Posts Tagged ‘Semantics’

Judaism’s Promised land

January 27, 2015


Auschwitz, the Jewish Problem, and a Better Final Solution:

I want to make sure I am not Politically Correct, every day, so I chose my words carefully… Political Correctness has established its empire on the ruins of Philosophical Correctness. But politics ought just to be practical philosophy, it cannot afford to contradict it.

I turned Deutsche Welle (German TV) on, and fell on a Jew talking at Auschwitz, inside what had to be the world’s most gigantic tent, draped with sumptuous blue lights. Zehr gut. Germans’ fate is now forever tied to Auschwitz, as the German president said. Studying Auschwitz ought to bring the final solution to much German ideology, including Kant, Herder, etc.

I switched to the French TV, and the same elder gentleman was here again, making the same discourse, and it was the same camera. I love it when Germans and French agree, about what is important, and it’s rarely not the case these days.

The speaker, an Auschwitz survivor, said words were important. To qualify those assassinated by the Nazis, one should speak of assassination, not “loss”. It’s not that we forgot about them, and we don’t know where they are. They were assassinated. I could not agree more. I have made that point in writing for years.

The French, German and Ukrainian president were in the audience. The day prior, a rocket attack on the large city of Mariopol had killed tens of civilians. The Organization of Stability and Security in Europe, and others, determined that the rockets came from the terrorist-Russian side. Asked about it the half demented Russian dictator, declared that a NATO “Foreign Legion” was causing mayhem in Ukraine. NATO replied that the only foreign legion in Ukraine was Russian. Putin confirmed that “patriotic volunteers” had crossed into Ukraine. He condemned “Russophobia”.

Putin did not go to the Auschwitz commemoration, pretexting he was not invited (nobody was; the event had been organized 9 years ago by the UN…)

Putin’s slow motion terror is a sight to behold. As I have explained, it was enabled by the last moment failure of a surgical strike against Bashar El Assad, personally and directly. Saudi (!) and French aircraft were on the runways, ready to take-off, but, at the last moment Obama lost his balls, and assassinated respect for the West’s military… With the failure to execute mass criminal Assad.

Assassination science is a complicated subject. Failure to assassinate here, will lead to assassination there.

The top German generals had decided to assassinate Hitler… They just needed British and American verbal support. Would the UK and the USA announce that they will stand publicly with France against Hitler? … Instead of siding with Hitler, as they had done so far? Then the generals, headed by chief of staff Beck, could make a coup, kill the top Nazis and argue to the Volk that it was a question of saving Germany from criminal madness.

Instead, the UK and USA governments betrayed humanity. They told Hitler that his generals, all his top generals, were plotting against him. That was in 1938. Beck was forced to resign, and to commit suicide in 1944 (after Beck headed the “Von Stauffenberg” coup).

The head of the World Jewish Congress talked. He accused “anti-Semitism”.

Word precision, please. Concept precision, please. Arabs are Semites. Many Arabs, if not most, detest Jews. So are Arabs detesting themselves? Of course not. So asking Arabs to fight “anti-Semitism” is like asking Americans to fight “anti-Americanism”. Silly, thus, ineffectual.

On January 21, 2015, French philosopher and plutocrat Bernard-Henri Levy told the 193-nation assembly that the world must confront “the renewed advance of this radical inhumanity, this total baseness that is anti-Semitism.”

This is complete madness, on the face of it. BHL wants us to become mad. Hamas has in its charter, Hadith 41;6985, which orders to kill all the Jews. Hamas rules Gaza, a city more than 2,000 years old… And Gaza is full of Semites. Bombed by would-be Semites, the Jews of Israel. When BH Levy tells the inhabitants of Gaza to renounce “anti-Semitism”, they can only feel that he is mad. Or that he views them as subhumans (as BHL recognizes only Jews as Semites, thus Gaza denizens as non-Semites, thus as having no identity, since BHL amputates them from their very existence!)

I said “would-be Semites” because, ironically, as Christians could convert to Judaism for centuries under the very long lived Franco-Roman empire, many European Jews were actually, first, of European descent. (Several top Nazis were themselves more or less of European Jewish descent; Hitler himself was a dubious case; he made thousands of German Jews, “honorary Aryans”.)

The World Jewish Congress head accused “most nations of Europe” to be culprit of Auschwitz. Not one word about the USA. Yet, the USA was more culprit of the massacre of the Jews than any other nation, barred Germany itself. We are in 2015. How much longer do we have to wait for this basic truth? The fact is both instructive, and a warning.

