawites are fair game, as far as the Sunnis who carefully read the Qur’an are concerned. This murderous circus has been going on since 656 CE (at least). “Alawi”, is a French word, but the sect comes directly from Ali, cousin, son in law, companion of arms of the Prophet, even once masquerading in a bed as Muhammad himself (don’t ask, it was life and death!)

The real revolution the Middle East needs would consist into getting rid of the god of the Bible who pursues his reign of terror there. If one comes to think of it, it is a paradox that Muslims are claiming to know the god of the Jews better than the Jews themselves. Out-Jewing the Jews, really? Fanatical Islam has been an excellent cover-up, hiding that the West was never religiously Christian in the sense that (traditional) Islam give to religion.

The perception that traditional Islam is something one ought to improve on is why there was more than 100 variants of Islam, many of them not recognized as Muslim by the Sunnis! There are actually branches of Islam where women (used to) go bare-chested!

The present rise of religious fanaticism has been seen before. After all that it was what happened to the Roman empire around 300 CE. The emperor instituted a sun cult (“Sol Invictis“) with him as representative of god. Within two decades, the immensely brutal youth Constantine, son of an Augustus, and Caesar himself at a very young age, had realized that it was better to use the military like apparatus of the Christian church.

The Christian church came, complete with a fascist, imperial god who consults with Satan, as we saw above. Christianism also persuades the commons that they are “abhorrent”. And then the commons cover themselves with ashes, allowing the emperor all the more superbly.

As far as Constantine was concerned, the fanatical fascism of Christianism was perfect. As the self declared “13th apostle“, and a saint in the (Catholic-)Orthodox religion, he was free to impose his god on all. Starting with his nephew that he killed, his wife whom he steamed to death, and his son the Caesar Crispus, he was obviously jealous of (Constantine owed his status of Augustus from victories of Crispus!), and executed, thanks to judges as helpful to plutocracy as the Supreme Court of the USA reveals itself to be.

Superstitious savagery is the proximal reason why the Roman civilization went down. Confronted with the difficulty of the struggle between Senate based tax evading plutocracy and the military based plutocracy, the outcome was not a return to the republic, but a fall into savage superstitious theocracy. That, in turn, led to a blossoming of further stupidity, ignorance and anti-intellectualism. besides the destruction of philosophers, books, schools, and libraries.

Remember this, next time you look at images from Syria. And next time the ash covered Biden proposes to attack some Muslim country in his own special way.

***

Patrice Ayme

Right Makes Might?

August 31, 2011

WHEN CONFRONTING EVIL, BIPARTISANSHIP IS NOT THE ANSWER. 

Witness against himself Obama has made bipartisan thinking infamous, and rightly so. When confronted to the worst extremism, such as the Tea Party, he crosses the bridge, and offers himself as a target. This way Tea Partisans need not vote for Perry, they may as well vote for Obama. Hey, everybody will win! The audacity to win! As one of the “senior advisers” of Obama, 40 years old, had the impudence to point out.

Bipartisan thinking was not invented by Obama, even in Anglo-Saxon countries. Some notables of the American revolution switched sides. Bipartisanship was already practiced by Pontius Pilatus. Earlier Plato befriended the tyrant of Syracuse, while claiming to be a partisan of the “Republic“. (Thus Christian despots did not burn Plato’s books, recognizing in him a kindred spirit.)

Confronted to Hitler, many crossed the bridge to him, in the name of openness, bipartisanship, and thus enabled him (among the first to do so was G.W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott, one of Hitler’s closest collaborators, head of American-Silesian; thus it was not surprising that Bush covered his family’s tracks by exhibiting the opposite attitude, loudly proclaiming a vast gap between himself and evil! Very crafty.)

Facile, or bipartisan, or not partisan, thinking incites some people to still make the case for Auschwitz. That they do not understand this does not excuse them. After all, most of the Germans who enabled Auschwitz did not understand that they did so. Actually they did not even know what Auschwitz was, nor wanted to conceive of it. That would have been un-German.

 People who keep on making the case for Auschwitz can persevere in this, because not enough contempt, condemnation, and, first of all, revelation, has been heaped over them, their deliberate obscurantism and confusionism, and their criminal attitude of tolerance for “infamy”. (To use Voltaire’s non bipartisan semantics.)

 Roger Cohen wrote an editorial, “Score One For Interventionism” in the New York Times. As Roger puts it:” Libya will not end the debate on intervention. But it confirms that the West must be prepared at times to fight for its values.”

 Yes. One should not even have to wait for such a confirmation anymore. May 8, 1945 should have been enough confirmation. Remember Auschwitz? The threat thereof incited the most famous intervention of the spirit of the enlightenment of the West: when France and Britain declared war to Hitler and his criminal supporters. It took five years and eight months, but, ultimately, Western democracy, and the enlightenment of the West, crushed the Nazi barbarity.

 So I expressed in a comment to the NYT, my agreement with Mr. Cohen:

“Score TWO for interventionism, as France threw out the dictator in Ivory Coast a few months earlier. So let’s recapitulate; France won two wars in a year, and the USA lost two, in a decade. Something else: France and Britain started the intervention in Bosnia, but, at the time, were too insecure to push it to victory quickly. France also intervened way late in Rwanda. Of this, no more.
Civilization needs to be enforced.

 I was a bit taken aback: just one reader of the NYT approved what I said, whereas more than 80 clueless individuals approved what I view as a tissue of the usual irrelevance, lies and stupidities from a  guy called Richard Brauer, based in South Africa. That was more than twice the number of approvals any other comment got, which means that such mass murderous friendly thinking is widely shared by many who read the NYT.

 Brauer made his mass murdering criminal friendly thinking transparent. It rests on a confusion of notions, and inventions.

 1) The first point Richard Brauer made was that “Bosnia is still  a mess“. Thus, according to Brauer, keeping order is more important than preventing holocausts. The West should not have saved millions in Bosnia, because it is still a mess.

  Presumably, if Hitler had killed another 200 million people in Europe, it would have been less of a mess, and, thus, according to Brauer, and his admirers, a greater success. Mass murdering fascists, such as the Nazis are always fond to celebrate the “New Order“. (I was myself bombed, once, by a French fascist organization called “Ordre Nouveau“.)

 Only fascists worry about order, rather than worry about human lives. So, actually, Brauer is somebody who has embraced a central tenet of fascism. To great applaud of the pseudo left wing readership of the New York Times. OK, Stalin, a genuine fascist, was also pseudo left wing (and boasted to Churchill that he killed even more Soviets than Hitler did.) Hitler too: not only did he invent the expression: National Sozialist, but he craftily borrowed socialist and left wing themes all over, to improve his appeal, as he cynically explained himself!

 It is as if Brauer wrote this from the perspective of an old South African white racist supremacist fascist. Richard, tell us ain’t so.  

 That Bosnia is, or is not, a mess was not the reason to intervene in Bosnia for those whom superior morality guides (by opposition to those that Hitler, Ghadafi, and the like, guide). Of course if the Serbian fanatics had been left to their own instruments, they would have killed all the Muslims, and all the Croats. Indeed, as Brauer implicitly points out, order in Bosnia would be much better by now.

 Similarly if whites South Africans  had done like the white North Americans, and killed all the Indians, I mean, the black, order would reign much better in South Africa, and Brauer would rest easy. Much better order, mein Fuerer, and purity of essence, besides.

 Historically, under a UN mandate, French and British troops were interposed between the civilians in Sarajevo, and the rogue (“Bosnian”) Serb army. Heavy Serb guns reached encircled Sarajevo, impacting it with thousands of high explosive shells, from 30 kilometers away.

 The French, allied to Serbia in 1914, were leery to counter-attack the descendants of their ex-allies. But they had to save the population Serb fanatics were determined to exterminate.

