Posts Tagged ‘Lies’

Islam: Lies & War Above Peace

November 17, 2015

More than 99% of known religions are, by the standards of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, not just evil, but illegal. And that includes Catholicism as practiced in, say, France, in 1700 CE.

The Islamist State has an ideology, and its name is Literal Islam, the one and only (anybody else is an apostate and Allâh ordered to kill them). John Oliver about the fuc*ing giant ass*olery which masquerades as something honorable:

The “Enlightenment”, mostly a French centric invention, consisted in asserting the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and destroy whatever was in the way of those rights, to impose them universally. When the French Republic declared war to the Nazi Reich (and to Hitler’s ally, the USSR), on September 3, 1939, it was more of the same. It was precisely to destroy ideologies which industrially violated the Rights of Man, while claiming to be for peace, freeing minorities, fighting an unfair treaty which had freed Eastern Europe, saving the pure races from bastardization, rescuing civilization, fighting “plutocrats” and all the grossest lies the Nazis could possibly imagine. As we will see below, the ideology known as Islam rests on a similar dynamic of the grossest lies.

 Islamophilia Kills

Islamophilia Kills

[ISIS declared that going to concerts or bars was “idolatry”, and that’s punished by death, according to the Qur’an, the message of Allah.]

The going was tough for France in 1940, and not just because of unusual left field attack planned by a couple of Nazi generals. That was recoverable, but not the attitude of the USA then. Indeed the USA, at the time did not hesitate to violate its mother, France, to advance American business (also known, aka, as plutocrats). So the USA helped, de facto, in more ways than one, the Nazis, by operating the same bait and switch as in World War One. Germany ended with 10% of its population killed, the European Jews got nearly annihilated, etc.

France would not have been occupied in 1940, if only the USA had barked (because the French Air Force has the means of counter-attack). But, instead of barking, Roosevelt recognized Vichy, a subsidiary of Hitler, as the legitimate French State (it was not).

Fortunately, the present American leadership has learned from the history of infamy to which Roosevelt and his accomplices brought so much. President Hollande proclaimed yesterday the USA and France to be “sisters”, and the U.S. Secretary of State, basking in front of the Red White And Blue U.S. embassy in Paris, proclaimed that the USA and France were “the same family”. Whereas Roosevelt disliked France intensely (after all, he was a plutocrat from a long lineage of plutocrats), Obama loves France (discreetly).

Islamophiles claim that “Islam is a religion of peace”. They also claim Islam respects other religions. Both statements indicate they have not read the Qur’an. They are sheer propaganda, but an extremely old, crafty and interlocked propaganda, set during the bloody decades when  Islam, and its various strifes and hatreds got established.

One call to violence in a religious text is enough to make the religion in question violent. Roughly 10% of the 80,000 words Qur’an are sheer calls to violence: please consult my “Violence in the Holy Qur’an” which consists of violent quotes from the Qur’an. They cannot be explained away.

One call to murder in a religion’s most sacred text, especially to murder of the obviously innocent, is enough, in my own sacred book of humanity, to make such a religion a call to holocaust.

In the New Testament, Jesus calls, in a few places, to murder “unbelievers”. There are not many of these quotes. Indeed, one is enough. Then, in the name of the Bible, “believers” could go out and kill millions of “unbelievers” (millions of those were Europeans). In the Qur’an, there are probably hundreds of calls to murder of entire categories of people. When ISIS struck in Paris, it said it had killed “idolaters” (one of the categories the Qur’an marks for murder.

So how come people who are often viewed as intelligent proclaim that “Islam is a religion of peace”? Because Islam says so. (Hitler said he was protecting minorities: hundreds of millions, not just Germans, but also Americans, believed him.)

Islam says it is a religion of peace, and this lie has elements of truth in it: surely, when you are dead, you are at peace.

What happened was this: the revelations of the “recitation” (= Qur’an) happened to Muhammad over a number of years. During those years the so-called “Messenger” was attacking caravans he was raiding, Jews whom he wanted to annihilate, and making war to Mecca who viewed Muhammad stridently revised Judeo-Christianism a threat to the holy city’s thriving religious business, led by the goddess Moon and 365 lesser deities, plus the same old meteorite Muslims turn around to this day (so Muslims are actually reproducing the acts of 2,000 year old, pre-Islamist IDOLATRY, ironically enough for people who want to kill all idolaters: why don’t they start with themselves?… Ah, but, yes, of course, I forgot, that’s the exact idea of suicide attacks…)

Muhammad won an important battle against Mecca, where he was born, from the leading family.

So Muhammad had to tame mighty Mecca, lest the city go in a total war mode. And, instead Muhammad had to make sure Mecca would accept to lose a few battles graciously. Thus Muhammad was accommodating, and made gentle statements, such as:’you can have your religion, I can have mine’. Muslim scholars interpret this as Muhammad being under duress.

Here comes the all important concept of taqiyya, or lying when in fear: it’s OK to do so. (It’s also OK to lie to reconcile a couple, or to get a woman in bed.).

Taqiyya appears in Sura 3:28:

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends; and whoever does this, shall have nothing to do with Allâh in any matter; unless you do this to protect yourselves from the unbelievers.  Thus Allâh cautions you to have reverence only for him. To Allâh is destiny.”

[My translation.]

Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir writes, “… believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers… are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.” Ibn Kafthir quotes Muhammad‘s companion, Abu Ad-Darda’, who said “we smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them,” and Al-Hasan who said that “dissimulation (Tuqyah) is acceptable till the Day of Resurrection.”

How can you have peace when you are supposed to religiously lie to “Non-believers”?

So what of that Islam is peace BS? How do we know that Islamist scholars who believe in the Qur’an, all of the Qur’an and nothing but the Qur’an, know that it is BS? Especially once completed by the much worse Hadith?

A common defense of Islam is to say that, like the Bible, there is everything, including the kitchen sink, in the text, so one cannot single out one or two bad elements. Out of just 80,000 words, the argument is obviously ridiculous: I publish as many words in barely more than a month, and I don’t include the kitchen sink.

As I said, there are more than 10,000 words in the worst verses of the Qur’an, many of them, lethal orders to kill. In this age, when the rage against plutocrats and their obsequious servants is so high, the orders to kill miscreants can only make a sacred text very tempting.

I claim the orders to kill miscreants, unbelievers. “idolaters” (ISIS word of the week), pagans, apostates supersede the “religion of peace” aspect.

Why? Because Muhammad feared for his life from Mecca and his own tribe, when he made this call: it’s straightforward taqiyya. Moreover, there is a general metaprinciple that a later verse takes precedence over an earlier verse. When Muhammad was dictator of Mecca (not expecting to die at the early age of 61), he issued the orders of “God” (namely himself), right and left, and for no good reason whatsoever (at least by then 15 centuries old Roman law standards).

Hopefully the holy alliance of France with the USA (“sister” country, said president Hollande… Actually, daughter) and rogue, but repenting Russia, will stamp out the Islamist State within months.

No pity should be shown, and heavy, relentless bombing used. Special Forces should be sent, in vast quantities. The three countries have plenty of them. A deal should be made with some of Saddam Hussein’s old officers, presently in ISIS.

In May 1940, France fought the unholy alliance of Hitler, Stalin and their friends, financiers, technologists and enablers, American plutocrats, not so discreetly supported by the American Congress and the White House.

This time Putin is no Stalin (I must admit with a reluctant smile) and president Obama is no (plutocratic and French backstabber) Roosevelt. Who said there could not be progress.?

A unique occasion is offering itself to get rid forever of Literal Islamism, as we got rid of Literal Christianism during the Enlightenment. Let’s outlaw the former, as we did the latter. Ferocity for the better is in order. Let’s go. This is how to recover an Islam we can live with, a seriously improved version of the one the Persian Caliphate knew, in the age of the House of Wisdom.

Patrice Ayme’

Lies, Here, There & Everywhere

October 19, 2015

Patrice: Too much power would not be fun without lying for the heck of it. Rumors that the Bin Laden’s elimination did not go as officially announced are getting thicker. Even the New York Times has an impressive spread on it: “What Do We Really Know About Osama bin Laden’s Death? Famed journalist Seymour Hersh, smells a rat. Hersh exposed many cover-ups, including about the  false pretenses fabricated to launch the Vietnam and Iraq wars, the Mi-Lai massacre, the usage of torture by American troops, etc. Hersh worked at The New York Times for seven years in the 1970s, and didn’t think the paper would allow to take his claims about Bin Laden’s dismissal seriously. ‘‘If you did so,’’ he wrote, ‘‘you better be sure not to let your wife start the car for the next few months.’’

Nice ambiance, in the USA. Talk the truth, die. With a reality like that, who needs fiction?

The worst may well come, if present governance, or lack thereof, persists. We are governed by greedy children educated in the plutocrats’ playground.  Democracy by representatives is an oxymoron (from oxy, sharp, and moron, stupid). Democracy, People Rule, cannot be “represented”. Either it is, or it is not. Either The People rule, or it does not.

Because dictatorship by a few representatives is still dictatorship (or, more exactly, oligarchy). It ought to be easy to get out of oligarchy: just copy Switzerland.

Right Wing UDC Just Elected In Switzerland, Says It Can't Ally Itself With French National Front, Because the Latter is "Too Left Wing".

Right Wing UDC Just Elected In Switzerland, Says It Can’t Ally Itself With French National Front, Because the Latter is “Too Left Wing”.

[“Keep your head on your shoulders“, an expression for “keep your cool”.] Considering the European Union (EU) a terrorist organization is in good jest, not to say well deserved. Other Europeans have been ready to accuse the Swiss of xenophobia (hey, it prevents the focusing of ire where it should go, namely the European Union, and its governments by bankers, for bankers). It is actually the other way around. 7% of people are foreign born in France, 9% in Germany, 13% in the USA… And a whooping 25% in Switzerland. 25% foreign born in Suisse. Instead of Swiss xenophobia, we have Swiss xenophilia.

Eugen R: The worst rule the world, because they are the worst.

Grossly Deluded: Not for long.

EugenR: For ever.

GD: What about Non Violent Civil Disobedience ?

EugenR: At the end the “Non Violent Civil Disobedience” is a human organization, and as such it will either die out, or in worse case will have an organizational structure in which the worst bullies will be on the top. There is nothing new under the sun.

Patrice: It’s even worse than that. “Civil Disobedience” is a sham. It can work, only when the worse, the masters on top, allow it. For example Martin Luther King’s sing-song of America, serves the masters well. The heavy lift was made by president Eisenhower and Earl Warren’s Supreme Court, in the 1950s. Then the Kennedys saw to it that the reforms get finished. “Civil Disobedience” facilitated the work of the highest authorities. It was in no way disobedient.

GD: At the end the truth, that, in the age of internet is a simple finger click away, will win.

Patrice (smirking): Especially when one click away is a lie. The grossest lies are on the Internet, either factually, or emotionally. Putin’s organization, which extends all the way to the USA (where obviously some writers on the pseudo-left are paid by him), has successfully duplicated the methods of the fossil fuel industry, which has inundated the world with a sea of lies rising even faster than the ocean.

Eugen R: In the end the truth wins, the question is when and at what price.

Patrice: Not really true, sorry Eugen. Just something people like to say. Historically, thus factually, it’s not true that truth always win, and it is also philosophically erroneous…

Factually: just ask the Aztecs, the Incas, North American Natives, Jews stepping in the gas chamber, European serfs serving their so-called “Lords” for nearly a millennium, Cathars, and Tasmanians, or Patagons, exterminated to the last, even including the unique genetics of their dogs.

A holocaust is a truth which makes all the lies forever win.

Philosophically: Keynes noted:”In the end, we are all dead”. That truth wins “in the end” means nothing. The truth has to win before the end of the lives of those submitted to the lie, or before causing them grave injury… At the very least. But Eugen, please proceed, sorry to go on a tangent which is at the heart of the problem!

Eugen R: In between the lie and the victory of truth, lies and cruelty celebrate. Just remember the last century events (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Mugabe, I mean Dr Mugabe, etc.). All of them are gone (except the least evil, Dr Mugabe). Did you know Pol Pot studied in Paris?