Not only did the USA refuse to accept Jewish refugees (so millions, blocked from immigration, were killed in Europe; France, by contrast, had open borders). But American managers, such as Prescott Bush, managed the slave labor from the Auschwitz archipelago. That was obliterated by the official version of history, as was the employ, at the highest levels (the Dulles heads of CIA, State), of many Nazis and Nazi collaborators, all powerful in the USA, not just in the 1930s, but also in the 1950s…

By not mentioning any of this, the head of the World Jewish Congress makes himself an accomplice of the most important enabling factor of the Shoah.

Who learned nothing?

The Arabs, accused to be “anti-Semites”? Or those who play dumb, 80 years later? And still can’t make the connection between the fact Obama was in Saudi Arabia, making oil plots, and not joining with 30 heads of states in Auschwitz (not anymore than he was in France two weeks earlier to demonstrate for Freedom of Expression).

The head of the World Jewish Congress should call a cat a cat, instead of calling cats “anti-cats”. What he should have bemoaned is “anti-JUDAISM”.

He then bemoaned Jews could go around Paris with a Kippah. Sure. Let’s have everybody walk around in big religious garb, hoping for the best. Time for a bit of sensitivity, perhaps? The latest activities by Israel in Gaza killed around 2,300 people (most of them civilians… even according to Israel!)… And wounded more than 10,000. That’s a lot of dead and wounded for a population of 1.8 million (more or less caged, thanks to Egypt and Israel).

Scaled up to the USA, that would be more than 400,000 dead… An astounding number.

More generally, Judaism gave us Christiano-Islamism. It’s supposed to be a great gift. However, Christianism took over the Roman empire by 400 CE (that’s when Roman emperor Theodosius had to be beg forgiveness on his knees to the archbishop of Milan, one of the so-called Church’s Founding Fathers).

The government by bishops, for bishops, did not just collapse the empire, it collapsed civilization, and even demography. The Franks took over a devastated Europe, created their own bishops, and their own saints, and their own interpretation of Christianism. Then they domesticated the Popes.

Something similar happened with Islam. After the Islamists took military control, they proved incapable to come to terms with secularism, which is the condition sine qua non for civilization.

Thus, centuries later, after most of the population converted and was submitted to Sharia instead of secular law, civilization became moribund, and has been thus ever since.

Not to be left behind, Christian madness made a comeback after the First Crusade (1099 CE), and brought crusades, pogroms, Inquisition, ethnic cleansing, Jewish and Muslim eradication, for centuries to come. This was no small stuff: the crusade against the Cathars killed millions (scaled to the populations, it’s worse than what the Nazis did; indeed the Cathars were killed to the last, and all their works, but one, or so)

Hence Judeo-Christo-Islamism stinks to high heavens most of the time. It keeps on being re-captured (surprise, surprise), by Elected People theoreticians… Come to think of it, that, and the respect for a crazed, bloodthirsty god, is the very basis of the doctrine…

Maybe Jews would be well advised to understand that their problems, just as those of Islam, originate greatly from their religion. It’s OK, to change religion: Gallia changed religion, getting ever more secular, no less than four times in 2,000 years (from the Celtic human sacrifice cult, to Roman cult, to Christianism, to now Secularism).

The Promised Land ideology allowed to give the inspiration and religious backing for the North American Euro colonists to eradicate the Natives, following what they read in the Bible. So the Bible is still very popular in the USA: it made Americans not just feeling good about themselves, but awesomely rich: by the Nineteenth Century, an American going west was a multimillionaire, thanks to the Bible propelled government’s generosity.

Apologists will say it’s not so much the Promised-Land greed, but the Ten Commandments which are the core of the Biblical doctrine. That was not very useful when the Germans got angry.

Indeed, as one of the Auschwitz survivors just said: One needs an Eleventh Commandment: Don’t Be Just a Spectator.

Even more important: have your own ideas. Parrots make poor thinkers. Poor thinking makes you dinner.

Patrice Ayme’

Times Praises Mind Control

April 13, 2013


Abstract: The New York Times deliberately avoids to call a duck a duck if it quacks inside the government. This strategy is revealed, explicitly, by the New York Times itself. The New York Times, by its own admission,  deliberately misinforms the public, as it judges what semantics to use, in the service of what it perceives as being the White House’s best legal strategy.


How can large modern societies veer towards mass murder? Why did 80 million Germans goose-step behind the Kaiser, and then Hitler, to fight the world and achieve barbarian domination? I have the simplest explanation: mind control of the masses by cruel masters through carefully contrived emotional, semantic, logical and data input.

Germany 1938. Seeing What You See: Bad For Worship

Germany 1938. Seeing What You See: Bad For Worship

[“Bird Hell” detail; by German Max Beckman, 1938. Obviously A Parody Of Hitlerland.]

Hannah Arendt, a suspect thinker, came instead with a convoluted theory (in the second edition of her “Totalitarianism”  book, in 1958). She suggested that “individual isolation and loneliness” are preconditions for totalitarian domination. Speak about pop psychology.