 The French finally used counterforce strikes: once a flying Serbian shell was detected on radar, the computer found where it originated from, and French shells were directed there. This destroyed the Serb guns, and allowed to stop the destruction of Sarajevo. The depredations of the fanatics kept on going, though, in the rest of Bosnia, and the siege of Sarajevo was not lifted. Years later NATO had to intervene in full. (Now Serbia is 99% collaborating with civilization, and improving by the day, in its anxiety to integrate the European Union, which is the final solution to the Yugoslav problem, for all concerned.)

 2) The second point that the fascism loving Brauer made was that “It’s way too early to judge the USA a success, even on idealistic Western terms. We’re pretty far from a stable and democratic country at this point.” OK, I replaced in Brauer’s original version, the word “Libya” by “USA”. It sounds just as pertinent. If the USA is neither stable nor democratic at this point, why to require it for Libya?

 3) The third point Brauer made was that “the rest of the world sees it [the intervention in Libya] as a naked grab by Western governments on behalf of their energy companies.”

  Brauer does not seem to have observed that most of the world is the West. At least, officially speaking. Indeed, the UN Charter reflects the basic credo of the West. All the Americas are in the West (except for Cuba, which is not too clear about where it wants to be). Most of Africa is in the West (OK, except Zimbawe, Sudan, and a few limbo states). Most of Eurasia is in the West, too, philosophically speaking (even Russia, officially speaking; the notable exception being China, which is a collaborator and accomplice of the West, or, at least, its plutocracy). Did I forget Australia and Antarctica?

 This is exactly why France was able to persuade most powers to support, or the rest to tacitly approve her intervention in Libya. France acted in the name of the principles of the West, id est of the principles of the Rest. This is by now the standard French tactic. It works if and only if genuine. 

 For Brauer, and his ignorant, or malevolent admirers, if the “rest of the world” believes in a complete, counterfactual idiocy, we should consider that a problem. However real problems are not defined by counter-factual idiots.

 As I said many times, Ghadafi was giving the West all the oil it needed. 80% of Libyan oil was going to France and Italy, which had, therefore no motivation to engage in war according to those who think that the war was about oil. Actually the oil flow from Libya has been stopped for more than 6 months now, so the oil men ought to have been on Ghadafi’s side, which they were, indeed.

 The historical development of establishing a set of reason for revolution in the Arabo-Muslim world and in Libya in particular, was due to philosophers, not to oil traffickers, and other plutocrats.

 This is something important to understand. In the 1930s, when France tried to do something against Hitler, American officials argued that France was being imperialistic, and that Germany should be left to be all it wanted to be, preserved from the terrible French imperialistic intervention.  That argument was entertained as early as 1934.

 There was just one fly in that ointment; the Ambassador of the USA in Berlin, the historian Dodd, agreed 100% with his imminent colleague, the French ambassador in Berlin, Francois-Poncet. What did Washington do? In 1939, it replaced Dodd by a pro-Nazi ambassador. The best way to encourage Hitler to be firm with France.

 The fact remains that philosophers were singularly silent in the 1930s (many, most of a new generation, fought courageously, in the 1940s, against Nazism, and died that way; but by then the infuriated Nazi dragon had escaped the grotto).

 In the 1930s, Anglo-Saxon plutocrats collaborated with Hitler and other fascists, because they augmented their profits that way. This collaboration was so enormous that it allowed Hitler to survive the initial shock against France and Britain (although the Nazis losses, by the time France fell, were already considerable, comprising more than 50,000 elite troops and officers; by the time Hitler had to attack the USSR, he had won in Greece, but his victorious paratroops had been wiped out; by the time American soldiers fought their first shots with the Nazis, the French had inflicted the decisive defeat to Rommel’s Afrika Korps, deep in the desert).

 Plutocrats collaborated with Ghadafi intensely. Thus they had no interest to fight him. Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal gives an example, August 30 2011. Here we go:

  TRIPOLI—On the ground floor of a six-story building here, agents working for Moammar Gadhafi sat in an open room, spying on emails and chat messages with the help of technology Libya acquired from the West….

Amesys, a unit of French technology firm Bull SA, [which] installed the monitoring center. A warning by the door bears the Amesys logo. The sign reads: “Help keep our classified business secret. Don’t discuss classified information out of the HQ.”…..The room, explored Monday by The Wall Street Journal, provides clear new evidence of foreign companies’ cooperation in the repression of Libyans under Col. Gadhafi’s almost 42-year rule. The surveillance files found here include emails written as recently as February, after the Libyan uprising had begun… VASTech SA Pty Ltd, a small South African firm, provided the regime with tools to tap and log all the international phone calls going in and out of the country, according to emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and people familiar with the matter. VASTech declined to discuss its business in Libya due to confidentiality agreements.”

 Maybe Mr. Brauer is somehow related to VASTech, or to the oil companies which lost money due to the Libyan rebellion?

 Conclusion? France intervened in Libya not because her plutocrats wanted it, but because (some of her) philosophers made an irresistible case for it. To French president Sarkozy. Contrarily to the 1930s, when the USA was systematically hostile to France’s higher thinking, Obama’s USA cooperated, and France was able to convince enough of the rest (to get the 9 votes at the UNSC she needed; she got 10).  

 By the way, genuine French philosophers are not in love with French plutocrats, although at least two individuals (BHL and the father of Bruni’s first child), belong to both categories. Usually there is strong, solid, professional and intimate enmity between both groups.

 Mr. Brauer neglects the interventions of the Western powers sometimes assisted by African allies in the Sudan (where French troops died in Darfur), Sierra Leone, Liberia, Chad (where France fought Ghadafi for decades, recovering a part of Chad occupied by the guy with the bad hairdo), Rwanda, Ivory Coast and Libya (the two French led interventions of 2011). Among other things. Intervention also worked against racist South Africa (but failed to replace racist Rhodesia by the better regime, as Zimbawe is clearly a terrible place).

 So what motivates the likes of the ignorantly aggressive Mr. Brauer? Does Mr. Brauer, and his supporters regret, deep down inside, that France intervened against the genocidal, racist, fascist Hitler, and his Neues Ordnung?

 Or is Mr. Brauer happy to join a herd of the ignorant and facile, thus creating cheaply in him and his flock the illusion of strength and wisdom? In other words, naturally enough, Mr. Brauer whines when one attack fascism, because he indulges in the fascist reflex.

 Thought crime ought to not send people in jail always, but it certainly should not go without condemnation, and evisceration, when it boils down to making a shrine to the concept of holocaust.

 Thus those inclined to idiotic lies of the mass criminality inducing type have to be answered, even if we have to stoop very low to do so, and engage in a shouting match. Ignoring the stupid brutes all too long is what made Hitler, Stalin or Pol-Pot possible.

 Right now the partisans and practitioners of torture in the USA are loudly claiming that torture is the best way to go forward. Never mind that it is a direct violation of the Third Geneva Convention, never mind that the U.S. Army, and the most elementary logic, are against it: Cheney and Yoo (the UC Berkeley professor of law who wrote the legal opinion giving the green light to Bush) preach torture, with more boldness than ever.

 They have been encouraged to do so by the ambiguous attitude of the ever bipartisan president. Confronted to torture, Obama crossed the bridge, and said: we don’t do that, but we will not do anything about those who did that, and want more of it. Instead of dragging Bush, Cheney, Yoo, and a Federal judge I forgot the name of, to court, Obama said: let them be, let’s not rush to judgment. Actually, let’s not go to any sort of judgment.  Obama let torture walk free, as he let the banksters walk free. And now he is surprised that society is captive, and people feel that it is his fault.

 French general Paul Aussaresses admitted in his 2001 book, “Services spéciaux, Algérie 1955–1957“, to the use of torture during the Algerian war (he claimed under civilian orders from subalterns to F. Mitterrand). Subsequent to his gloating, for justifying the use of torture, the elderly Aussaresses was condemned in court, stripped of his army rank, stripped of the right to wear a uniform, and he was stripped of his Legion of Honor. All of this happened decades after Aussaresses apparently advised South American militaries about his methods of torture. In other words, torturers breed torturers. Worldwide.