Patrice: Not only did Pol Pot study in Paris. So did Chou En Lai. Chou was the perpetual Chinese Prime Minister under Mao. After the latter’s death, he insured the transition to Deng Tsiao Ping, a colleague of his in Paris. Both were workers there, and were taught Communism, there, in Paris. Hannah Arendt fled to Paris, Marx used the British Library massively, paid by his capitalist friend Engels, Beethoven got enamored with Napoleon before realizing his mistake. But I am digressing.

Eugen R: Don’t be upset by history but learn from it. And now you have the Islam fundamentalism, that is all about cultural and religious non-tolerance, racism (Sudan, Darfur, etc.), legitimization of enslavement of the non Muslims, intellectual degradation of women, death penalty for apostasy (Under current laws in Islamic countries, the actual punishment for the apostate (or murtadd مرتد) ranges from execution to prison terms. Islamic nations with sharia courts use civil code to void the Muslim apostate’s marriage and deny child custody rights, as well as his or her inheritance rights for apostasy. Twenty-three Muslim-majority countries, as of 2013, additionally covered apostasy in Islam through their criminal laws.), etc.

GD: The real question is do we have less fear because we have more access to knowledge? Or more fear because the media has portrayed fear as the new normal? I am not sure that mass herd mentality works in modern society anymore. And that is how dictators ruled. The new fear is forced acceptance. It is worse. Or should I say financially forced acceptance.

Patrice: Fear is how to control the masses. The USA is often cleaner and more orderly than comparable European countries, because the repression is Prussian style: steal a pizza slice, go to jail for life, throw a banana peel, enjoy a $1,000 dollar fine (2% family income), etc..

Alexi H: I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. Take the example of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Patrice: Dear Alexi, this statement is as clever as claiming that the dinosaurs did not die, because they knew love and truth. Which they did.

Eugen R: Yes, they were in history few good leaders who won. Martin Luther King is among them, others are Nelson Mandela, M. Gandhi, V. Havel all of them won, but at what personal price. Two of them murdered, two served years in jail. And anyway after them came some scoundrels destroyed anyway their achievements. Still the strife for self evident justice (that’s what these leaders were after) must go on. But who are the new Mendelas, Gandhis, Kings or Havels? In the best case those who came after them are at the best Obamas.

Alexi H: It is a process. In the last 500 years from time of Galileo (who was threatened by his Church for telling the truth about the nature of the planets) to today there has been tremendous progress on a global scale. We, endowed with progressive values and committed to the path of love, must remember that darkness is also part of human nature (perhaps an essential part) and remain vigilant — and hopeful.

Patrice: Cruelty and ferocity made humanity master of its fate. Hence our quandary. “Tremendous progress” has to be taken with a bucket of salt. It’s a preferred sing-song of the right, which is that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

Simplicius: What’s your point, Patrice?

Patrice: The fascist plutocrats took over the Roman Republic, and made it increasingly grotesquely horrible… Until the Roman empire became desperately dysfunctional in the time of the “Barrack emperors” of the Third Century. Soon the extremely ferocious teenager Constantine, son of his imperial father, having made himself emperor,  imposed Catholicism (which he considered to have invented, modestly defining himself as the “Thirteenth Apostle”).

Christian fanaticism, entangled with Constantine’s tyrannic rule, so cruel, he killed the individuals closer to him (except his mother, “Saint” Helena), got ever worse, and Christianism, driven by the Book of Apocalypse”, embarked on the fundamental Biblical mission of destroying civilization, necessary for the Second Coming of Christ. To this day, nearly completely destroying civilization is the greatest achievement of Christianism.

Thereafter, most of the philosophy, books, sciences, arts and even techniques of Antiquity were destroyed. Civilization got nearly annihilated, and saved, in extremis, by the Franks. The rest of the Roman empire was not that lucky, while the Frankish reconquista from Christian and Muslim theocracy, went on certainly for eight centuries, and, arguably, to this day (through descendant regimes such as all European powers, and their colonies, such as the USA).

Coming out of near implosion into terminal obscurantism, fascism, theocracy and plutocracy, the illusion that we have progressed so much. Nothing to celebrate without a twinge of horror. OK, we have come out of the abyss in which we had fallen. Is that “tremendous progress”?

But let Eugen roll:

Eugen R: Alexi, I assume you never lived in a country where the government terrorizes its citizens. Try to express your truth in one of the terror countries, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Try to say there, it is wrong not to let women to have education (about 50% of them are illiterate). Try to say something about freedom of faith. Communism was wiped out only 20 year ago, its leftovers are regimes like the one in N. Korea but also Cuba. You say, ……darkness is also part of human nature…. The question is not if darkness is part…… definitely is and nobody can deny it, but how do you fight it. In most of the cases the fight is with even more darkness.

Patrice: This is the point made in “Star Wars”. There is the Dark Side of the Force. That means there is a Bright Side to the force. Force, Bright or Dark, brutal or clever, is what characterizes humanity. Now it’s applied to the entire planet. We are terraforming Earth.

Alexi H: I have never lived in a terrorizing country. I did have terrorizing parents and an entrenched belief in a terrorizing Pentecostal God. I am a racial minority in a world that devalues everything I do because of my skin colour. We all have our challenges. In the end, it is arrogant for me to think you can make (force) people do what I think they should do or feel what I think they should feel. This is exactly the mindset of the dictator and I reject that thinking completely.

The best I can do is look at my inner signaling. I seek to elevate my own consciousness and change myself for the better. The next step is the social conversation. I share my thinking and values with others in the hope that they too will be inspired to change themselves for the better.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.

“Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

― Martin Luther King, Jr.

Patrice: Martin Luther is the Kim Kardashian of thinking. He sold well obvious lies serving the violent men at the helm. Serious hatred is driven out only by force greater than it can muster. Claiming otherwise is showing off one’s ignorance of history, hence one’s ardent proclivity to repeat it.

Eugen R: Sorry Alexi, this time M.L.King had it wrong. The Nazis were defeated by Stalin, just because his cruelty did not have limits, while the Nazis limited their cruelty only to the non Germans. Without Stalin the Western powers would never stand against the Nazis.

Patrice: Without the Western powers, Stalin would have been defeated. The Nazis lost the Battle of Moscow (December 1941-January 1942) only because the Siberian army of 250,000 elite polar soldiers had been transported by train from East Siberia, once Stalin was sure that the Japanese were going to attack the USA, not the USSR. That army skied around the frozen Germans, enjoying the coldest winter in 50 years (same act of God already used with Napoleon to help Russia), and cut them from behind everywhere. The Nazis tried to retreat, but could not even dig holes in the rock solid icy ground using explosives and howitzers.

Western material help, through Murmansk and Iran, was enormous. It also brought crucial intelligence, thanks to code breaking, such as for the battle of Kursk (largest tank battle ever fought, the crucial stake through the Nazi vampire’s heart).

Alexi H: If you think about it carefully, the darkness of Hitler was replaced by the darkness of Stalin. This was true for the USSR, East Germany, East Berlin and most of East Europe. So Stalin did not drive out darkness, he just replaced it with his own dark shadow.

Patrice: Careful thinking in matters of causality requires correct chronology. Also Marxism itself, a German idea, was a maddening confusion between “capital” and “dictatorship”, thus justifying, and calling for, the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Eugen R: Alexi, Stalin was in control by 1923, ten years before Hitler (Lenin tried to stop him at the end of his life).

Patrice: Moreover, Hitler was not really in control before 1935 (when he persuaded the army to make him Chancellor-President).

German and Russian fascism were entangled since 1915. The German High Command, under Ludendorff’s personal direction,  ferried Lenin’s government across Germany from Switzerland in 1917. From early 1915, agent  “Parvus” (Israel Lazarevich Gelfand) channeled German government financial support to Lenin’s Bolsheviks. The support went on, even after Lenin took power. Sure enough, Lenin offered Eastern Europe to the Kaiser, and after a time of trouble post 1918, the Stalinists helped Germany to secretly rearm.

The French started the nuclear bomb program in 1938. Nobel Laureate Irene Curie was certain that a bomb could be made. The program went to Manhattan, in total secret to the Nazis, and total opening to Stalin. Hitler would have been nuclear bombed into submission. The French were first to bomb Berlin, in 1940, driving the Nazis into apoplectic fury.

EugenR: If we speak about destiny probably Hitler would survive even the nuclear bomb, as he survived about 30 assassination attempts. If to believe in God, here you have him. God is against humanism and humanity, and mainly against his “chosen people”.

As God misled His Own People, some Jewish rabies made a trial of God in some extermination camp, and their verdict was, Death penalty. But then after the verdict they went to the next ceremonial pray. The religion is not about morality (mostly in contrary), not about reality or evidence, not about belief in truth (I know many skeptic believers), not even about tribalism since there are religious newcomers, who did not grow in the tribal tradition.

It is all this about some false answers to questions of eternal life? It can be right for some, but not for everyone. So tell me, what it is all about? The faith in communism did not include even belief in eternal life, and still it has so many followers. It seems religion or faith is a need of the human spices to believe in some fundamental dogma, be it even an obvious lie, all it needs is enough followers, and supporters of a false idea. In a way to be a football club fun is also a religion.

Patrice: Hitler’s charmed lives have lots to do with the collaboration he was getting from Anglo-Saxon countries plutocratic governments, its intrinsic fellow souls (hence the very bad relationship of the French Republic with the USA, starting in 1934, and extending all the way to 2003, for the same sorts of reasons!)

Churchill had given explicit orders to not try to assassinate Hitler. Yet Hitler was a case where a particular guy, Hitler, was exerting a particularly evil influence. If any of the top Nazis had replaced Hitler, things would have improved. The same situation is happening with Assad.

(Notice in passing that when the British government wanted Reinhart Heydrich, official number two of the SS, and “Himmler’s brains”, assassinated, they made it so!)

Top German generals tried to incorporate the governments of Great Britain and the USA in a conspiracy to kill Hitler, arrest the Nazis, and avoid World War Two. Instead, they were denounced to Hitler… By the Anglo-Saxons. Hey, business is business, and business is the business of the USA, or, at least, its financial masters. Why would the USA help France, or Britain by helping German generals avoid a world war? Exasperated by his anti-Nazi ambassador, Dodd, a university of Chicago historian, who was plotting at the Tier Garten (zoo) with his friend the French ambassador, Francois-Poncet,  good plutocrat-president Roosevelt had him replaced by a pro-Nazi, and that was it.

At that point the top German generals could only deduce that the Anglo-Saxon governments were supporting Hitler’s aims, and were, objectively, his allies. They looked around, and saw that Stalin’s USSR, Mussolini’s Italy, Hiro Hito’s Japan were also supporting Hitler. France was completely isolated. The Jews were toast: they could only flee to South America, or… France.

However, had the German generals knew their history better, they would have realized that this was, again, the same exact trick as in 1914: France all alone, apparently isolated, with a world alliance pointed at her, and a friendly Uncle Sam ready for ever more business with fascist, racist imperial Germany.

What could go wrong?

Patrice Ayme’

Glacial Pace, Cool Lies, Melting Leadership

September 3, 2015

Obama went to Alaska and named Denali (the tall one in the local language) Denali. Denali, the tallest mountain that far north on Earth, is endowed with the tallest glaciated face anywhere on Earth, its north face being around 5,000 meters high (it had been named for a USA president who was killed by an anarchist, in those times when hatred for the mighty ran rampant).

Naming Denali by its name needed to be done, and, in Obama was up to the task. Obama is best at demolishing open doors, when not pursuing the world terror assassination campaign by drones which does not just dishonor the West, but saps its foundations. (I am not saying I am hysterically against assassinations, torture, and that every assassination ordered by Obama is unwise. But the question of due process, excellent information, and perfect targeting is crucial; moreover, having a plan beyond imposing terror is paramount; not the case here).

Obama Approaching A Glacier Which May Be Gone In 5 Years Thanks To His Affirmative Inaction

Obama Approaching A Glacier Which May Be Gone In 5 Years Thanks To His Affirmative Inaction

I personally have seen enormous glaciers which are now gone, both in Alaska, and in the Alps.