Was Hannah saying that the several hundred million people who embraced totalitarianism, in Europe alone, were isolated and lonely? Is that why they gathered in vast herds? When 50,000 Brownshirts paraded together, were they isolated and lonely? Were the comrades of the Politburo standing with Stalin isolated and lonely? An obviously stupid theory. It’s the exact opposite that is true.

Arendt’s fancy was actually contradicted by an explicit study of Columbia University’s Theodore Abel, published in 1938. The study “Why Hitler Came In Power” showed that the characteristic 1931-1932 Nazi supporter was employed, but not educated. The supporter’s mentality, far from being isolated and lonely, was shared by the Nazi herd. Nazi supporters were enraged by the World War One defeat, the Versailles Treaty, and all and any revolutionary movements contesting the old plutocracy.

In other words, Nazi supporters had their minds programmed expertly by the very class that caused World War One, and their own suffering.

Arendt’s weird considerations sound like excuses (for herself, for her lover Heidegger?).

To find the truth, it’s better to read Nietzsche’s broadsides against the German herd, or Hitler’s detailed explanation on how to make the multitudes goosestep, spiritually speaking. Hitler explains that the way to lead the folk (“Volk”) where it does not want to go is by using “big lies“. Nietzsche explains that Germans were in love with the instincts of the herd, and cultivated them by choice first, a will to baseness, and then because they did not know any better, that’s what they became. That’s why Nietzsche broke with his (ex) friend and fellow musician, Richard Wagner.

Now fast forward to Twentieth First Century USA. The New York Times, the ‘newspaper of record’ practices, of its own gloating admission, semantic mind control.



Wonders Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times “Public Editor“, about her own paper: “If it’s torture, why call it a “harsh interrogation technique”? If it’s premeditated assassination, why call it a “targeted killing”? And if a suspected terrorist has been locked up at Guantánamo Bay for more than a decade, why call him a “detainee”?”

Funny she has to ask that. Recent leaks from inside the CIA showed that CIA officials therein were afraid of International Warrants of Arrest against them in the future. So they did what bandits have always done, when they don’t fear summary execution. They switched from torture to assassination (assassinated people don’t tell tales to the International Criminal Court).

Ms. Sullivan went to ask Mr. Shane, a national security reporter in the Washington NYT bureau, and Philip B. Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards of the New York Times, to respond to some of these issues.

Mr. Shane addressed the question on “targeted killings,” noting that editors and reporters have discussed it repeatedly. He wrote:

“Assassination” is banned by executive order, but for decades that has been interpreted by successive administrations as prohibiting the killing of political figures, not suspected terrorists. Certainly most of those killed are not political figures, though arguably some might be. Were we to use “assassination” routinely about drone shots, it would suggest that the administration is deliberately violating the executive order, which is not the case. This administration, like others, just doesn’t think the executive order applies…“Murder,” of course, is a specific crime described in United States law with a bunch of elements, including illegality, so it would certainly not be straight news reporting to say President Obama was “murdering” people.

So, basically “assassination” is banned by decree, so “is not the case” and murder is illegal, so it’s not “straight news“. Thus Mr. Shane opines that: 

“This leaves “targeted killing,” which I think is far from a euphemism. It denotes exactly what’s happening: American drone operators aim at people on the ground and fire missiles at them. I think it’s a pretty good term for what’s happening, if a bit clinical.”

Clinical? The CIA is a hospital, and drones, presumably, scalpels? By that token whenever somebody shoots at children, it’s “targeted killing”, not murder! Indeed, an “operator” aims at children on the ground, and fires. Mr. Shane added that he had only one serious qualm about the term: it’s not “what’s happening”.  

Indeed, that, he said, was expressed by an administration official: “It’s not the targeted killings I object to — it’s the untargeted killings.” The official “was talking about so-called ‘signature strikes’ that target suspected militants based on their appearance, location, weapons and so on, not their identities, which are unknown; and also about mistaken strikes that kill civilians.”

“Mistaken strikes”? What’s mistaken about exploding a home one knows harbor women and children, in the alleged hope to get some potential terrorist, potentially inside?

In any case, Mr. Shane calls, from his own admission, “untargeted killings” and “signature strikes” by their opposites, “targeted killings”. In other words, black will be white, as long as it would be illegal, were it black.

Such are the standards at the New York Times. One can be barbarian because one is cruel. One can also be a barbarian, because one does not know how to use words. This is where the word barbarian comes from. The Greeks viewed those who could not talk well as saying: ba ba ba ba… (Notice I avoids any mention of the babama who wants to exponentiate Social Security out of existence, in an effort of remarkable restraint.)

Finally one can be a barbarian, because one views as valid a proposition and its negation. Mr. Shane seems affected by these three versions of barbarity: cruelty, at a loss for words, and self contradiction.