 Of course, convicted criminal Aussaresses went on major media of the USA to justify the use of torture against Al Qaeda. His defense of torture arguably incited the American proponents of torture. Thus thought crime propagates. Bipartisanship about torture, as bipartisan about anything else dubious, under the pretext of coolness, is encouraging torture, and all other sorts of evil.

 France, whatever France means, lost the Algerian war (some very close family members of mine died). Although, technically, the French army had won. But it was the wrong sort of victory. That war was not a military campaign, but a campaign about right and wrong, and the usage of torture guaranteed wrong.

 In 2011, France intervened, and won, twice: in Ivory Coast, and in Libya. Why? How? By being on the side of right, twice. If one wants to win, one better be right. To start with. That Obama forgot in Afghanistan, in his colossal naivety. But one would expect nothing else from someone whose moral sense is about being bipartisan, not attributing blame, and looking real cool, no matter what. Such a moral sense does not have “right” as a fundamental notion. “Right” is all about how it looks.

 Obama encountered Hitler. What do you think happened? “Enough blame  to go around,” confirmed the president. OK, pathetic, I agree.

 Being bipartisan about holocausts is no option for the morally correct. Non assistance to people in danger is one of the worst crimes there is. Once one has justified the worst, or let it go free, and unmolested, how much worse can one do? Indulge in infamy, instead of just entertaining it?

***

Patrice Ayme

*** 

(more…)

FORCE WORKS. An Intellectuals’ War. Syria Next?

August 23, 2011

PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT WAR IS ONLY WISHFUL THINKING.

Main Ideas: There is a new, fundamental human right: the right of ingerence. Thanks to the right of ingerence, the total human toll of the Libyan dictator’s assault against the People he terrorized, tortured and executed may not exceed 50,000 dead (hopefully).

The French “droit d’ingérence”, is a concept distinguished by philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 (his son is a top Buddhist monk). The droit d’ingérence was also advocated by Kouchner and the “Medecins Sans Frontieres, Doctors Without Borders” (and rewarded by the Nobel Peace Prize).

The right of ingerence postulates that there is a right (“droit“) to interfere and intrude in some circumstances on behalf of human rights of others. Thus to fight, not in self defense, but altruistically. In a way, of course, it is inherent to the notion of a police force on behalf of justice, thus it is as old as the notion of police, and something which was necessary as soon as primates evolved, and descended from the trees (alpha males do a lot of policing in baboon troops).

Droit d’ingérence is a typical French attitude of making legitimate some forms of aggression of a state against another state, central to the (much unjustly decried) “Mission Civilisatrice”

When ingerence is most justified, it involves the survival of one’s own nation (as when the Romans intervened in Gaul against Celto-Germans under imperators such as Sextus, Marius and Caesar). Ingerence is also justified for insuring others’ freedom (as when the Roman republic intervened against Macedonia, partly to free Greece, or when France intervened against Britain to free its American colony, or when France and Britain declared war to Hitler for serially invading countries).

Nowadays, due to the relative shrinkage of the world, ingerence of democracy and survival of democracy are pretty much the same notions.

European fighter-bombers flew in less than an hour from places such as Sicily or Crete, in the European Union, to bomb fascist forces in Libya. Less than an hour is of course the flight time from North Korea to Washington, for a ballistic missile. Crushing the North Korean dictatorship will not, at some point, be just about ingerence, but about survival. I know that Bush said stuff like that, but he was not just lying, but also delusional (which is worse), because his motive was NOT from altruism, but from the Dark Side. So it was ingerence, all right, but he had no right.

Ingerence of democracy is also an occasion to teach democracy to those obdurately challenged by obscurantism. For example, student (of democracy) Russia can try to explain to us in the United Nations what is so good about Assad’s dictatorship in Syria, and why we should not apply sanctions. After Russia fails to justify itself, it will have learned something, about democracy, as it hopefully is doing in Libya.

The forces of democracy are reloading, but cannot rest. Ultimately, democracy will have to reign all over, for democracy to be safe, anywhere.

Some will insist: what is the difference between the right of ingerence (in defense of human rights, and that include life and freedom), and Bush’s vicious aggressions? Well, everything: Bush was playing humanist on TV. Actually he was himself the problem. His invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the American Constitution were all charged with the will to destroy. which makes sense, as his plutocratic pedigree extends over two generations.

Even more damaging are those who supported the Libyan dictator through all this, arguing, idiotically, that the West ‘s intervention against the self described “king of kings of Africa“was all for oil. The devil is, among other things, in the details.

It’s profitable to say progressive stuff, because it sounds good, or it’s all over a teleprompter, but it better be right, cogent, and relevant.The psychological grandparents of the same idiots argued that France fought Hitler because of the French empire, and the vainglorious French mentality, and for the sake of hopeless European quarrels. Thus 72 millions died, precisely because of that criminally stupid reasoning, grounded in crass ignorance. France was not about extermination camps, Hitler was.

80% of Libyan oil and gas already went to France and Italy, and the reserves  of Libya are the largest in Africa. So neither France, nor Italy, had any economic reason to disturb a system which served them well. Actually Italy was extremely reluctant to do so.

In truth the Libyan dictator was attacked for philosophical reasons, not at all for oil. The war started with the a number of professionals protesting in Benghazi, and then, after those pacific demonstrations were repressed in blood, immensely courageous rebels, typically young professionals and students, who came to defeat a large army with a mercenary army of top, highly paid, professional killers at its core .

Verily, the causal chain of events shows that it is philosophers, temporally led by yours truly, who were in the lead against Qaddafi. Reading the New York Times’ comments reveals many examples of poorly reconstructed Stalinists who are hysterical against human rights, in the guise of opposing “the West” alleged search for oil (which, as I said, it already got from the Libyan dictator; by the way, Sirya sends 95% of its oil to Europe).

I make no mystery that, for a civilization englued in delusional systems of thought, as was the Libyan dictatorship, the best way out is revolution. or more exactly, the only way out. Revolution can be gentle, and it is better, when it can be gentle. But, if the revolution cannot be gentle, the concepts of work and brutal force, as found in physics, have to be brought to bear.

Much of the so called Muslim civilization suffers from an historical dearth of genuine, thorough, secular revolution (secular means of the age, progress to what is known now). Hopefully the Libyan rising will change that. Sarkozy reminded the Libyan transition Council that he would not make their revolution on their behalf, and that the French did the 1789 Revolution on their own, as all real revolutions always are done.

Although, in the end, French help to the Libyan rebels was considerable, it did not reach the enormous help France provided to the American rebels during the American war of independence.

The American”revolution” was not really a revolution: they did not have to. If the Americans had made a real revolution, they would have freed the slaves; but they did not, because they did not have to, as the massive intervention of the French army and French navy did not force them to mobilize all their forces, physical and spiritual.

Philosophy, in truth, is about war. War against stupidity and the basest instincts, to start with. But, if need be, and it can, philosophy goes all the way.

This is how, overall, civilization progresses for the better. Some deny that there is such a thing as progress. As a forceful reminder for the clueless, in Pacific islands, where civilization had progressed less, it was often customary to eat people alive, over a period of weeks. OK, it was partly a technological problem, as there were no refrigerators, two centuries ago (and extensive salt and spices European Middle Age meat preservation technology was not known, either).

Of course, for philosophical reasons, the Romans had extinguished the man eating, and human sacrifices prone civilizations of the Mediterranean-European area. That the Romans were also predatory, is a secondary consideration. After conquest, the Roman rule was light, and fully assented to, in any case. Pax Romana was no myth… And now it is baaaack…

***

***

Most countries in the West acted admirably in the overthrow of the bloody Libyan tyrant. It was NOT 1939 all over again, with France and Britain going at Hitler alone, while several democracies were supporting the dictator, Hitler, all the more efficiently, that it was not talked about it much. This time most countries in the West understood that they had a duty of ingerence, and a duty of solidarity to their fellow democracies, and human rights. An Arab country, Qatar, siege of the free TV Al Jazeera, very courageously aligned itself on its ally, the French republic.