Obama uttered many truths in Alaska. We know this method: drowning reality under a torrent of little truths, and common place truisms. Obama seems to have realized that he was the did-nothing prez. This is better than Clinton, who, having deregulated the banks, was the did-terrible prez, or Bush II, viewed by a sizable part of the world as a war criminal, for his invasion and destabilization of Mesopotamia. Yet, even Bush did something good, and durable: Medicare Part D. One can forget a bad man who did a big, good thing. Obama just put a band aid on the gangrene of USA health care, and did preciously nothing about anthropogenic climate change.

At the Exit glacier, the president walked past signs that mark the year the glacier reached at that point. The glacier has receded two kilometers (1.25 mile) in the past 200 years. It is now the only glacier accessible by car and foot in the Kenai peninsula (which contains the largest icecap in the USA).

Pointing to the signs, the president considered the speed at which glacier retreats is accelerating. “It is spectacular, though,” glancing back at the view. “We want to make sure our grandkids can see it.”

This is slick disinformation. Grandkids? Are you kidding me? In truth, it’s absolutely certain that the grandkids will NOT see that glacier, except if the Obama daughters rush through the reproductive process. As I related in a preceding essay, a few years ago, I went back to Alaska, to show to my own toddler a giant glacier I remembered to be easily accessible by car and a little flat walk. I could not recognize the landscape: the glacier was completely gone, and had been replaced by tall trees. It was astounding. I was contemplating the same transformation of ice into trees this summer in the Alps. Going through a forest I had known as a formidable glacier.

Obama is a Harvard lawyer. People around him are politicians (often also with a legal background), financial types, more lawyers, banksters (real or potential), conspiracy consultants, managers, celebrities, etc. So it is with most politicians around the world. Those people have little education in physics. One does not even know if they understand the basics involved in pushing a car. Apparently, they don’t. Push hard on a car without the hand brake, and it will not move much, if at all.

Once I was in the Sierra Nevada, on a small road at 10,000 feet. California route 108, to be specific. Said road can get extremely windy and steep as it reaches Sonora Pass. It’s a trap: in the lower reaches route 108 is wide enough to accommodate the largest imaginable trucks. A truck driver armed with GPS had got his truck, a tractor-trailer, high enough to be unable to go back. Still hoping for the best, he forged ahead, until its giant vehicle was unable to take a hairpin, and, still hoping that brute force would solve everything, the driver succeeded to get completely across the road in two places, with many of its enormous wheels secured among very large boulders, both for the cab and the trailer. A large traffic jam ensued. As the closest imaginable rescue laid dozens of miles away, and going around, supposing one could back up, would require a detour of 200 kilometers (in the mountains!), it was time  to think creatively.

While dozens of people were milling around, I noticed an imaginable path, by displacing boulders, and filling some gaps with stones. It helped that we were close to timberline, and trees were few. Getting to work with my spouse, we soon cleared and engineered enough of the land to pass through. Other vehicles followed.

This little incident has nagged me for years: why did not the other drivers think about it? OK, my spouse and I have a maximal background in physics, but still, one is talking about basic common sense here. Why did no one else think of making a different road?

Obama’s road, and that of the other politicians, from Cameron to Hollande, let alone Putin, or Xi, is to say what sounds good (Merkel may be an exception; but then she is a physics PhD too). It sounds good to speak about the “grandkids”: Commandant Cousteau started that one: save the planet for the grandkids.

The ideas there are that the world ecology decays slowly under our assaults, and that it may be in our selfish interest to let it be, but nefarious within two generations. In other words: the future is slow.

Our great leaders, the supremacists of self-endowed selfishness, just don’t have enough of a feeling for physics to understand climate change (once again with the possible exception of physicist Merkel, who has engaged Germany on a one-way trip to renewable energy… in a cloud of coal dust).

INERTIA and MOMENTUM were discovered by Buridan a Fourteenth Century Parisian mathematician-physicist-philosopher-politician-academic (although the discovery is erroneously attributed to Newton, who blossomed 350 years later). Buridan had a gigantic following of students, including Albert of Saxony, Oresme, the Oxford Calculators. Those students used graphs (a world’s first), and demonstrated non-trivial theorems of calculus.

Somehow, Aristotelian physics was as wrong as possible about dynamics. Aristotle and his clownish parrots believed that one needed a force to persist with motion, completely ignoring air resistance. Aristotle should have ridden a horse at a full gallop, and discover air resistance. If one believes in Aristotelian physics, there is no problem with the climate: just reduce the CO2, and the climate changes comes to a halt. Apparently our great leaders are at this level of education.

Buridan gave the formula for momentum (which he called impetus): (MASS) X (VELOCITY). Given a constant force, impetus would augment proportionally to speed. This is what came to be called “Newton’s Second Law.

At this point human modification of the atmosphere, from stuffing it with CO2 and other gases, has made the lower atmosphere into a thicker blanket, imprisoning heat close to the ground. This is applying a constant heating force (aka thermal forcing) to the ground and the ocean, both of which are heating at increasing depth.

The climate is the largest object, so far, on which humanity has applied force. The force applied is immense, the greatest force which humanity has ever exerted. Yet, because the climate is so massive, it takes much time to accelerate: the variation of climate change is low.

Pushing the climate hard is similar, but much worse, than pushing an enormous object, say a truck: initially, it does not move. But when it does, it’s suicidal to try to stop it by standing in front.

Can we stop applying the force? No. Not within existing technology. We cannot extract the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Making plants grow to absorb the CO2 cannot work. First, recent studies on the Amazon show that present vegetation is not adapted to the present density of CO2. It grows faster, but then dies faster. Second, and most importantly, the mathematics don’t work.

1ppm ~ 2 Gt. 3 ppm: 6 Gt. Total CO2 atmosphere: 750 Gt. So CO2 augments by roughly 1% a year. Yet, total anthropogenic emissions are at least 35 Gt, and perhaps as much as 50Gt (a number I consider correct). So most of the CO2 from burning fossils disappears (probably in the ocean, where the reserves are of the order of 40,000 Gt; thus we are augmenting total carbon storage there by 1% in ten years; not dramatic, but the CO2 converts in carbonic acid, and the acidity is going up).

In any case the excess carbon we send in the atmosphere is of the order of 7% of the total carbon in the atmosphere. We cannot neutralize this by growing plants: that would require to grow the biomass by 50Gt a year, 50 billion tons a year, year after year. A grotesque proposal.

Do the math, ignorant leaders! Shoot, I forgot you had no math at school, beyond the basics, except for Merkel; the total annual primary production of biomass is just over 100 billion tonnes Carbon per year. However, because the biosphere was balanced until the massive extraction and burning of fossils, in the last 150 years, as much was being destroyed (through burial). Now we are talking about creating 50 billion tons of biomass a year. Where are we going to put them? On brand new, specially built mountains sized skyscrapers? (Don’t laugh, it’s the future.)

Even then, supposing we could miraculously stop the augmentation of concentration of CO2, under the present anthropogenic gazes concentration (around 450 ppm), we are well above the stage where all ice melts from the Arctic. So that is going to happen. In turn it will release further presently still frozen carbon storage, making it a increasingly non-linear augmentation (of the catastrophe).

There is exactly one method that will stop the greenhouse madness, and it’s the simplest. Talking to no end about complicated schemes is diabolical, as even the Pope pointed out.

Our present leaders will be judged severely by history. Not only they are dinosaurs, but they make sure that we are going back to the Jurassic all too soon.

Patrice Ayme’

Religion: Delusion Serves Tribalization

December 13, 2014

[The following was censored by an American philosophy site. Why? It “exacerbates things”.]

In culturally advanced countries, such as the USA, religious believers with a modicum of general culture and awareness, know very well that, when they embrace a superstition, a so-called religion, they fancy something that is not the truth.

So what is going on? Why do they outwardly believe in something, that they truly do not believe in?

(For the purpose of this essay, I will override the joke that the difference between the USA and yogurt, is that yogurt has live culture.)

Thus believers know that they do not believe in the truth, they just have “faith” that they will get away with it. In advanced countries, believers have seen enough TV, and videos, to know this.

So why do they embrace something that they do not believe in, deep down inside? If you ask them, they will say because so did their parents, or that it’s a “tradition”.

Thus the motivation of believers is essentially tribal: I believe what my tribe believes, however absurd (and the more absurd, the more well defined it is). Religion is not just tribalism, it’s in-your-face tribalism. No wonder the so-called Islamist State behaves just the same. They heed the example generously provided by the USA (or, more exactly the leading, opinion making circles, of the USA; thus: are Islamists Americanists in heavy disguise?)

This is evidenced by the situation in Israel. Weirdly dressed people, often coming from overseas, namely the USA, have decided to occupy the land of others, and, if one observes this, they brandish racism, or even dark allusions to Nazism.

Tribalists always call critiques unduly offensive, or even racist and disrespectful of their religion (it is a sin, precisely because religion is tribal, and thus, attacking religion is attacking the tribe).

This, religion being a deliberate lie masking a tribal purpose, is why the god delusion has deflated in Europe: Europeans, deep inside, know that the old religions were essentially tribal excuses to go to war manipulated by elites for their own profit (see Israel again for a live example). And Europeans have had enough of wars.

(By the way, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine killed at least 4,500 people, it was announced today.)

The rejection of religion by Europeans was helped by the SS motto: “Gott Mit Uns” (God With Us). Nazism evoked “Gott” a lot, and Biblical semantics (superior race versus “Elected People”, “Lebensraum”, the vital space to the east, as in the Bible, in parallel with “Promised Land”, without counting the many god-organized genocides of the Bible, etc…)

It dawned on Europeans that the old elites walloped in faith. With the enthusiasm of various predatory beasts, walloping in gore. This is not meant to be an insult, by the way. It’s a description: predators rub themselves in the smell of decaying flesh of their prey to disguise their true nature, and make it easier to approach the next meal.

Thus Christianism did with love. Love was rubbed all over it, but the purpose was just the opposite: Christianism killed millions…. Yet, it did not even originate European style welfare, nationalization, and socialism (the Franks did that).

If, as I asserted, believers have made a conscious decision to believe in lies, what does that tell us? That here are people whose meta-ethics is lying.

Do we want to encourage this? Do we even want to tolerate this? Should this be viewed as a deviant psychological behavior? This is what somebody such as Dawkins believe. I do not like Dawkins on genes, but I approve him on that.

One cannot have faith, a faith one knows is a lie, a faith that lies should rule the minds, and it is of no consequence.

We encourage meta-lying by not calling, at least among intellectuals, the God Delusion for what it is. Not just a delusion, but a tribalization. The delusion of tribalization.

It is not a question of telling a child dying of cancer that god does not exist, and will not take care of her. I am ready, and I certainly will lie, in such a case, as I comfort a child, and not just a child, with such lies… And maybe they are not lies, gods know…

By the way, Christians ought to stop holding the Solstice hostage. The Winter Solstice feasts, complete with cut conifers, lights, decorations and gift giving, are known to be older than Christianism by more than five centuries.

An exasperated Imperator Augustus passed a law to limit the “Saturnials”, as the Romans called the solstice feasts, to less than three weeks.

In a debate among intellectuals, the connection between gods’ delusion and tribalization ought not to be censored.

That such a connection is censored in American “philosophical” sites is telling.

Primitives go to war. Those who claim to be primitive enough to persuade themselves that they are primitive, will also go to war, because, once they have persuaded themselves that they are primitive, they are free to act like the primitives they have persuaded themselves they are. When Bush invaded Iraq, in 2003, monolithic war thinking ruled all over. USA media systematically censored all my comments (although the New York Times editorial board was reading them for themselves, as they communicated with me).

Religionism is tribalism by another name. Tribes are the primitive war units. However, war fabricates history.

Europe is anxious to forget war. But the feeling is not reciprocal. The American leadership, by making sure that the population does not forget religion, thus tribalism, makes sure that most of the military budget of the planet originates in the USA.

Thus religion is at the core of the military-industrial complex. They are both strong in the USA, because they are related.

The USA was also spectacularly in denial about the poisoning of the biosphere by CO2. That, too, is related to religion: after all, why to worry? God is omnipotent, remember? And no need to do anything about a violent society, violent police, and the might of plutocrats: God is in charge.

Religion does not just organize tribalism, it can make it conservative, that is, in a few hands. Don’t ask why American universities censor agnosticism, ask why they should censor those who want a society less defined by the few, who make them rich.

Time to “exacerbate things“?

Patrice Ayme’

Putin’s Lies, War, Crimes

March 5, 2014

Ukrainians revolted against their enslavement to Putin. Yet Putin’s partisans howl that the West is full of perverse homosexual sinners memorizing Nazi writings. There are only so many insults the alpha male can take (see Daily Telegraph for astounding Putin).

The furious alpha chimp gave a conference about Ukraine (3/3/14). Just escaped from the zoo, he found words. Putin sat in an armchair, his legs spread wide, firmly planted, confidently exposing his balls, arms flapping, hands grabbing his chair, as if that, too, was going to be yanked away, alternately flaring his elbows out like a crab, slouching, sometimes squirming uncomfortably, as if something had crawled up his crotch. He flaunted flashes of brutality, sardonic wit, crazed anger and palpable disdain for Americans and Europeans. Those who have seen 1930s movies, starring Adolf, could only have a feeling of déjà vu.

Drunk Sailor: I tank, Therefore I Sink

Drunk Sailor: I tank, Therefore I Sink

Putin in 2014, is deeply enraged for the same exact reason as Hitler in 1938: dictatorial kleptocracy is not working, the smart ones are laughing. When a dictator is cornered like that, his solution is to augment the brutality A bad thing leads to a worse one. Until the criminal is stopped by force (that could be natural death, as for Stalin).

Putin asserts that his invasion of Crimea was not an invasion, it was legal. And then that it did not happen (spot the contradiction). Yet. But it will, if. Those armed men aren’t Russian soldiers (contrary to facts). Putin added that the 1994 military agreement with Ukraine was no longer in effect due to the change of power in Kiev (another unworldly assertion).

1)      Putin: Are those Russian soldiers occupying Crimea? No. There are lots of Russian uniforms in the former USSR, one can buy them in stores. These are local militia.

True answer: Putin lies 100%. There were at least 40,000 Russian soldiers in Crimea on March 3, 2014. Soldiers blocking Ukraine’s military bases did not wear any insignia. However, their trucks, and armor are matriculated in Russia (“Rus” can be clearly seen, incredibly). They are equipped with the very latest Kalashnikov (model AK 74), and latest generation Russian rocket launchers (“manpads”). Soldiers were interviewed and some revealed that they were Special Forces of the Russian Army and Russian Marines (801th brigade of Russian Marines).

2)      Putin: The legitimate president of Ukraine is in Russia. There was an “unconstitutional coup, an armed seizure of power in Kiev”.

Truth: Another Putin 100% lie. Yanukovitch the ex-Ukrainian president, has been CONSTITUTIONALLY deposed. A coup occurs when the Constitution of a country has been violated. This is NOT the case in the Ukrainian Republic. The Ukrainian Constitution provides the Ukrainian Parliament with the power to depose the President, just as in the USA (such a procedure is called impeachment; both Nixon and Clinton were threatened with it; Nixon had to resign to avoid its final stage, the first deposition of a president of the USA).

The Parliament (elected in 2010) also has the Constitutional power to nominate an interim president and government, until new elections (fixed to May 25). The Ukrainian Parliament observed that the ex-president, having fled the country, was not capable of exerting his functions, and thus deposed him. It also nominated another president and government. The votes were at an overwhelming majority. Many members of the ex-president’s party voted to depose him: 82% of the Ukrainian Parliament voted for the new Ukrainian government.

Thus those who are calling the government in Ukraine “Neo-Nazi” and “fascist” are insulting a 100% democratic government. It’s funny how many people swallow Putin’s outrageous lies, hook, line and sink.

The Russian soldiers who invaded Ukrainian territory have no right whatsoever to be there (the 1994 accord forbids Russian troops in Sevastopol to deploy outside of their base there). Putin claims that Russians were attacked, that’s another lie: there are international journalists all over Ukraine, no such incidents were observed.

“We are open for any observers to come to any part of Ukraine and to be absolutely sure that Ukraine now outside of the Crimea is absolutely safe,” Petro Poroshenko, a Ukrainian MP and former Foreign Minister told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

“We have lots of the different nationalities including Jews in our government. And I think that [Putin] is simply not [an] understandable position.”

What’s so bad about goose stepping behind Putin? Putin defends the interests of what is, by far, the world’s largest country, built thanks to generous amounts of the Dark Side (which have become essential to Russian culture).

Russia built the largest empire ever: up to 22 million square kilometers (the British empire at any given moment, was actually smaller; Britain for example controlled most of India for less than 2 centuries; whereas Russia beat China/Manchuria in the Far East about three centuries ago).

Building that largest empire was possible thanks to an extremely exploitative, conquering, relentless, superbly nationalistic mentality. Reciprocally, the more the empire succeeded, the more it helped build up some more the mentality that launched it (organized around a secret, all mighty police, one of the incarnation of Putin led).

Result? A mentality obsessed by gaining territory, ready to collaborate with a fascist, imperialistic government, justifying its Dark Side with an emotional nationalistic-religious fervor that pervades Russia.

This exploitative mentality is not very different from the one that established the USA. However, the scale is different: the territory controlled by the Russians was more than twice that of the Americans, and the Russian population much smaller. Moreover, the Russians confronted very tough adversaries… such as the Tatars (South Ukraine, Crimea).

The Michel Stroggoff mentality that built the Czar’s realm, and pushed European civilization all the way to the Pacific, chewing up all Natives on the way, however admirable, is not compatible as a first approach to the sustainable civilization we need today.

In particular, the Russian Will to impose itself as the successor of Rome in the Oriental Mediterranean is on a collision course with reality. However, when Putin saw Obama call off the sanction strike against Assad he deduced that the Kremlin’s boot could kick civilization around. All the more as the French pilots who were already in their cockpits in their fully armed planes, were called back as if they were just attack dog toys for the child in the White House.

At any point the Russian dictator’s lies could degenerate in a hot war. It would not be like Hungary in 1956. Then only 40,000 people were killed by the Russian invasion. At the time, Eisenhower and the Dulles agreed with Khrushchev to beat back France, Britain and Israel (times change).

Nowadays, Russia is much weaker, and much more on the wrong side of history. Putin, like Roman emperor Justinian, has been trying to reconstitute the empire. Putin has not understood a thing about why Justinian failed (does he even know about him?) He does not care. But the situation is similar.

The Roman empire failed, basically because it had become an ever more dysfunctional plutocracy that took refuge in decerebration (by forcefully instituting a rabid plutocracy after Jovian became emperor in 363 CE). Only a few individuals at the head of the imperial machine took all the decisions, and that guaranteed the stupidity of the state.

Justinian could have tried to re-establish the Republic. That would have been smart. Instead he distracted his rebelling Populus with decades of war and oppression. More on Justinian another time.

Putin is trying to build an union of oppression to oppose the European Union. Putin’s empire is an attempt to reconstitute the USSR. Putin believes that the disappearance of the USSR was “the greatest tragedy of the Twentieth Century”.

The USSR was built around the exploitative, dictatorial mentality (read Lenin to verify this). The European Union, instead, is built around the concept of democracy (OK, a work in progress: the EC head is going to be elected by the European Parliament; ideally s/he ought to be elected by We The People directly).

Putin’s project will lead to war and degeneracy. Instead he should surrender to the spirit of the European Union, while he is still ahead, sort of.

And for the rest of us. Some may be tired of war, but war is not tired of them. To put one’s head in the sand does not even work for ostriches.

Independence means France has been CONTINUOUSLY at war. Since 400 CE. Not ONE year when French armed forces were not in action, somewhere.

Some of the Anglo-American persuasion may object. However they forget that the European settlers in America had easy war against Paleolithic, or, at best, Neolithic, natives. They also forget that Britain (conquered in 1066 by France and in 1688 by the Netherlands) and North America were islands. Islands are hard to conquer. (Hitler could have walked over, had there been a land bridge between Cotentin and England: the British army had .)

Until now.

Now those islands are only a few minutes away, by ballistic missile. Hence Britain and the USA are in exactly the geostrategic situation that France has lived in since Caesar’s conquest. Time to become French in mentality, ladies and gentlemen of Anglo-Saxonia! Welcome to the forever war.

Putin has to be stopped, by force. For our good, Russia’s good, and Putin’s, and his cronies’, own good.

Patrice Aymé

Note 1: Washington threatens to kick Russia out of the G8, but Berlin opposes that. Germany obtains almost 40% of its gas and oil from Russia.

Britain’s plot to ensure that any European Union action against Russia over Ukraine would exempt the City of London were embarrassingly exposed when a secret government document was photographed in Downing Street. The document said Britain should “not support, for now, trade sanctions … or close London’s financial centre to Russians”.

Long live plutocracy!

Note2: A young celebrity Russian TV personality on the air protested against Putin’s aggression in Russia, She said she wanted to make the point she was not going to be accomplice to this crime. This is exactly what Czar Putin is afraid of: that the revolt in Ukraine against him would extent to Russia itself, as I wish it will.

Note 3: First face to face meeting in Paris with all the important foreign ministers (USA, Russia, France, UK, Germany, etc.), March 5.

Note 4: Jules Verne’s Michel Strogoff accurately depicts Siberia… But for the fact that, in the 19th century, no “Tartar” Khan could resist the Russian (Chechen, yes; in medieval Russia, yes). Yet, that sort of paranoiac anachronism pretty much still afflicts Putin’s partisans, to this day.

Woody Lies, Alien Moods

February 6, 2014


A woman has accused Woody Allen of having “sexually assaulted” her when she was seven years old, twenty-one years ago.

Naturally, the queen of populist confusion, Oprah Winfrey, jumped on the bandwagon of indignation, now that her co-jet setter Obama has given her the “Medal of Freedom”. She howled all over that “child molesters are child rapists”. If so, then rape is just molestation, and soon murder will be confused with spanking.

I knew this gory story not, I hate people abusing children, & don’t particularly love Mr. Allen’s movies (I have seen none for years).

However there was a problem we meet all the time: are there more sophisticated ways of telling lies from truth? How can we stay one mental analysis ahead of liars, and detect them?

It’s easy enough when plutocrat Pelosi comes around and disingenuously rises her plastic surgery eyebrows to the sky, looking like a fish out of the water, affecting stupefaction: ”We should have done single-payer!”, she croaks, blatantly lying about Obamacare, aka Pelosicare.

Lying is to be suspected when people claim having endured traumatic facts, yet, the mood they exhibit, through facial expression, body language, or expressed facts or emotions, do not reflect trauma, but a completely different mood (say vengeance, or flippancy). This is the case with Mr. Allen’s accuser:  strong moods are in evidence, which are not coherent with the alleged facts.

I found stories of alleged sex abuse interesting as an occasion of trying to find out if one could distinguish patterns of veracity or falsehood, be it from the Vatican, or Dylan Farrow. Her letter was in the New York Times. Let’s quote:

(A note from Nicholas Kristof: In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public.

It’s important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I’ve written a column about this, but it’s time for the world to hear Dylan’s story in her own words.)

(BTW, assaulting children is not just “sex abuse”) .

Dylan’s story hinges around a vague, but grave, accusation: “Woody Allen sexually assaulted me“. That’s vague in light of the fact that she gives plenty of much more innocuous specifics, including accusing him to have put a “thumb” in her mouth. She is specific for her mouth, but nebulous for the much graver “sexual assault“. Why that discrepancy?

She indulges in elaborate descriptions of the non legally prosecutable: “I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him… I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear… So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen.”

… with the flippant. Dylan starts her letter with: “What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set.“… Lots of irrelevant, innocuous details here, whereas the accusation of abuse takes just two words: ”sexually assaulted”.

It’s weird: I was assaulted, with potentially lethal force, more than three times, and I don’t like to talk about it, but if I volunteered accusations, I would have details. One does not forget them, these things happen in slow, dramatic motion, before and after blacking out.

Details are central to clean journalism. Kristof, one of the NYT’s top reporters, ought to be specific: lay it out, or shut up, because it’s just vicious gossip otherwise.

Later on we learn in “Dylan’s” story that “Woody Allen” is her “father“. Although he is also called a “predator”..

The alleged victim comes back twice on the necessity of mixing movie preferences and a totally unrelated thing, liking a movie director. Thus, by this blatant mix-up, she flaunts her worship for highly emotional confusion. Con-fused. She is fusing together completely unrelated subjects, because of a passion she has.