All the West behaved well, with the alarming exception of Switzerland, which insisted to do a repeat of its pernicious role in 1939-45. Switzerland gets a mention from me as the most lamentable, hypocritical country in the world for 2011 (we can be fairly sure that no other country will be as mentally mediocre before 2012). In the end, even Russia and China helped against the Libyan dictator. But not Switzerland. Worse; that forsaken country pleaded for an inverted ethics reminiscent of Ireland crying about Hitler’s demise in May 1945.

Switzerland’s notable contribution to the Libyan war was to help the mass murdering dictator. Switzerland built, all over Libya, the sort of sophisticated underground fortifications Qaddafi and his clan presently enjoy, in common with the rats they often evoke spitefully. This Swiss attitude is all the more alarming, as, in many ways, Switzerland is the most democratic place in the world. So is it the mountain air, is it the fact the Swiss are just all too greedy peasants, or is it something about democracy? In any case, following the debate in Suisse, it’s clear the Swiss do not have a viable concept of civilization. My guess is that Switzerland got used to get way with greed, same as Bush style American plutocracy. Both got away, and became much richer, from enabling Nazism. And, whereas the very small fry was prosecuted, and still is, to the end of the Earth, the really big fishes, deeply ingrained criminal thought systems in Switzerland and the USA tied to the reigning plutocracy were left alone, and prosper to this day.

Two weeks before the liberation of Tripoli, La Suisse had an attack of madness, as it found, to its fake horror, that some a few pieces of Mickey Mouse Helvetic military equipment made their way to Libya’s freedom fighters, apparently through Qatar. Well, I salute Qatar. Let 50,000 die under the boot of a dictator it was just arming: no problem for Suisse. Let a contract be violated, perhaps, on a few thousands Francs of material, and Switzerland orders an inquiry.

If everybody acted as Switzerland, the few among us still surviving would say:”Heil Hitler!” I say this without meaning to be funny. During World War Two Switzerland served as rear base for the Nazis, viciously efficient. The U.S. Air Force had to bomb a major ball bearing factory in Switzerland, which provided the Nazis with precious ball bearings.

To this day, Switzerland has not presented excuses for its abject attitude relative to humankind during Nazism, and the recent evidence with Libya shows that it persists self righteously in its error, and fake neutralism (rhymes with racism and nationalism).

Intellectuals in Switzerland, should view as their primary duty to be scathing about Swiss attitudes regarding civilization and the dictators which ruin it. This being said, I love Switzerland. Precisely.

If not for the massive iron fist of NATO, Qaddafi would have celebrated his 42 years of reign on September 1. Gaddafi’s power rested on people  with so much blood on their hands, that they had nothing to lose, by drenching the desert with some more. The dictator’s power was also resting on thousands of mercenaries, some from Eastern Europe, some from black Africa, paid 10,000 euros, $15,000, a week.

Qaddafi used to be a hero of a delusional part of the left of the West, 40 years ago. Those wishful lunatics viewed Gaddafi as the successor of Nasser (as if Nasser was much to admire). Gaddafi was viewed as the captain who chased a king out (without spilling a drop of blood, meaning that the king’s army was not that ferocious that a simple captain could make a coup). Qaddafi nationalized much, directly into his own pocket. Superficial pseudo leftists overlooked those details: as many who are into superficiality, group identification provide them with a personality. Thus, in the guise of prostesting imperialism, they become themselves intellectual fascists, following brainlessly their thought leaders.

Gaddafi’s was a regime with officials one had to give a million dollars to, just to talk to them when trying to help the Libya they governed (my own father, representing a Western company, had to do make a personal check to the Libyan Prime Minister, of one million dollars, just to talk to him about conducting oil prospection).

The best wars are those started by a more progressive philosophy, and bold philosophers defending it in the court of public opinion. No Revolution, No Civilization.

The philosophical case for an armed intervention on behalf of the Libyan people against the (self promoted) colonel who had seized power 42 years ago was clear cut.

The strategy I advocated on March 8, was, in the end, followed against the Libyan bloody tyrant. France attacked March 20th, after getting the all clear from the United Nations. In the end, the UN mandate was tweaked, as special operations French, British and Italians teams operated on the ground. France, even to Britain’s alarm, and to impotent Russian anger, dropped weapons to the rebels in the Nafusah mountains, and then set up runways and sent heavy weapons, including tanks, through an aerial bridge in that Berber area (Berbers have their own ancient alphabet, which looks at least twice older than Arabic, and there is a revival of that civilization, crushed by the Arab invasion, all the way to Algeria and Morocco) .

A handful of philosophers such as Bernard-Henri Lévy (“BHL”, Jewish descent, born in Béni Saf, Algeria), Alain Finkielkraut (son of an Auschwitz Jewish deportee), and Alain Badiou (born in Rabat, Morocco), exerted pressure on Nicholas Sarkozy to not let the Libyan rebellion be smashed. I mention their place of origin, to point out that, like me, two of them call Africa home.

I have been often critical of BHL, but he was admirable in the Libyan crisis, taking great personal risks, as he often does. BHL has been influential in the French corridors of powers for more than 30 years now. Of course, being so practical a philosopher denies him some depth, but so was Demosthenes, say, with Athens, against Philippe (tyrant of Macedonia, father of the possible parricidal Alexander). Civilization needs all sorts of philosophers, some in the trenches, some at the edge of knowledge.

In France, because of a long, instructive, and often tragic history, political leaders know better than to oppose vociferous philosophers, if they want to leave a positive historical mark. Once, the police suggested to de Gaulle to arrest a mass agitating and protesting Sartre. De Gaulle replied haughtily, and correctly:”One does not arrest Voltaire.”

Well after I wrote my March 8 essay, BHL insisted that it was not too late to do something. Saif Al islam made clear declarations of intended extermination. At the last possible moment, responding to BHL’s fierce urgency, Sarkozy moved courageously, first with a diplomatic marathon, succeeding to hypnotize American, Russians and Chinese into assenting into an intervention in a timely manner. Years earlier, a French paratroop division had terminated the Rwandan holocaust, but after much of it had already happened. Two days after the UNSC vote, as a last minute conference about what to do occurred in Paris, the French president announced that he had unleashed supersonic bombers, and really very large precision guided bombs, to save the city of Benghazi. In all this, as usual, Britain knew better than disagreeing with her sister republic, and was very supportive.

It is often said that those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it. However, those who know history are often rewarded if they listen to it. Retrospectively, the French republic should have moved unilaterally against the bloody tyrant Hitler, when the going was good, in spite of Anglo-Saxon, plutocratically minded opposition.

When Americans mention Qaddafi’s crimes, they always mention Pan Am 103, but never UTA 772 (the second French civil jumbo jet destroyed probably by Libyans). Of course, neither do Americans ever mention Qaddafi’s invasions of Chad, Tanzania, etc. Since the French don’t exist, apparently, nor do invaded Africans, perhaps they should just reciprocate… And ignore Americans in kind. All of this lack of knowledge goes a long way to explain the ignorant pseudo ethical position of all too many Americans. In general those who want to do something about the world, or not, ought to know something about it.

Another thing France learned from a very long history is that, sometimes she was on the very wrong side of history. It has been a big mistake for France not to have taken the side of the People in Algeria in 1945. If she had, there would have been no Algerian civil wars. (That, of course, will have been viewed as a catastrophe by many of the numerous enemies of Europe, France, and the Maghreb.)

On May 8, 1945, in Setif, Algeria, the day Nazi Germany capitulated, an Algerian demonstration of indigenes supported the Allied victory against the racist infamy. There were with many Allied flags, and just one, or two, proto-Algerian flags, green and white. Those two flags led to a (completely unjustified) repression by the authorities (at least one Algerian boy killed), which led to a counter-reaction (officially 103 dead “colons”), followed by a counter-massacre (officially 1020 dead Algerians). In a way, taking the side of the People in 2011 in Libya, is a distant compensation. It is also a indispensable buttressing of the budding democratization in Tunisia and Egypt, and a way to encourage reformers in Algeria and Morocco.

So, in 2011, the French republic took the side of the People in Libya. A lesson from Algeria, well learned. As I hinted above, it’s not about oil: French, British and American oil companies had perfect business arrangements with Kaddafi and his clan. Hence the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Gates, making excuses to not do anything against Qaddafi, on the ground that he was terrified of his air defenses. Either Gates was lying, incompetent, or the French much more advanced than the U.S. Air Force. Whatever it was, Libyan defenses proved 100% impotent against French aircraft, in spite of the fact that the French attacked against a 100% operative anti-aircraft system, as time was of the essence.

A recent poll showed that, when Americans were asked to name a scientist, 47% answered Einstein (dead for 56 years). Next, 23% answered:”I don’t know”. By contrast, people could probably give a long list of names of monkeys who can push a ball around. hey, they used to do this when they were three years old, and growing up beyond that is hard to do! Now, of course, people have no idea about what Einstein did, except that mass and energy are the same (it is not that simple, by the way). Even worse is their basic knowledge of science itself.

What is science? What is certain. So those who do not know science are certainly uncertain about some things which are certain. Even worse, they miss entire mental dimensions from which further scaffolding for the imagination can arise.

In physics, the definition of work is force times displacement. No displacement, no work. No force, no work. (Obvious joke: two reasons for Obama to have done no work. There was neither displacement, nor force…)

Physicists have thought hard for centuries to come up with that concept, that force times displacement is a worthy notion, best depicting work, and it… works. Such a notion is conceptually useful, and ought not to be confined to physics and engineering (as my Obama example demonstrates).

Many people who have studied many things, but no physics, are often struggling with notions that have finally been elucidated after centuries of efforts, and studies by top intellectuals, and are now so certain, tested and useful, that they have become part of science.

Unfortunately many standard philosophers have learned to worry exclusively about hermeneutics (although not the three philosophers mentioned above).  I would claim that this infection with hermeneutics is one of the reason of the disaffection of many young people, in the West, from all and any deep critique, and their bovine acceptance of the corrupt rule of their financial rulers.

What’s “hermeneutics“? It is the study and theory not of reality itself, but of interpretation. It’s like crazies studying what they think about the world, rather than making an effort to think about the world itself.

It comes from the Greek hermeneutikos “interpreting,” from hermeneuein “to interpret,” a derivative of Hermes, the divinity of speech, writing, and eloquence. When one walks next to a swamp in summer, it is valid to worry about mosquitoes. But that is not what many Academic philosophers would do, according to their obsession with hermeneutics. They would instead worry about how mosquitoes are interpreted. (Revel did not use these words or argumentation, but he argued that the confusion between physical reality and interpretation of text made most of modern philosophy an object of ridicule. So he came to the same conclusion as me.)

Speaking of mosquitoes… Weirdly, Obama, observing the end of Qaddafi’s clan claimed that “Freedom is stronger than the iron fist“. I guess, he has exerted his freedom of not bombing Gaddafi much (I had actually recommended that Obama just let France and Britain do the job, which was better for everybody). But the iron fist of the French Air force conducted around 4,000 strike missions. France also sent special forces, advisers, parachuted weapons, and finally build an aerial bridge to the Berber held Nafusah mountains just south west of Tripoli, to transfer heavy weapons to the rebels with her faithful accomplice, Qatar.

Verily, the war against Gaddafi would have failed without NATO’s… iron fist intervention. Overall, NATO conducted 20,000 sorties and 7,500 air strikes (few of them by American planes; in one slice of time, out of 1,000 NATO sorties, just three (3!) were American; however, the few American drones were very efficient at the end).

Verily, dozens of thousands would have been killed, without NATO’s iron fist. Freedom is best, no least because it comes with an iron fist. There is no contradiction, Obama, quite the opposite. The iron fist is a lesson that the ancient Greeks taught in the tremendous battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea… And when freedom cannot use an iron fist, as in Afghanistan, it is precisely because it has fangs biting its conscience, because its cause is not just.

The dictators hellish columns of tanks, bristling with numerous giant mobile missile batteries the U.S. Secretary of defense had evoked to claim that one should leave Libya’s powerful arsenal alone were irresistibly advancing… They had reached the suburbs of Benghazi. Their complete destruction in a few minutes by undeterred French stealth bombers will stay one of the most spectacular tipping points in the history of warfare. A city was on the verge of being destroyed, as many were in the last century. Rwanda all over again, a few minutes away. And then a miracle from up high, as in the Bible…

Gaddafi’s dictatorship, often grotesque, using torture massively, would have kept on going. There is no reason it would not have gone on for centuries. Such as been the fate of the region, a stable pattern of anarchic, chaotic tyranny.

Indeed, this is the tragic history of Islam: dictators massaging the Qur’an fascist principle, Sura 4, verse 59: “O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” Actually, this deplorable slogan is word for word, a repetition of a much older Christian fascist principle, which had the same consequence: theocratic dictatorship, something Constantinople fell, in and out, for centuries, until it lost all control, in the 11C, as the Turks had just learn to massage the same ideas, to their immense profit.

The West veered away from the original version of Sura 4, verse 59 (I will quote the exact Christian text some other day; among other places, it is in Augustine’s élucubrations, or why to have faith in all the wrong reasons). How? Because the Franks were secularist in Christian sheep disguise. And they had more force, and more democratic assent, so they did what they wanted, in the area they governed, without having recourse to fascist mental tricks of the basest sort.

Speaking of tragedies, Dr. Saif Al Islam El Qaddafi, the son of the guide, was long felt to be, and long sounded as, a reformer. He was viewed as the hope one could believe would orient his father’s regime towards democracy. Hope all wanted to believe. Instead, he, the son of privilege, in spite of his sharp intelligence, became, when the rebellion started, very much the fulminating, crazed out, son of his father. Saif’s invectives, and orders to bloody mass murder, were instrumental in the hurried French airstrikes outside of Benghazi, and earned him a warrant of arrest by the International Criminal Court.

In any case, it was a jolly war. Nothing like being on the right side of war (yes, there is such a thing, and those indignant about the notion have it, only because there is such a thing!)

Many of the nations which ignominiously proclaimed themselves to be neutral until Hitler attacked them (Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) this time intervened, and sent warplanes. Neutralism is another form of racism, so this was a welcome change.

As I have argued many times, one of the main cause of the French defeat in May 1940 against the Nazis was the desperate last minute help the French republic provided to countries which were neutral even after Hitler attacked them, and then asked France to rescue them.

The idiotic French attempt to provide hurried help to those who did not deserve it, disorganized completely the French Air Force and army. The seven armored divisions of the mobile armored reserve were rushed to the Netherlands, half of the French Air Force was not even in France when the Nazi tanks broke through. (By comparison, the Nazis had only a grand total of ten armored divisions, but they attacked next to Paris, while the French armored reserve was sent to the Netherlands.)

Interestingly, Sweden, which is, hypocritically, not even a member of NATO, sent 8 advanced Gripen fighter (then reduced to 5, with fewer restrictions).

Of course, readers will remember that Sweden fed Hitler with high grade iron, for years, so that the Nazi dictator could be stronger than Popeye. Sweden also graciously provided the Nazis with the 88mm gun, and its technology. The 88 was  the AA and anti tank weapon of choice of Hitler’s armies, throughout the war.  

France and Britain were not amused by Sweden’s friendship with Hitler, and the iron diet it all too graciously provided. The French Foreign Legion, having routed elite Nazi divisions in Northern Norway, was poised to cut Sweden in two, and grab the iron mines, when France started to fall, and the Legionnaires were recalled.

In other words, sixty years after their pathetic, greedy, deliberate, willing, abject, and extended collaboration with Nazism, even the Swedes have come to realize that it was high time to change philosophy. But, as I said, not yet so for the Swiss.

The same pattern has occurred in Syria, which was feared for Libya, or Egypt. And has happened in North Korea: hereditary dictatorship. The clever son of the bloody dictator, himself a British trained doctor, has become a full bloody dictator of his own.