There was once a young and bright mathematician named Oswald Teichmüller. A fanatical Nazi, he died on the Eastern Front. However, if someone told me that my preferred Teichmüller space is of import in a discussion of Teichmüller’s Nazism, I would think that person is deranged.

In the letter published by Kristof she claims that: ”I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me.” If that sounds bizarre it’s because it is: Mia Farrow had also adopted a child with Andre’ Previn whom Mr. Allen later married (not Previn, but the child). (Also Mr. Allen’s child with Farrow looks like Frank Sinatra… with whom Farrow kept having a relationship, although it was officially ended… while being, more or less, with Allen.)

I would gather from this the modus operandi that inhabits the alleged victim of Mr. Allen: she confuses for all to see fact & fiction, the vague and the grave, with passion all over, associating Mr. Allen to a number of contradictory concepts.

So, just from this letter, I guess her accusations are lies. This is very different from the situation in the Catholic Church, where systematic abuse of children has been systematically decriminalized, as just charged by the United Nations.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the so called Holy See to “immediately remove all known and suspected child sexual abusers… The committee is gravely concerned that the Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by and the impunity of the perpetrators,”

The Holy See is the Holy No See, the oldest pedophobic, misogynistic organization in the world… except, of course, when it was managed by the Borgias (when women were definitively loved, as the Pope fathered more than 100 children). The Vatican tells us it celebrates god, but then it despises woman, we know it is lying (as woman is obviously one of god’s crucial creatures).

The point is that the mood of the Catholic Church, avoiding women as if they had the plague, and being outrageously familiar with children as if it had fathered every single one of them (“my child… my son,” etc.) is conducive to exactly what it has been doing for 2,000 years: tending to make children into symbols who are all too loved.

Traditionally, when emulators of Sherlock Holmes try to find the truth, they search for revealing contradictions between facts. I suggest to detect lies with a more general method: finding contradiction between what is expressed and the moods that should underlay them. This is especially important with system of thoughts.

A recent example is found in SOTU 2014. Obama pontificated that “ordinary” people had nothing to fear from his secret services. Nice idea. However, this reflects a mood that distinguishes between “ordinary” and non-“ordinary” people. In other words, a mood of spying on all people, be it only to find who is ordinary, and who is not. His underlying mood was not coherent with his statement.

Moods have to fit the facts. When there is a discrepancy between alleged facts and moods, one has to suspect lying.

Patrice Aymé

Plutocracy & Nazism Are Entangled

January 28, 2014

We are, of course, nothing. Krugman wrote the editorial “Paranoia of the Plutocrats”. A  dishonest critter at the New York Times dutifully censored my own comment, lest its readership realizes that Krugman’s latest observations form a light version of those I have long held. Besides, I pointed out that both the search for power, and the craving for wealth, select for evil behavior, and the more evil, the more obscurity is called to cover it. 

That makes the hyper-wealth-fed Dark Side into something growing proportional to itself, in other words, into an exponential phenomenon.

This is why Obama’s and Bush’s own obscurantism in deed and will went hand in hand with the rise of plutocracy, the rule of the Dark Lord, Pluto, down below, mythically, heuristically, practically, and theoretically.

Collapsing into darkness characterizes, and enables, plutocracy, and this is exactly why plutocrats defend stridently whatever obscures, obfuscates or confuses (see BHL’s “philosophy” of obscurantism in the final note below).

If We Own All, We Rule You

If We Own All, We Rule You

Indeed Bernard-Henri Lévy (= « BHL »), the hyper wealthy French celebrity-philosopher published in the Daily Beast “The French Were Right to Ban Dieudonné’s Offensive ‘Performance Art’”. BHL used the traditional argument tyrants always used to justify “banishment”. I commented. As usual, BHL censored me. (He just read my comments, use some ideas therein in his books, and carefully never publish anything I say: after all, he is a professional thief, of the highest order, those who steal the planet, see below.) Surely the fact that Dieudonné is half Black African is playing no role? (BHL was born in Algeria… A very white place.)

Dieudonné Enrages French Plutocrats By Shoving The “Quenelle Up Their Ass”

Dieudonné Enrages French Plutocrats By Shoving The “Quenelle Up Their Ass”

Israel’s Parliament is contemplating a law making the usage of the word  « Nazi » unlawful. That’s rather strange : the old name of god in Hebrew was the abbreviation for « the one whose name shall not be uttered ». If Israelis are required by law to not pronounce the word « Nazi », that means « Nazism » is divine. Will masochism now become the law?

Seriously: among the primitives, not pronouncing the name of the divinity in anything but awe was always viewed as a major sin, sometimes deserving of the death penalty. Is Israel getting THAT primitive? A case of gathering plutocracy? The more one steals Palestinian land, the worse one gets inside one’s own mind?

Or is it simply that the land grabbers inside Israel do not want to be reminded that they behave like the Nazis used to? (Compare with the Nazi’s theory of “Lebensraum”, the Life-Space, and replace “Deutschland” by “Israel”.)

Then Thomas Perkins, an eight billion dollar plutocrat, famous for his 150 million dollars yacht, the “Maltese Falcon”, wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal (January 2014):

“Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich”.

From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent.

There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these ‘techno geeks’ can pay,” Perkins concludes by warning of a “very dangerous drift in our American thinking… Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?”

OK, so “progressives” are Nazis? Interestingly, that is just what the Nazis tried to make the folks believe. Another lie, which the Nazis also tried to impart upon the folks, with some initial success, was that the Jews were Germany’s “one percent”. It is troubling to see a major actor of Silicon Valley embrace both major Nazi lies, as if they were obvious.

Germany had a complete plutocratic class, little of it was Jewish. Perkins’ world is upside down. (Long ago someone writing a comment on my site had the same exact objection as Perkins, and called me a “Nazi”; he wrote  that to be against plutocrats was similar to be against Jews. I left the comment: I never censor. BHL, see below, says something exploiting the same mood as Perkins.)

In November 1938, on Martin Luther’s birthday, the Nazi leadership ordered an attack on all businesses in Germany held by Jews. 91 Jews, officially, were killed, more than 30,000 sent to concentration camps.

There was glass all over the streets, and it came to be known as “Kristallnacht”. As I explained, it had everything to do with Luther (a notion the politically correct New York Times ferociously censors: it views comparing Hitler and Luther a form of racism).

Kristallnacht also had everything to do with the plutocrats who supported Hitler, and had supported him, from the start. Not one plutocrat was hurt by Kristallnacht. The people who were hurt owned, overall, property, true, and the Nazis, facing the failure of their economic policy, stole said property, to redistribute it to their followers.

OK, now for plutocrat BHL, high priest of the inversion of all values.

Dieudonné, a ‘performance artist’ was banned by the French Conseil d’Etat, a sort of high court. The pretext is that as BHL puts it: “He was an incendiary, anti-Semitic ideologue whose silencing poses no threat to real freedom of speech.” Notice the past tense: does that mean that some henchman paid by BHL has already “silenced” Dieudonné?

Dieudonné is half from Cameroon, and French president Hollande called him “M’Bala M’Bala”. BHL claims that: “The man banned by the French high court was not a political comedian, satirist, or any kind of humorist but rather—and this cannot be overemphasized—an ideologue whose credo, endlessly repeated over the course of long performances, is that the Jews control the world, that they have a monopoly on the media and political establishment, and that the duty of the enemies of that establishment is to shove the quenelle (as Dieudonné’s distinctive variant of the Nazi salute is known) “up the ass of Zionism.”

Now, wait a minute here. BHL and all his friends, including those dear friends at the French presidency, from Mitterrand  to Chirac, to Hollande, were, or are, always “up the ass” of any woman in sight, and boast about it all the time, by word, or deed.

Why is it bad when Dieudonné talks about doing too? Because he is black?

The “quenelle”: an arm pointed to the ground, the other hand helping it down is an extremely mild version at worst, of the aborted Nazi salute in Kubrick’s Doctor Strangelove, a classic of the movies. The guy parodied in Doctor Strangelove is no less than Dr. Kissinger, a German Jew who became a sort of Evil Doctor in the USA establishment, complete with Nobel Prize for Peace.

Confusedly, the Fascists-Nazis-Stalinists made a lot of propaganda against the “plutocrats” (a word used by Hitler and other top Nazis). The confusion was deliberate. The fascists, to cover their tracks, came to equate “plutocrats” (who supported them) and “Jews”.

That was rather ironical, because, although some of their partisans were stridently anti-Jewish (say Henry Ford), other were actually… Jews (say the Warburgs in the case of Hitler; countless “Jews” helped to instigate the Soviet Revolution; for example Trotsky, head of the red Army, was from a Jewish-Atheist family… later those Jews found themselves victims of a vengeful anti-Soviet population). The same phenomenon was inaugurated by the Kaiser Wilhem II. Although he had many Jewish friends before the war that he started, he turned virulently anti-Jewish afterwards.

If one changes “Jews” into “plutocrats” in BHL’s statement above, one gets:  “the plutocrats control the world, that they have a monopoly on the media and political establishment, and that the duty of the enemies of that establishment is to shove the quenelle…”

Is not it exactly what is going on?

BHL is for “silencing” critics.  Yet, the problem is that “silencing” this is against the law, and the spirit of civilization. In other words, like all good plutocrats, like Perkins, BHL is just a savage. He can sue me about this if he wants: suing the truth is hard.

In a state of law, one ought to roll out the specific expressions at fault. If Dieudonné broke the law, give exact quotes that are demonstrably false and condemnable, and let justice do its job. Otherwise what one engages in is just trial by innuendos, and dictatorial fiat, both of them forms of hate crime.

So why is BHL so willing to silence critics? Because he is himself a plutocrat in the classical mold, namely his fortune is inherited, and he slept with the state. As a dashing young man, he went to see his close friend, France’s president Mitterrand, an ex-Vichysiste, who collected women as others do butterflies.

The Vichy state of Mr. Mitterrand (Mite-Rat?) loaned BHL millions when the family business was going down, in the early 1980s. Later Pinault, a major French plutocrat, one of the world’s richest men, who tried to flee to Belgium last year, bought some of BHL’s business for dozens of millions of dollars.  BHL was also friend with plutocrat Jean-Luc Lagardère, who besides his main business making weapons, owned Hachette Livre, the largest publisher in France, and Hachette Filipacchi Médias, the largest magazine publisher in the world.

BHL is plutocracy central, French version (that is arrogant and lesson giving, while pocket filling) .

BHL’s main business, as a dashing young man? Kill the equatorial rain forest. He can sue me about this if he wants: suing the truth is hard.

I do appreciate BHL as a philosopher: he can be very right, deep down inside, although, fundamentally, his main theory is as wrong as wrong can be. And that makes BHL as interesting as a venomous cobra. For the venom, that is. The neurotoxicity.

Basically BHL, naturally enough for a plutocrat, hates the Light… And he writes about that, in some of his most famous quotes. At least, it’s coherent. (See note.)

BHL followed me on Libya, and I persist and sign. So why is BHL panicking about Dieudonné? Why is Perkins panicking? Why is Israel panicking?

They are all faking it, and using indignation as a manipulation, just as firemen will start a counter-fire.

Because they all suspect that We The People, worldwide, may realize that they have been manipulated. Not so much by “Jews” (although they would like us to say that, so that they can accuse us to be racist!). But by the plutocratic phenomenon.

What’s that? An international of plutocracy, the Republic Of Offshore. A similar phenomenon was at the root of World War One, as I have explained. And certainly at the root of World War Two (JP Morgan and his creatures covered both). And at the root of the so called “American Century”.

The danger now is exactly the same as a century ago: left to its own instruments, the people of Germany would have reigned in its own plutocracy, in 1914. Instead, to shut down the Socialist Party Deutschland (SPD), the German plutocracy launched a world war.

In a way, it worked: a plutocrat such as Krupp survived World War One, and became one of Hitler’s main support (he conveniently died before being tried as a war criminal after 1945). Thyssen (“I paid Hitler”) survived with his family fortune intact, and his industrial group, until a recent merger, was the most powerful in Germany. It worked especially well for the plutocrats made in USA who supported Hitler: many of these corporations are still household names.