Now what? Well, NATO is going to reload. Precision guided bombs are expensive. On the other hand they provide with quality, progressive employment: they push the highest tech, an intrinsic good, because only very high tech, of a type we do not have as yet, will allow us to steer seven billion people, soon to be ten billion, towards calmer shores, with not too degraded a biosphere. 

Some will wonder what I am talking about, and whether the fall of Qaddafi and his sons has rendered me mad with happiness. But the inlandsis, the icecaps, will melt. Oceans will rise seventy meters… That’s the worst case scenario, OK, but, unfortunately, the most probable, in the fullness of time.

How do we know this? Because it happened in the past. It’s like earthquakes in the eastern United States, or northern France; they have happened, up and above Richter 7 (50 times more powerful than the one of August 23, 2011), so they will happen again. Total melting happened, 100 million years ago. And now there is a reason for it to happen again. And very fast, as CO2 equivalent gases skyrocket.

Seas rising in a non linear fashion, as they already are, however discreetly, means billions of refugees. And heavy fighting for resources. And soon. In other words, massive war. Except if we find a technological way to avoid that, through a combination of CO2 capture and artificial icecaps (my latest crazy idea).

Eastern Antarctica is presently gathering snow because it has got warmer, and so it snows more on this driest of all deserts. Artificial glaciers have already been created in the Himalayas, to compensate increasing desertification. They provide people with water in summer, during the dry season. Storing water in glaciers will have to be expanded industrially, on real, and artificial mountains, many kilometers high. Why not a very high mountain range in Saudi Arabia? This is just a small example of the sort of tech we do not have, but we need, and right away. So pushing tech is useful. China just decided to launch a 20 year program for a liquid thorium reactor (cost at least 10 billion; France has also research programs in this area). What’s the Tea Party and its bipartisan president going to do? Brew tea?

On the way to these calmer shores, on the other side of the good will of a technological ocean, regimes hostile to democracy will have to be sunk. Or then they will have to lay really low, and make all sorts of provisional excuses, as China is learning to do.

Qaddafi had actually started a nuclear bomb program, with the help of Dr. Khan, the Pakistani renegade. Other Weapons of Mass Destruction are within the resources of most states (Libya had also tried the chemical avenue). So the states have to be forced to cooperate with democracy. I know Bush used that reasoning (which he did not invent), but that does not make it false. I also know that the notion of ingerence is not new. The philosopher Grotius talked about it (17C). More prosaically, Julius Caesar used it in his war in Gaul (he invaded to prevent the migration of a nation moving across to their fellows in the West as he disingenuously claimed it gravely disturbed other nations of Gaul; the pretext was false, but ultimately Gaul benefited from his bloody, monstrous invasion… because the Celtic theocracy was a not an optimal civilization, to put it mildly). The Romans used ingerence systematically. And it was not really a crime. After their initial ingerence, the Roman boot was very light. Plutocracy was a different problem, and it tended to fester locally… So many people will say that Rome died of corruption. but of course plutocracy is a corruption of civilization.

Nowadays, the right of ingerence has merged with the right to survival. An ongoing dictatorship in Syria is incompatible with a safe and sound Mediterranean. Some will say: what of Israel? Why don’t you want to invade that too? Well, it’s a different problem: Israel has a high democratic index (although not to the point of having a constitution, democratic or not! Yes, tellingly, there is no such a thing as an Israeli constitution, as the contradiction between Judaism and democracy could not be resolved!)

Israel does not treat the Palestinians according to the UN human rights charter, right, but it is not very clear what is its exact responsibility in that state of affairs, and how to remedy it without a global evolution of all mentalities concerned. The way to extinguish the Arabo-Israeli conflict is obviously through a Mediterranean Union, a southern extension of the European Union, doing for the Mediterranean what Europe has done for Europe, that is extinguishing obdurate hatred down to a manageable level. This can work if and only if all the regimes democratize first. If other states in the region democratize (and that means secularize), Israel will be forced to do the same (which would rather be ironical).

So what of Syria? Well, to each day its toil. In the end, triage has to be used: the worst offenders have to be eliminated first. At this point, as the Gaddafi clan crumbles, the next target is the Syrian dictatorship. However, the situation in Syria is not as bad as it had got in Libya (Qaddafi killed an order of magnitude more in 2011 before the Western intervention). So pressure there have to be increased, and last week’s Western sanctions have first to be generalized. Russia, in particular, has to be made to understand what it all means, and cooperate.

France won against the dictatorships in Ivory Coast and is winning in Libya, but approval by the United Nations was essential to both processes. The lack of unity among democracies is why, for several years, Hitler went from victory to victory.

Democracy is a war against the constant temptation of plutocracy: you know, that sort of temptation, spending one’s vacation among one’s fellow millionaires and billionaires, on one’s remote island, wasting median family income every few days, maddeningly claiming to be concerned by the “little guy”. 

In Ukraine the reigning president seems determined to break the past Prime minister. Yulia Tymoshenko is accused of “corruption or embezzlement of funds“. Representatives of international organizations, the European Union and the United States called this arrest a “political persecution of an opposition leader“.

There too, although no supersonic bombers need to be sent, force ought to be brought to bear, to insure human rights are respected. Using the justice system in the service of the basest instincts, is bad enough. When the justice system is targeted against people vested with popular authority, past or present, it is worse.

This was the major problem in the prosecution of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the official elected with the most representative votes in the world, as with the UN Secretary General, arrested at work, under diplomatic immunity in his plane, on unbelievable sexual charges, something one rather expects in Saudi Arabia or Malaysia (which used to be customary of this sort of legal persecution of the libidinous type, all the way to execution in some cases).

And what of Gandhi and its new age pop pacifism, in all this? Well Gandhi, a self declared admirer and friend of Hitler, as I have explained many times, was a complete fraud. Worse than that: he, indirectly, created Pakistan, and was the indirect cause of millions of dead.

Mandela, another British trained lawyer in South Africa (!), was not a fraud. Mandela used violence. And Mandela was right to do, because he had no better choice. In the end, Mandela got very few people killed, and the racist whites who jailed him also came to that conclusion, and they spoke to him, all the more since Mandela had learned Afrikaner in jail. Far from clinging to the identity of his origin, as Gandhi did, against the Muslims, Mandela crossed the cultural gap to his enemies. War is best fought in enemy territory, especially cultural war.

Only force can stop force. Sometimes physical force is opposed by pure mental force. But work is never about pushing one way, and pushing the other way, simultaneously. Only Obama seems to believe that. Force is never bipartisan, if it wants to go somewhere. To do work, force has to go somewhere. Too bad Obama did not study physics. It shows.

***

Patrice Ayme

Desert Warfare

March 29, 2011

 

HUMANITARIAN VALUES HAVE SURVIVAL VALUE.

***

Desert warfare is fast and fluid. When the British and French were fighting the Italians and Germans in 1940-1943, the war was all over the maps of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. From one month, to the next. Hostilities started with Mussolini’s million man army in Libya marching into Egypt against the 36,000 men British army, guarding the Suez canal and the oil fields of Arabia.

War in the desert does not hinge on much. The crucial action at Bir Hakeim by a small (but extremely competent) French army, saved from encirclement the entire Eight British army which was in full retreat after Tobruk. If that British army had been encircled by Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the Italian army, it would have been destroyed, Egypt would have fallen, all Jews in Israel would have met their maker, and Hitler would have made it to Arabia’s and Iraq’s oil fields.

The French army, made mostly of professional soldiers, fought so well, because it was extremely motivated. Those who have values are not alone, even in the desert, and having values is the way to not been alone, even in the desert.

Qaddafi, the world’s most experienced dictator, has huge stores of big, advanced weapons all over. In the last few days it was discovered he has sophisticated SA-24s ground to air missiles. He is not supposed to have them, but he does.

At some point, Qaddafi proclaimed his annexation of the country of Chad. More than once, Gaddafi ordered big Tu-22s supersonic Soviet bombers to drop bombs on the capital of Chad, by flying under French radar. Finally the French shot back. The dead crew of a Tu-22 was found to be East German. East German, where Merkel comes from, really? Really. Not a coincidence. (Kadhafi bombed Europe, and the American and French jumbo jets, to avenge himself from his defeat in Chad.)

Libyan pilots refused to confront French pilots, making mercenary pilots necessary.

Once Libya invaded Tanzania. Yes, a country in the southern hemisphere, south of the snows of Kilimanjaro. Tanzania underwent a general mobilization.

In the Tanzanian counter-attack, the Libyans and their (literally) man eating ally, the dictator Idi Amin Dada, were completely defeated. That is how Uganda was rid of cannibalism: the Tanzanians stuck to their guns, down to the bitter end. Here, the bitter end was to do away with cannibalism.

There are many such stories with Qaddafi. Some live for luxury, Qaddafi lives for terror and destruction. With a sense of dark humor.

By the way the friend of Kadhafi, the official cannibal Idi Amin Dada, escaped justice as he retired in wealth. Probably wealthy enough to still enjoy his preferred meal. A man of wealth and taste. Where did Amin flee to? Libya, of course. Then Saudi Arabia.

Germany and Turkey have acted to insure the continuation of the 42 year reign of Qaddafi and his sons. It is no coincidence that Germany and Turkey have been the only countries in the world, which engaged in genocides against (people they defined as) foreigners, in the last 100 years.

I will explain, in essays coming soon, what it is in the history of Turkey and Germany which makes them so sympathetic to fascism of the worst type.

Many Americans long did not understand why cool indifference to mayhem made Auschwitz possible. That cool indifference to mayhem did not instigate Auschwitz. That, the Germans did. But it made it possible. Indeed, facing Hitler, and his hordes of fanaticized youth, the defense of the values of the West was left to France and Britain (which were surprisingly defeated in a confluence of improbable catastrophes in 1940).

Some say: why don’t you fight in Yemen, Bahrain, Somalia, Sudan, etc.? If you feed one of the starving, why don’t you feed them all? Why so discriminatory?

First American and French soldiers died in Somalia and Sudan, respectively. These countries are messes, and they are getting partitioned. Sudan very officially so, since a new country is being created with its southern part, after a UN sponsored referendum.

Second, Kadhafi has used military force against peaceful demonstrators, and has committed war crimes, and crimes against humanity (and that even against the American and the French!) In other words, Kadhafi is Hitler light, whereas many other regimes are just Mubarak like. There is a huge difference between Hitler and Mubarak, as there is a difference between abominable, and bad.

Third, as I said, Libya, an old Greek and Phoenician colony, used to be in the center of the Greco-Roman empire, and a source of great agricultural wealth. In other words, as Obama pointed out not as crudely, its location makes it proximally strategic. Something the UK and France are fully aware of. These two powers expulsed Turkey from the area between the late eighteenth century and the early twentieth century. Turkey relinquished Albania and Crete only in 1913. Turkey  held the entire southern and eastern Mediterranean and Mid East for more than three centuries. If the area is a mess, it’s in part because of this imperialistic possession by the uncivilized (being possessed by the uncivilized is a particularly inferior sort; being possessed by the most civilized, as India was, is more profitable, as Gandhi unwittingly proved).

Who dominates what has economic impact for everybody, including the West: if Turkey had kept on holding Iraq, Arabia, Libya, and Algeria, the West would have had to get the oil, manu militari. But it happened before that, because, before Turkey had time to exploit the oil, it was too liberal in the way in which it exploited piracy, and kidnapping. So the nascent USA attacked that Turkish protectorate, Libya. under Washington’s presidency. So righteous adventures in Libya are of the essence of the USA.

Fortunately Obama knows this, or, at least he knows the part involving values. Obama, confronted to Qaddafi, explained that defending American values is in the strategic interest of the USA (something France and Britain have been persuaded of, since there is civilization, and they defend it). Verily, the day North Korea is starving, and threatens to blow up the USA because it wants food now, this point of view will look very practical.

Obama speaks of "American values", to please his bigoted electorate. But he knows these values are just those of successful sustainable civilization, those humanitarian values which honor the human spirit. HUMANITARIAN VALUES HAVE SURVIVAL VALUE.

If you have a king cobra in your bedroom, that king of kings of snakes, you don’t just poke it a few times. You take it out. And, as far as making a deal with Qaddafi, well, Heinrich Himmler, chief of the SS, following Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s dolphin, thought he could make a deal with the Brits. But the Brits arrested him, and he swallowed poison.

Many tremble, as plutonium looms in Japan again. However mercury does not just looms in the oceans: it is already there, deposited as condensed mercury vapor from coal plants. Plutonium is not yet in the food chain, but mercury already is. Not talking about it, or eating fish just once a month, won’t make it go away. Those responsible are not prosecuted, let alone bothered.

As the world is threatened, or is undergoing by many Fukushimas, and worse, this is no time to tell those responsible of past, present and future catastrophes, that they will be spared from justice, just because they are wealthy and influential.

Justice is justice, and it should apply to plutocrats, just as it applies to the simplest citizens.

Patrice Ayme

Whistling A Hurricane.

March 17, 2011

Whistling In A Hurricane.

IDIOCY IS CRIMINAL, LOOKING SOMEWHERE ELSE, EVIL.

****

[18 hours after the essay below was posted, to my very pleased astonishment, the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing “all necessary means” in Libya to protect civilians. The vote was 10 for, 5 abstaining. I want to congratulate the farsightedness of India, China and Russia, which overcame their concern about democracy intervening inside devious, democratically challenged countries. There is hope for them.

By contrast, Germany’s attitude was lamentable, anti-democratic, cowardly, symptomatic of a country that does not understand that democracy is worth fighting for, ahistorical, and anti-European. Merkel, who used to be a privileged youth of the fascist East German regime, seems to have returned to her questionable roots.

According to Le Figaro, BHL, Bernard Henri Levy, who climbed very late on the revolutionary train pushed Sarkozy, and then the West to war. Sarko worked on the 15 governments of the UNSC one by one, but the UN Resolution passage was acquired at last minute…. An encouraging case of philosophy in the driver seat.]

****

****

Our civilization is an immensely complicated machine which thinks and feels. And it is getting more complex by the day. We cannot do without it. Without it, we, and all we love, will be dead, or dying. As the leaders exhibit this or that emotion, they drive events. Out of vile emotions, evil events. E-vil, indeed.

This civilizational machine has something in common with the doomed nuclear reactor complex at Fukushima, which could very well entirely melt, explode, burn, and not just force the evacuation of the world’s largest city. That would happen, in the worst possible case. But at this point, the reasonable thing to do is to proceed logically backwards from the worst possible case. So it is in Libya.

Proceeding from the worst often is the most reasonable, and should ever be more so, as we learn to see further, as we need to, as the machine gets ever more complex, and we need to steer the probability waves, just so.

So let’s suppose the worst has happened at Fukushima, with its 6 reactors, and 6 pools of nuclear combustible:

1) What would that worst be? Well, in the worst imaginable case, the pools where barely used nuclear rods are stored, would have dried up, and heated up so much that they caught fire. That’s the worst. The consequence would be "apocalyptic" (as the chief radioactivist in Europe put it in a diplomatic style reminiscent of yours truly).

2) So how do we prevent this worst possible case? Well France flew one hundred tons of boric acid (the element boron, B, stops neutrons, hence nuclear reactions), 10,000 anti-radiation suits, and various other equipment. South Korea will send some of its Boron reserve too. And a USA warship has provided high power water cannons. Anything whatsoever ought to be done to bring water to the pools.

If there is water, there is hope. No water, no hope. And the fall-out could be worldwide.

The crisis in Japan illustrates the necessity for catastrophic calculus. Catastrophic calculus would be employed after usual risk analysis.

For example the Fukushima reactors and pools had three systems for providing electric power to the water circulation system. This is typical of reactors, and other sensitive sites worldwide; pile up the safety systems locally. But if one piles them up all in the same place, they can fail all together.

Nuclear reactor complexes should have off site emergency cooling and anti-reactive systems, with their own autonomous, sustainable power (no pun intended).