So the danger now is that frantic plutocrats will impose a police state. Obama is well on his way, complete with death by robots of civilians, and NSA unleashed. Meanwhile , plutocrats try to impose state of hysteria. Just to change the conversation from the Republic Of Offshore, you know where the money to feed Obama and other propagandists come from.

Patrice Aymé.


Plutocrat BHL’s total inversion of all values, so grotesque, I cannot find the strength to translate that garbage: “Fascism does not come from Obscuratism, but from light… Rationality is totalitarianism”, etc.: « Chacun sait aujourd’hui que le rationalisme a été un des moyens, un des trous d’aiguille par quoi s’est faufilée la tentative totalitaire. Le fascisme n’est pas issu de l’obscurantisme, mais de la lumière. Les hommes de l’ombre, ce sont les résistants… C’est la Gestapo qui brandit la torche. La raison, c’est le totalitarisme. Le totalitarisme, lui, s’est toujours drapé des prestiges de la torche du policier. Voilà la « barbarie à visage humain » qui menace le monde aujourd’hui. »

Translation: If you want to bring to Light the untold destruction of the primary equatorial forest in Africa brought by Bernard-Henri Lévy and his henchmen, so that they could make billions, you are a totalitarian. Besides, BHL won’t have dinner with you in the Manhattan’s most expensive restaurant.the law.

Summers Of Discontent

August 6, 2013

Abstract: Agreed, some people are low lives, and focusing on them distract from more worthies issues. Paraphrasing, Paul Krugman himself said that he regretted to have to worry about idiots so much, but somebody had to do it. All the more as those low lives have been leading civilization, into devastation, to the point they may terminate it.

Lawrence Summers had positions at the apex of the governance of the USA and the world, for more than 30 years; he is a plutocratic mastermind. 

Obama: Summers To Save World Once Again.

Obama: Summers To Save World Once Again.

No conspiracy in the USA, just a central committee (Goldman Sachs-Citigroup-Clinton’s minder, plutocrat Robert Rubin on the left, plutocrat Lawrence Summers on the right of the clown).

Meanwhile crucial economic activity of governmental type, such as science, is cut all over (because of“sequestration”, another smart idea proposed to Congress by another of Obama’s very bank connected wealthy advisers: who needs neoconservatives when one has Obama advisers, the children of Summers?).

Don’t worry: Summers’ creatures, such as Sherryl Sandberg, Facebook’s spymaster, and other friends, including the U2’s propagandist Bono, are making more billions than ever. Their wealth, certainly, is not sequestrated.

Larry Summers was, as Clinton Treasury Secretary, the point man allowing unregulated financial derivatives, thus making the real economy derivative ever since. Just on that point, he should be disqualified.



The taking over of the world by the same group of people, families and friends is very old: Senator Baucus’ family has reigned over his state for five generations (Baucus had some insurance industry VP write Obamacare).

Plutocracy’s blossoming is older than the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), The BIS was created by Washington in the early 1920s, to safeguard (under Reichsbank’s head H. Schacht’s supervision) the transfer of formidable assets of the Nazi Party, and associated plutocrats, throughout the world, before, during, and after World War Two.

(The BIS is the central banks of central banks; however, due to its blatant Nazi connections, its elimination was evoked for a few seconds after WWII.)

In the end, Germany prosecuted only 13,000 Nazis. However, the Nazi Party reached, by 1945, 8 million members. Considering all those who died, and Nazis in other countries (like international SS, of which there were hundreds of thousands), this means that 99.9% of Nazis were NOT prosecuted.

Many Nazis became rich from spoiling and then killing other people, in particular, Jews.

Many of the most prominent Nazis or their enablers became shining stars of the world after the war (examples: Marshall Von Manstein, hyper industrialist heir Thyssen, the most powerful German corporation, SS Major Von Braun and his close friends the extermination camps managers, Schacht, the Dulles, Prescott Bush, Harrimans, etc.; nota bene: the Federal Republic Deutschland just launched a campaign to catch remaining Nazi executioneers!)

The case of the global corporations (mostly USA based) was telling: although many were the crucial enablers of Hitler, they were not punished. The French Republic tried to arrest IBM directors, in 1945, but secret services of the USA ex-filtrated three of them out of the Republic’s reach. Hitler had given IBM a monopoly for organizing the Reich.

(This was enough of an answer to the question: ‘why is it that there is so much propaganda against France in the USA, and why is it that some French have a problem with USA plutocracy?’)

So many Nazis, and most of their topmost collaborators, thrived after WWII. This fact helped to install the following mood: if the Nazis, their greatest friends, collaborators and enablers could get away with what they did, why not us?

The madness blatant in the Ayn Rand (guru to Greenspan and other neofascists) boiled down to a rage against any regulation, in other words, against any law. But for the law of the jungle. This is not different from the main mode of operation of the Nazis.



Summers, Sandberg, World Bank 1991. The Worst Rule The World, Because They're Worse.

Summers, Sandberg, World Bank 1991. The Worst Rule The World, Because They’re Worse.

Who elected this people to give them control of the world? Well, their owners. Sherryl Sandberg is Summers’ kind of woman: greed unlimited. Let’s bank on the world, spy on the world, and make taxpayers pay for it.

More than a decade later, Summers blocked Christina Romer’s pleas for more stimulus in Obama’s administration. Blocking the spirit of empathy, fairness, or just the rule of law, seems Summers’ call in life. He had a horrible fight to oppose Brooksley Born, chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), an agency supposed to combat fraud.

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers told Ms. Born that fraud in financial derivatives should not be something one inquires about. Neither of these three graces is a lawyer. Ms. Born was a very experienced lawyer, since her star days in Stanford, and as a partner in a prestigious law firm, she spent decades practicing high level finance.

In other words, Greenspan, Rubin and Summers were meta-criminals, people who believe some crimes are self-correcting. A meta-criminal believes that some crimes are not crimes.  

In the “Committee To save The World”, made of Rubin, Greenspan and Summers, Summers was the “enforcer”. Enforcer of the Law of the Jungle.

Summers screamed to Born on the phone that she was going to cause another depression, and that he had “13 bankers in his office” telling him that. In the end Born’s opponents called an “emergency working group”, and a propaganda campaign was organized against her until Congress demolished the CFTC.

Summers’ sycophants are typically Wall Street operators such a Steven Rattner in the New York Times (02 Aug. 13) going delirious about Summers’ extraordinary intelligence: the most brilliant, most analytical and most surgical brain of anyone I’ve ever encountered.”



Summers hyper intelligent? Summers is simply no scientist, being only a vulgar economist (at best).

However Summers, not a scientist, insulted all women scientists by saying that women are not as capable as men. He said this as Harvard President, presiding over a vast assembly of professors who had come to listen to him, in his function as Harvard president.

Yet, several of the very greatest scientists of the 20th century were women. Example: the Curies (Marie and Irene), the towering mathematician Emmy Noether, the discoverer of jumping genes, Barbara MacClintock. Hence Mr. Summers is crass ignorant, arrogant, and not smart (to say the least). Besides being sexist to the point of imbecility.

All the female scientists I just mentioned are not just famous, but turned out to have been brazen geniuses: they introduced science so revolutionary, that it was viewed as completely wrong, sometimes for decades. That, in combination with their genders, made their careers very difficult.

What is a genius to Wall Street has, unsurprisingly, just the mind of a leech, for those endowed with common sense.



Summers is a condensed parody of plutocracy. He started as a twenty something PhD in Reagan’s cabinet. This stellar career springs from hereditary plutocracy: two of Summers’ uncles were Nobel Prizes in economics.

By 1991, Summers was chief economist at the World Bank, escorted by Sandberg. This is what he said, in his official quality as the world’s guiding economist:“There are no… limits to the carrying capacity of the earth that are likely to bind any time in the foreseeable future. There isn’t a risk of an apocalypse due to global warming or anything else. The idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit, is a profound error and one that, were it ever to prove influential, would have staggering social costs.”

More Summers as chief economist world bank: “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that…. I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted.” [This statement does not sound correct nowadays, even to the clueless, so Summers, smart as ever, now, claims it was meant to be a parody. Sure: Summers himself is a parody.]

But Summers’ position on CO2 was certainly serious. Lethally serious. He was the leading voice within the Clinton Administration arguing against the USA doing anything about greenhouse gases, and against US participation in the Kyoto Protocol (according to internal documents made public in 2009). This demolished Kyoto, as the European Union went at it alone, to staggering unilateral cost, causing the EU an important trade disadvantage.

Big Sister Sandberg: Already Your Boss In The 1990s

Big Sister Sandberg: Already Your Boss In The 1990s

Why to mention Sandberg all the time? Because she is typical of the corruptocracy around Summers. She was sent by the government (what else?) to the top of Google, obviously part of a Faustian bargain. Industrial spying for the government by Google and company started about that time (before 9/11).

Some of Summers’ creatures are expensive, and not just to the Constitution of the USA. Bob Rubin, that wise leech, cost taxpayers 100 billion dollars… So far. Not counting interest. 100 billions, personally, just for his little hobby (Citigroup).

Hence the importance, for the powers that be,  of putting Summers at the top of the central bank: Summers will make sure that his friends the top plutocrats are not left holding the bag. (Remember: he is the brightest croc alive, he will find something…)

Summers’ career is in orbit around the theme that greed is all the need we have. In 2000 Summers, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary,  teamed up with Greenspan and Enron CEO to claim California energy crisis was dues to “excessive regulation”. (They pushed the impudence to lecturing California’s republican governor Gray Davis!)

In truth Enron criminally organized shortages and made a fortune from Summers’ just authorized mood of doing whatever bets with derivatives. “(Conveniently Enro’s CEO Lay had a “heart attack” before sentencing; his conviction, just as conveniently, was then “vacated”.) 

Summers pontificated that “…increased government involvement in the health care sector is a risky idea.” But apparently financial derivatives are not a risky idea. Is the rest of the world, with its nationalized health care risky? Yes! Obama wealthcare is safer for those who enjoy it!

On Pinochet loving, libertarian economist Milton Friedman’s death, Summers said that “…any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites.” if honest democrats believe this, one fears to imagine what dishonest ones such as Summers believe.

Summers pressured the Korean government to raise its interest rates and balance its budget in the midst of a recession, right in the middle of the South-East Asian crisis. During this crisis, Summers, along with Paul Wolfowitz, pushed for regime change in Indonesia (See the book The Chastening, by Paul Blustein).

By the way, this shows that neoconservatives are, truly, neofascists, and that the distinction between left and right is irrelevant (as it already was in the fascism of the 1930s: then, all the fascists, including Stalin, were allied with each other, either officially, or secretly, at one point or another!)

In truth fascists and plutocrats are after getting as much power on other men as they can, with whatever methods come in handy.

Hitler explained that the obsession with power, doing whatever to get more power, without ethics or mental coherence, was fascism’s main strength.

Hitler had to re-iterate this explanation after he made a spectacular alliance with the Polish colonels in January 1934, standing on its head the main axis of the Nazis’ implicit program (re-subjugating the nations Germany used to occupy, and had lost because of the Versailles Treaty).

Strength, of course is everything for those who affect to believe the Will to Power is (nearly) everything.

Summers set up a project through which the Harvard Institute for International Development advised the Russian government between 1992 and 1997. It emerged later that some of the Harvard advisers had invested in Russia, to profit from their own advice. Summers encouraged then-Russian leader Boris Yeltsin to use the same “three-‘ations'” of policy he advocated in the Clinton Administration– “privatization, stabilization, and liberalization.”

It got to the point that a USA Federal judge ruled that, by investing on their own accounts while advising the Russian government, Harvard professor Shleifer (and Moscow-based assistant Jonathan Hay) had conspired to defraud the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which had been paying their salary.

Harvard had to pay $26 million and Shleifer $2 million in fines. (Why is it that fat cats mostly pay fines and rarely go to the slammer?)

The Russian-born 45-year-old Shleifer is another superstar of the economics profession. Like Summers, he won the Clark Medal, the award of top economist under 40. Shleifer became the editor of Harvard’s Quarterly Journal of Economics at the age of 28, and became editor in 2006 of the American Economic Association’s Journal of Economic Perspectives. What we are facing is a galaxy of greed from second knives, below the old money and Wal Mart family class (worth around 100 billion dollars, same order as the Gates’ control  of 120 billion dollars).