The crisis in Japan happened because of idiotic geological analyses, idiotic engineering, idiotic risk analysis, and the amazingly idiotic storage, next to the reactors, of gigantic quantities of nuclear fuel. Yes idiotic is the word, there is no other that fits the perfectly idiotic strategies deployed, with delirious obstinacy over decades.

The attitude relative to Libya, a green light to its Pluto, Gaddafi, is even more idiotic, because it is giving a green light to the most brutish force. Today Libya, tomorrow, the world.

If you think the nuclear crazies in Pakistan and North Korea did not notice that the Libyan dictator and criminal against mankind could not be eliminated, when he could easily have been, I have soon to show you hundreds of nukes heading your way.

Ultimately the democracies will find themselves at war, for real, against immense forces with none of Gadhafi’s comic allure. And hundreds of millions will die, and fingers will be pointed out to today’s democratic leaders, desiccated dwarves apparently deprived of brains, guts,  hearts, and any respect or affection for their children, who will have to fight the war they brought. With their inaction.

Obama went to "fill up his brackets", in public on the sport channel, ESPN, something the rest of the world does not know what it is. In a literally critical situation, he produced himself as a well trained dog of the national mindlessness. Is that all he is?

"Filling the brackets" has to do with projecting team sports results for the rest of the year. You will not see the leaders of major democracies indulging in such circus, when the situation is as critical as it is now.

But this is the USA. The Americans got bread, they have to be given circus, and the joker in chief provides it on the sport channel. No doubt ESPN will know how to reward him someday. Thus the dog comes to the table. By the way, in Europe representing a brand on TV, or even alluding to it is against basic ethics. But, apparently the US president is the under assistant east coast promotion man.

A Roman philosopher and poet, Juvenal, was the first to observe that the backbone of plutocracy was for the emperor to provide " panem et circenses" (100 CE). Some emperors, namely Nero, Caligula, Commodus, entered the arena in person, and made a show of themselves. Obama is the last representative of a long tradition.

Americans are big on this sort of thing, obsessing about sports, so they can be small on the rest. Takes two to tango to Armageddon, People and plutocracy, a co-dependency of victim and torturer.

Instead Obama should have asked his underlings how come the armada the USA has deployed in Japan cannot bring water to the burning nuclear fuels. After all, the army of the USA is the army of Japan (Japan has only a self defense force, which is quite small, 40% of which is mobilized by the quake/tsunami).

But not only that: in the worst possible case, the safety of the USA is engaged (and not just by the evacuation of Tokyo). Obama is commander in chief of the USA, but, also, de facto, commander in chief of Japan. What does he do on this critical day? He "fills up his brackets". Ah, but his unworthy predecessor, emperor Justinian, before he destroyed millions in the name of Jesus, and his triple head, never missed a game. Morons had it easy in history, so far.

Our civilization feels, and thinks out of its feelings. It was one of Bush’s big themes: feel the wrath of democracy, and it will spread. That much was correct. But, of course, Bush was dissembling: he was mostly pursuing aims antagonistic to democracy and civilization. Still is. A general confusion reigns ever since.

It is true that democracy needs wrath to defend it. It is no coincidence that Republican Rome, Britain and France have been among the world’s most aggressive societies. (Interestingly, when Rome became a fascist empire, its wrath on exterior enemies mostly disappeared, proving that the Roman expansion had been propelled, indeed, by the wrath of democracy!)

Don’t expect Germany and Russia to understand that too well: they found themselves at the end of the Franco-British gun all too many times, and they are perhaps a bit too fresh at democracy themselves. Merkel certainly does not seem to have understood well that Germany’s banks and industries profited of the profligacy of the PIGS (Portugal Ireland Greece Spain). And that now Germany has to contribute, having well profited. Russia of course understand that it is its right to torture the Caucasus, just as Gaddafi has the right to torture Libya, Benghazi and the Cyrenaica…

By decisively deciding to be indecisive with Gaddafi, Obama gave a green light to all bloody dictators. Qadhafi has no legitimacy whatsoever; he made a coup, and never conducted even one fake election, and sometimes all his streets killers are paid mercenaries from other African countries (they wear yellow helmets). But, OK, his torturers are first class, and he does whatever it takes to subdue his people, and to provide oil to the West. All notions well appreciated in Washington, DC. Moreover, Kadhafi is a first class plutocrat, adulated by his peers, the world’s financiers of the kleptocratic type.

So Obama winked to Kadhafi, while waging his finger, the sort of ballet of gestures the charming Dr. Saif al Islam al Gadhafi is prone to do, smiling, on TV, as the great showman that he is.

Asked pointed question about the weasel behavior of his administration, Obama’s spokesman blurted out incoherently that they had to consult with "international partners".

I knew the concept of ‘friends", or "allies". But "partners"? Who are these "partners"? Russia, China, India, Libya? Having long been a "partner" to Japan, GE, General Electric, having sold cheap melting, exploding reactors to the land of the rising sun, at Fukushima, among other places, is now "partner" to China… Selling American secrets. And rules behaviors… China now tells us to stay out of Libya? Why don’t we tell China to stay out of Tibet? (Check the distances and the history, on both sides.) And what is exactly India doing in Kashmir? A bit the same as Qaddafi and Russia do with their contradictors?

By giving a green light to Gadhafi, Obama gave a green light for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain, and crush the budding democracy there. Which is exactly what Saudi Arabia did. A blood bath ensued.

If Qadhafi, and his family of bloody world class gangsters win, it is not just the Arab spring which dies.  It is not just the awe and respect for democracy which die.

In truth the armed democracies have to lead. If they do not, fascists do, fascists did, and fascists will. Lead.

When democrats become meek and uncertain about morality, as Obama has, fascists start to believe they can get away with anything. That is what happened in 1936, when, in a comparable war, part of the Spanish army attacked the Spanish people.

Democracy did not fight back in 1936. Hitler, Mussolini, fascist Japanese generals, and other fascists, worldwide, got very encouraged.

France and Britain wanted to get rid of Gaddafi. His dangerous presence will have to be extirpated someday, one way, or another, because he is a deadly danger to the neighborhood.

The USA ought to remember that France and Britain are not just allies and fellow democracies. They are who the USA mostly come from. Without France’s massive armed intervention in the fight of the American people against the English king, the USA would not exist.

Does Obama know any of this? He sure acts as if he did not. If he did, Britain, France and the USA would have cratered the Libyan’s dictator’s runways long ago (it’s super easy to do). Democracy does not ask authorization from infamy to proceed decently.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

Note on President as promotion man: One of Confucius’ most famous ideas was:”The gentleman is not an utensil.” By appearing on ESPN, right of a large, capital letters, bright red ESPN logo, intermingled with the Presidential Seal, Obama, showed clearly what his office was all about. In ancient China, the gentleman was not an utensil, in the modern USA, the emperor himself is a utensil. 

In 1965, when Obama was 4 years old, the Rolling Stones made the excellent song: “The West Coast Under Assistant Promotion Man”.

***

Note on the fascist mass homicidal dictatorship in Libya: When Al Qaeda attacked the USA, it was based in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was attacked officially to remove Al Qaeda from there, after an ultimatum to the Taliban to do just that. Then Al Qaeda went to Pakistan. Did the West then attack Pakistan? No. Why? Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and a lot of them. The Gadhafi gang is smart enough to understand that. So it will acquire the weapons.

China has looked the other way, according to leaked US state department, when North Korean weapons transited through China. China plays tough, and is determined to use Africa as a commodity backyard (although it is already well endowed with Tibet and Xinjiang, among other vast regions).

***

On storing seven times more nuclear fuel next to nuclear reactors than there are in the reactors themselves: “the vast majority of the fuel assemblies at the troubled reactors are in the storage pools, not the reactors”). (I will write follow up essays on the nuclear and geological idiocies at play, because they will no doubt play an even greater role, looking forward; it will be made clear that it is far from being just a Japanese problem; actually the low cost reactors were made by GE, and the geological absurdity was, and is, global).