Instead, Learn to Love Plutocracy.

Instead, Learn to Love Plutocracy.

The perspective, ladies and gentlemen, is something akin to what happened 1,000 years ago, when the richest plutocrats instituted the feudal order in Europe. Plutocracy is what happens when the Dark Side breeds with the mathematics of the exponential. It’s not about brains, or being right, or wrong. It’s about who you know, power, and breed.

1,000 years ago elective processes were replaced first by money, and then, heredity. The best intellectuals, inside the Church, objected in vain that the Church used elections to select the best, and that secular society ought to go on that way. But it was not about being the best, and selecting the best. It was about power that be.

That’s why Obama loves Summers. Not because Summers is lovely (even Obama cannot be that clueless!). But because Obama is scared.

Want fun? Greenspan finally came in front of congress in 2009 and recognized that there was a “flaw” in his perception of “reality” and his “ideology”. He looked ready to puke, complete with quivering lips and bulging eyes. Tough for an addict of the mad Ayn Rand to admit that the law is of some use.

More fun? Sandberg, Summers’ pet, who used to live (in some pictures at least) inside Summers’ arm pit at Harvard, after being installed at the apex of Clinton, Google and Facebook, and making billions, now gives lessons to women of the world to preach to them the exact opposite of what she did.

A word of wisdom from an expert? “…the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

[Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X]

Want hope? The (mostly) Franco-American robot Curiosity, as large as a small truck, just had its first birthday. The scientific results are considerable; they demonstrate that there were streams on Mars, with chemical conditions suitable for life.

Curiously, Mars is anticipated to be so favorable to present Earth life, that the Mars missions are sterilized at huge cost (as much as half a billion dollars for a future life searching mission!). Some suggest to cease that policy. And I agree! One should view Mars as a colonization target, and we may as well send as much life there as possible, in the hope it will adapt (and then we can bioengineer the survivors to produce oxygen).

If it is not lost to treason, civilization will be saved by reason.


Patrice Ayme

King Wastes Euros, Elephants; CO2 Denier Blames Cows!

April 17, 2012


Five millions Spaniards are unemployed (out of 40 million). And now the king broke his hip. How? He was in a safari. It turns out that the good king loves to assassinate elephants in Bostwana. Each time the king reaches ecstasy by killing one single elephant it costs 37,000 euros ($50,000) to European taxpayers (and even to the American ones: globalization, remember?) But there is no money for the 35% of Spanish youth who are unemployed. Each time the king presses the trigger, it’s more than two median family incomes in Spain, which go to pierce flesh. It’s highly symbolic: you earn it not, while the king penetrates a terrorized victim with it.

King Juan Carlos loves to pose with elephants he perforated with bullets. It makes him feel mighty, he has got to feel completely empty inside.

The truth is that this assassin of elephants was put in power by a fascist, the treacherous general, Franco, who killed more than a million Spaniards, while overthrowing the republic, and even more for years after that. With the crucial help of Texaco, and other American plutocrats, Mussolini and Hitler. Franco and his subalterns were even engaged in child trafficking (killing the parents to get the children; no wonder the Catholic church who has had an obsession with abusing children ever since Abraham, was all behind Franco: Opus Dei!)

The latter two, Mussolini and Hitler, were punished, but they were only the puppets of the former, a worldwide conspiracy of plutocrats, whose heirs are doing better than ever, thank you. We are moving in a new phase, where their role and tastes are becoming obvious, in part for an extremely sinister reason: they don’t feel they have to hide anymore.

Starve millions of Spaniards, kill the elephants. Hopefully they all suffer very much, pleasing Juan Carlos to no end.

After one more scandal too many, should one want to improve matters for the commons, Juan Carlos and his family ought to be removed from their influential position. We have seen enough of his kind. Juan Carlos, a Bourbon, that is a descendant of a family that made France suffer so much, is there because his ancestor, the sectarian criminal, Louis XIV of France, put him there. OK, first France had to win a war, the War of the Succession of Spain, an enormous world war that lasted more than 13 years, devastating all of Europe, and even America, but especially Spain, France and Germany.

The main reason why Spain could be democratized is that admiral Duke Carrero Blanco, Franco’s confidante and successor was thrown, still in his armored vehicle, into a ballistic trajectory by ETA. After overflying the church where he had attended mass, Prime Minister Blanco was in for a rude landing. He died later, after contemplating his crimes.

It’s high time for Spain to become a republic again, a generation after the fascists killed millions to make sure it was not. The fact that several members of Carlos’ family have been stealing Spain in full sight makes Spanish, hence European, recovery difficult.

We have seen that problem in Italy with Berlusconi. Now that Berlusconi is gone, a great cleaning has started. As much as 35% of Italy potential tax base is evaded, one now hears. Italians are poor, Italian political parties, are filthy rich. It turns out that some in one of the parties, the Ligua Norte, stole in excess of ten billion dollars. The son of the founder had never seen an expensive sport car the Ligua did not buy for him.

That reminds one of the Chinese Princelings who all go to Harvard, to live like princes. Plutocracy is a world phenomenon and Harvard is a crucial link of this somber conspiracy of unprecedented reach. Harvard profs wrote Saif Al Islam Qaddafi’s PhD thesis, passed in London at the urge of George Soros (another plutocrat multi billionaire). Bo, the son of Bo, famous for his extravagantly expensive lifestyle was in Harvard, but now that his mother has been accused of being an assassin, he has disappeared. Don’t worry: the daughter of the coming Chinese president is also in Harvard.

Some Harvard supporter told me that 60% of student there receive scholarships. Paid by American taxpayers? and does that mean we are left with 40% heirs of plutocrats, and 60% future sycophants? Plutocrats need servants. The latter can go to Harvard, and get acquainted to their masters, who are, conveniently enough, in the same locale.

Spain’s problems mostly arise from a conspiracy of the bankers with the politicians. Bankers, backed up by taxpayers, engaged, thanks to politicians into projects that could not bring a profit, but would just force the People of Spain (hence Europe) to pay them rent.

Time for the clean-up. It has to start with the symbols.

Just as there is a worldwide banking mafia feeding its pet politicians, academic and media, there is a worldwide fossil fuel mafia feeding the same sort of critters.    

Paul Handover from the excellent Learning From Dogs site has detected a new angle of the fossil fuel mafia. I thought that I saw I read everything from the CO2 deniers, but this reaches new heights of perversity! Thanks to Paul to bring this to light.

Arizona State University Professor Darnall claims that:

“Livestock generates more greenhouse gases than all the planes, trains and automobiles on the planet. In part, that’s because the methane from, well, the other end of cows, has 21 times the greenhouse gas warming effect as carbon dioxide.”

Whatever. Good trick to utter a lie, and then explain it with something true. Yet, Prof. Darnall does not even know her own propaganda well. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane, CH4, over 20 years, is actually seventy-two times that of CO2, and twenty-five times over 100 years. However its global Global Warming effect may be as little as 25% that of CO2.

Methane from herding may have spared us a re-glaciation, 7,000 years ago, some scientists have suggested. The good professor rides on that notion all the way to hell.

There is crushing evidence that what the good professor says about cows is NOT just incorrect, it is outright absurd. And the absurdity is easy to demonstrate. Why? Because the CO2 went from 280 ppm (1800 CE) to 395 ppm, but only up to 460 ppm in CO2 equivalent (see Radiative Forcing, below).

As Paul Handover points out: Darnall’s solution? Meatless Mondays — to start curving that scary trend line.”

Just to visualize, that’s a lions’ diet. Once a week, lions at the zoo are NOT given meat, for better health. So prof. Darnall suggests that Americans, who, as Homo Sapiens, are omnivorous, should actually eat just like lions at the zoo, with “Meatless Mondays“.  

So even if all the supplementary CO2 like gases were all methane, CH4 (and they are not), one would get a methane contribution of only 30%, over the 1800 base.

The good prof. should have said that one could cut off all greenhouse gases of industrial origin. Some have 32,000 times the Greenhouse Warming Potential of CO2. One easy way to mitigate the greenhouse would be to outlaw them all. Their Radiative Forcing is about two-third that of methane, itself a third of CO2.

 So I would dare to say that the good professor’s discourse is corrupt. She looks cute like that, young and smiley, but she is out to seduce the big industrial interests of the fossil persuasion, or to seduce on their behalf. Obviously. It’s all about small people not doing enough, she says. They just eat too much of the bad stuff. Let them eat arugula instead.

This is typical: those who don’t want to change anything claim it’s enough to change a few little things: put the cardboard in the green container, eat grass, don’t shampoo, etc. In truth, the real problem is energy. Energy has to be made expensive. Why? Because it is. At this point, it is kept cheap by big armies, and an exploitative mentality. Even if there was no greenhouse and CO2 poisoning, fossil fuels will run out soon.

Whereas I say: rise energy taxes colossally, force professors, bankers and politicians to video-conference, instead of jetting around. I am myself jetting around right now, but it’s for (literally, vital family reasons). I have known professors who go around the world all the time, as if frequent flier miles were all they were really after, thanks to taxpayers’ ever more colossal generosity (does not beat Obama sending an army around his 13 year old to play solo student in Mexico, or Sarkozy recovering his bad belly adult son in Ukraine with one of the French republic’s fast jets).

I have not eaten much meat in my life (last time was a few months ago), so my defense of meat is altruistic. I know that in vast swathes of the planet, meat is the ONLY source of protein. Lack of proteins is a huge problem in Black African children, cattle and bush meat their salvation. We are far from arugula salad there. Cattle is also an important export and source of livelihood in the Third World.

There is probably more cattle in Africa than in the Americas. So not so good prof is saying millions of African children should go around with enormously distended bellies, and the poor there, getting poorer.

I am presently generating lots of CO2 myself, as I travel around the planet. But I am no hypocrite: I admit to it.

Plus, I have to do this for family reasons. I minimize air travel as much as possible. Out of dozens of flights, I remember just one for pure “tourism”. I may be somewhat hypocritical though, as my destiny was sprawled over three continents plus one archipelago. Thus I was condemned to conflate sightseeing and common decency. There are no free trips.


Patrice Ayme

Afghanistan: Washington’s One And Only “Job”.

December 1, 2009


The Afghan War Is Not What Washington Claims It To Be.



Key concepts: Some may find hilarious that Obama would follow the disastrous Iraq war plan in Afghanistan, complete with Bush’s "surge".

No "handler" told Obama that the Americans have lost the Iraq war: Americans are hated there, will achieve nothing good in Iraq looking forward, but, meanwhile, they have burrowed in their bases, and, just like groundhogs in their tunnels, they proclaim victory on the grand outside.

However, for Obama, that Americans don’t know they lost in Iraq is apparently a panacea: he will now apply this remedy to Afghanistan. Do these guys know how to spell d-u-m-b? Why are they so desperate? Not knowing enough is sometimes an advantage, as Germans thought until 1939. But it works only that long, as the Germans found out the hard way by 1945.

The reasons given, and the methodology followed, for fighting a never ending war in Afghanistan do not make any sense, in first analysis. In particular, the insistence that Afghanistan’s main income, poppy fields, cannot be legalized, makes no sense, since it is legal in plenty of major Western countries.

In second, higher order, analysis, it seems clear that the minds of the top advisers in the USA are clouded, not just by their groundhog “success” in Iraq, but, more deeply, by a misreading of the history of the twentieth century.

A ferocious war was fought in Europe between fascism and racism on one side of the Rhine, and democracy, republicanism and human rights on the other. This war profited the USA handsomely. However, now that democracy, republicanism and human rights, are increasingly winning, worldwide, the USA cannot use its old trick of hiding behind fascist screens, faking benevolence, while pulling very nasty strings.

Now the silly imperial strategy of the USA is in full sight. Those American strategists, misreading everything, from history to the mood of the planet, seem persuaded that, if they pile up hubris high enough, they will win.

And how do those geniuses define victory? Well, there is what they say, and what Obama repeats on their behalf. And then there is reality: those lamentable strategists of the USA want a massive military architecture throughout Southern Eurasia. They want a crucial pipeline through Afghanistan, to extend their influence in Central Asia, they want forever bases in the region, and the present war is just a pretext: a forever war, for these forlorn souls, will be a success. The military-industrial complex and Wall Street have to be fed, and that means to be feared, and have a reason to exist. And then, there is an even more horrendous computation (reminiscent of when Wall Street was supporting Hitler, and the American people was looking somewhere else).



Obama claimed that he would outline his Afghanistan strategy, adding, “I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive… After eight years — some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done — it is my intention to finish the job.

"Clear rationale"? It will have to be a clear fiction, because the rationale of the USA in Afghanistan is an entanglement second to none, thoroughly obscure, and the reasons of which were never exposed to the population of the West.

"Finish the job"? Which job is that? Happy to see Obama found a job somewhere outside of Goldman Sachs (where Geithner the handler sent 38 billion dollars, or maybe 65 billions, according to the latest… But why to count, when one is in love?)

Then Obama operated an apparent U turn on the Climate Summit in Copenhagen. Well, in truth, that U turn was a fake-out (see preceding post, November 30, or the annex below).

Which brings us to the question: why would the USA, which, with its factories in China, is making a joke of its CO2 smothering of the planet, expect help in Afghanistan?



Ever since 1945, with FDR, the government of the USA has propped up Islamism, to divide and conquer the Middle East (this is not a lousy conspiracy theory of mine, but an historical fact; as an amusing aside, Israel did something similar lately; Israel propped up Hamas, for a decade, to weaken the PLO…. This has backfired too, but on a much smaller scale!).

This encouragement, and manipulation of Islam, went all the way to the active support, by the USA, of Muslim fundamentalists (starting clearly with support to the Saudi monarchy, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Iran’s Shiites in the early 1950s).

In Afghanistan, the USA used bin Laden and his Arabs as shock troops against the Soviets, and taught them to attack soft civilian targets. The idea was that socialism was bad for the Middle East, whereas Jihad was good.

Result: 9/11 was planned by former employees of the CIA (I insist: that is what bin Laden and friends were, for 20 years). No need to go to Afghanistan to find the culprits for 9/11. Going to Washington is enough to reveal the miscreants. What is therefore needed, should one be sincere in fighting the forces that brought 9/11, is war against the thought system that fed and nurtured Osama bin Laden, and it originated in the USA.



Why is the USA in Afghanistan? OK, the official line is that initially Muslim terrorists from Arabia, who had been encouraged, trained, financed and armed by the government of the USA, to make and win a war in Afghanistan, turned against their former master, the USA, and, using methods taught to them by the CIA, committed a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing 3,000.

So the USA, and its allies, using the methodology of guilt by association, invaded Afghanistan, and, ever since, have been busy killing Afghans in Afghanistan, while whining hypocritically about the threat of terrorism in the USA… from Afghanistan! (Reminder: the Nazis whined about "terrorism" a lot, ever since they set fire to the Reichstag in 1933. In the end, they had two dozens divisions fighting "terrorism" in France and Yugoslavia alone; that is why they got so muscular in Ukraine and Byelorussia, where they used extermination to impose themselves.)

But this is quite a bit a circular logic: the USA had been making war in Afghanistan for at least a quarter of a century before 9/11 (through its Muslim fundamentalists allies in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan… and Afghanistan, and various agents in its employ, including bin Laden). So after Washington caused mayhem in Afghanistan for a quarter of a century, people based in Germany, Saudi Arabia, and… the USA planned an attack which had been sketched by long time CIA employees who happened to be in Afghanistan at the time.

So now Mr. Obama sees a "job" in Afghanistan, and he is determined to "finish" it.



Please remember that the USA gave more than 100 million dollars in the last eight years, to the nuclear bomb program of Pakistan, a Muslim fundamentalist state. That is even better than training, arming, financing and exciting bin Laden for a quarter of a century. We are talking nukes here. And now we are told that shivering Afghans hiding in their own mountains, clutching an old rifle, refugees from their own villages, are a major terrorist threat against the West.

The mental manipulation is blatant. Why did the USA give money for Muslim fundamentalist nukes? Is accusing Afghans of terrorism, and going out to fight them, a way to assuage one’s anti-terrorist credentials, so as to cover-up the fact that the USA has been enabling nuclear war in South Eurasia?

Remember, the nukes-for-Pakistan idea came from the same strategic operatives who used to finance and arm bin Laden, and his consorts, and then instructed them to attack schools rather than military objectives. The end result is that a bad situation got much worse, and now the military industrial complex (Eisenhower’s semantics) is enjoying itself in Iraq and Afghanistan. Was helping Pakistan with nukes part of the same approach to ensure the forever war? To feed the military industrial complex?

Yes, Iraq, an ally of the USA a few years prior, was also attacked through guilt by association. It was alleged it had nukes. Now some of the very people who pushed and organized that war are making millions for oil contracts.

To make sure that, when the government of the USA makes war in Pakistan, there will really be nukes in Muslim fundamentalist hands, now, the USA is outright financing said nukes.

Of course, Iraq was attacked because of its oil. But why to make it so that Pakistan can start a nuclear world war? Was not bin Laden already bad enough? Did not the fact that the USA and its CIA encouraged, financed, excited and overthrew democracy in Iran, using Shiite fundamentalists of their own making, another example that came back to bite civilization? So why nukes for Pakistan? So that New York City can be nuked, next time? Why to make a bad situation that much worse? Why is the USA so much on the side of devolution and mayhem?



It’s the syndrome of the world wars, which seems to be affecting the unconscious of American strategists: the two world wars created the American empire, so more world wars ought to bring even better things. Thus they resonate, in their simplicity.

That reasoning is born out of hubris, and a misreading of history. How come? Well, previously, over three centuries, the nascent USA always profited from making bad situations worse. Be it with the Indians, the African slaves, the French, the English, the Mexicans, even the Confederates, and certainly in the war with Spain, war brought ever more profits to the USA. For the USA, war was never a two way street, as it has been for all European powers.

The world war between French republic and racist fascism boosted by Prussian imperial militarism was the ultimate God-sent for the USA. Then the American support of Muslim fundamentalism brought plenty of oil and influence, while allowing to chase away the Europeans from the scene, because the Europeans did not use religious fanaticism anymore to push a profitable agenda (the method had been introduced by Charlemagne; the practice was discontinued, sometimes after the Conquista, under Charles V, for cause of primitivism).

Unfortunately for the USA now, to believe that the USA will necessarily profit from the next world war is of course erroneous. The earlier entanglements were special cases, especially because the rest of the world was naïve relative to the USA, and tended to see the USA as savior rather than perpetrator (the U.S. army was the savior, Wall Street was the perpetrator).

During the two world wars of the twentieth century, one had, first of all, a confrontation between a republic and democracy, France, and a fascism and racism, which had mesmerized Germany.

The dimensions that the conflict of 1939-1945 took in Europe were astounding. In 5 weeks in May-June 1940, the Battle of France, the bloodiest battle of the Western front, saw 180,000 soldiers, dead (moreover, untold numbers of Dutch, Belgian and French civilians died). Together, Franco-Britannia and Germany engaged against each other more than 400 divisions. Later, Stalin got involved with its own 600 divisions. Thus more, much more, than 1,000 divisions of Europeans got involved in WWII (Nazi Germany alone had 18 million soldiers in the Wehrmacht, plus more than a million in the SS and the like…)

By comparison, the USA never had more than 67 divisions in Europe, during WWII, and most U.S. troops did not even see combat (the same guys tended to do all the fighting).

Same during WWI. The first massive engagement of American troops involved three divisions. That was at the Second Battle of the Marne, a last minute trap set by the French military command, which destroyed the might of the Imperial German army. The French had more than 44 divisions in the successful counterattack of that particular battle, at one particular point (more divisions were involved earlier and later).

Thus, other nations did most of the work, both in WWI and WWII. Other nations did most of the suffering, and the dying in both world wars. The USA came in spectacularly, and very effectively, using enormous industrial might, to the rescue of victory in both world wars. Nowadays the industrial comparative advantage of the USA is not what it used to be. However, whereas the USA pulled many of the strings behind the scene to make the situation worse, during both world wars, nowadays, it is front and center instigator of trouble. And everybody can see this.



To this day, many do not know, and many do not want to know, that "Wall Street" (aka American plutocracy) financed Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin. Fine. It would require to study history. But how to explain the recent American financial and technical support for the Muslim fundamentalist bomb of Pakistan? (The manipulators will tell you that it was to make such nuclear bombs safer. Similarly, By that token, Auschwitz and other extermination camps, whose existence was well known, were not interfered with, during WWII, so as to not disrupt the peace…)

So Obama wants to "finish the job". "Finish the job"? What job is he talking about? The job of insuring economic ruin at home while encouraging an ever-increasing supply of terrorists and American haters abroad? The job of propping up one of the most corrupt Muslim fundamentalist regimes in the world? The job of feeding the military-industrial complex, sponsoring and committing torture, in secret camps, and deliberately engaging in an aerial war with robots that has already killed thousands of innocent people in Pakistan. while lying about it and thus destroying the Bill of Rights of American citizens? Or the job of accomplishing all of them simultaneously?

The Constitution of Afghanistan is Muslim fundamentalist. Why is NATO, the USA, the West, fighting for a religious superstition, Muslim fundamentalism, whereas their own Constitutions forbid religious entanglements?

Why is Karzai’s Muslim fundamentalism superior to the Taliban’s Muslim fundamentalism? Obama, who posed as a Muslim scholar in Cairo, ought to explain to us how each single tribe’s own version of Muslim fundamentalism is so inferior to Karzai’s that it is worth using lethal force to destroy these traditions, which have often been in force for a millennium.

Obama, who himself used illegal drugs for well over a decade, is suddenly gung ho to destroy the opium trade in Afghanistan, the main source of foreign income of Afghanistan for centuries.

Why does Obama want to starve Afghanistan? Would not making Afghans poorer and hungrier make them angrier? So does Obama want the war to never end? Many countries, such as France, Australia, or Turkey, which have other sources of income, are officially allowed to flood the planet with medical variant of opiates. Why not allow Afghanistan to join the legal, medical drug trade? Does Obama favor some peculiar drug suppliers? If so, why is it worth dying and killing for that peculiar choice?

The real reasons for the Afghan war, as I said, is to feed the military industrial complex, occupy militarily Central Asia, built a pipe through Afghanistan to extract Central Asian oil directly.

The reason for supporting a Muslim fundamentalist country such as Pakistan and helping it to fabricate its nukes, is the secret hope that may be it will turn out as it did with the French and Indian Wars (= Seven Year War). Then the super powers, France and Britain, encouraged by the Americans, tore each other up, allowing the Americans to become not just independent, but in an excellent position to massacre the Indians and steal their land (which neither the English nor the French would have allowed, not that much, not that fast).

So gloomy strategists in the USA may hope that a nuclear mess involving Pakistan, India and China, may just be what the doctor ordered. But first one needs a war, and one needs enraged Islamists with their fingers on nukes. This is of course highly vicious, and twisted, but history has seen many such criminal lunacies blossom in the past.


Patrice Ayme

Annex: Yes, Obama will be at Copenhagen, yes, the USA will propose to abate its CO2 production. So far, so good, and this no doubt impressed a lot of people, including me. But then I read after the headlines, and what I saw consisted into not so subtle insults to the international community.

Yes, Obama would attend, but he would not stay for the conference. So the decisions at Copenhagen would be taken with the USA doing an empty chair policy. 66 head of states would stay until the end of the conference, when the final decisions will be taken. But, with the USA not in attendance, this will be a repeat of Kyoto. The USA and its slave factories in China are, by far, the world’s number one CO2 malefactor.

If that was not bad enough, the USA announced a change of the measurement system. Obama announced grandly that the USA would reduce CO2 emissions by 17% from its 2005 level. 2005? Everybody has been measuring from 1990.

Now of course, the USA is a primitive country, the only country in the world to use the same units as in the Middle Ages (ounces, miles, feet, etc…), but by pushing ahead the date to 2005, the USA is blatantly self serving, not just mired in the past. The USA augmented its emissions of CO2 massively between 1990 and 2005. So, in truth, what Obama is proposing is to stand still.

By contrast Germany is holding on the target to reduce CO2 by 40% from its 1990 level, this is what the island states have asked for, and the European Union, 500 million people strong, is not far behind.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 402 other followers