On the matter of “detainee,” Mr. Corbett called it “a legitimate concern” and agreed that the term might not be ideal. He said that it, not prisoner, was used because those being held “are in such an unusual situation – they are not serving a prison term, they are in an unusual status of limbo.”

They are not serving a prison term, but they are in prison. This is the New York Times, thinking.

The debate over the word “torture,” he said, has similar implications to the one Mr. Shane described with assassination. “The word torture, aside from its common sense meaning, has specific legal meaning and ramifications,” Mr. Corbett said. “Part of the debate is on that very point.

Which point? What Mr. Corbett is saying is that the debate is about not torture per se, but about the “legal meaning and ramifications” of torture. Does that mean that the New York Times cannot talk about “torture“, because it has “legal ramifications” for its client?

The New York Times wants to “avoid making a legal judgment in the middle of a debate,” he added. The New York Times shall not judge before its time. We are not talking about “news” anymore, here. We are talking about judgment, once the debate, thus the news, are over.



The most notorious failure of the media of the USA was when Nazi’s barbarity was not revealed to the public to the extent it deserved, in a timely manner. That’s how Hitler got on a joy ride for as long as he did.

The New York Times re-tweeted all the talking points of the Bush administration in the march to the Iraq war in 2002-2003. For years, if I sent a comment mentioning Mr. Bin Laden had been recruited and trained by the CIA and the SIA, my comment was immediately censored (I did this deliberately, just to experiment with the lemmings at the Times).  

What the authorities in Washington wanted, and it was amplified by the Main Stream media, is to make the folks believe that the Involvement of the USA in the Middle East started with a treacherous, mass murdering attack on 9/11. (My spouse worked for a firm that had offices in one of the collapsed towers, by the way, but moved just weeks before, so I’m not belittling 9/11, even on the personal level!)

In truth, 9/11 was a consequence of Washington’s policies more than that of some god crazed maniacs. And the consequences were highly predictable: after all the same trick of crashing a jumbo jet had been tried on Paris a few years earlier. Does that mean Washington never heard of Paris?

The first way to fight criminals, is to reveal, and then denounce their apparent, or suspected crimes. If there is a murder in the street, one does not call it a “targeted killing” especially if one knows that it is actually “untargeted” or a “signature strike”.

Also torture is the deliberate infliction of pain. It’s simple. Torture was stopped by European powers in the Middle Ages, because police techniques of interrogation had become more effective (and could be used legally, whereas torture could not… by law).

To stop barbarians in the modern world, the first thing to do is to uncover and denounce them. This is the job of journalism. The New York Times refuses to do this job. Instead it imagines it has another job, that of a legal authority. It also has the jobs of judge, and White House advocate. Not only it does all these things, which contradicts journalism, but it does it consciously, and deliberately.

Nazism was made possible because enough journalists and editors in the Anglo-Saxon world refused to report what the Nazis were doing. If they had, public opinion in the Anglo-Saxon world would have turned, and the collaboration with Hitler would have been declared unlawful, and then German general would have made an anti-Nazi coup.

So this is serious stuff.

And it’s still serious today. Obama basically proposed to do away with Social Security, by exponentiating out of it (more on that in another essay). What does the New York Times really know, and think about this? How come the reactions in the media have been so mild? How come not seeing what’s plain to see?



And so it goes. People are programmed by their (mental) environment. A devious mental environment makes for devious people. A base mental environment makes for base people. A false mental environment makes for small people. A mental environment where people learn to be only excited by trivialities makes for trivial minds.

Nietzsche condemned Christianity as a slave religion, while pointing out that the European aristocracy, while outwardly breathing Christianism, actually practiced the opposite. Nietzsche also noted that the strength of Greece came from keeping a balance between two completely opposed mentalities, the Dionysian and the Apollonian.  

Vast minds with vast personalities are more powerful than those who know only a few. When man domesticated an animal, the animals’ behavior registry got sharply reduced. A wolf is capable of much more behaviors than a dog. Domesticated animals are tools.

Tyrants rule over people because they have turned those people into low dimension minds with fewer emotions, and fewer thoughts, and less ability to form them, just like dogs relative to wolves. Ruling over weak minds is not just easier, it’s the only way. It’s also why democracy, which is more clever, keeps on defeating fascism.

Indeed a mental universe where people demand that ducks be called ducks is more powerful than one where they are not named. Intelligence is about discernment. Thus, the proper labels.

Mental freedom without mental power is only illusion.

The New York Times grandly proclaims the slogan “All News That Are fit To Print” on its front page. As pointed out above, the New York Times does not like to talk about it “while a debate is going on“.

New York Times, tell me: if “torture”, “murder”, “assassination” are not fit to print, what is fit to print?


Patrice Ayme

Enough Naivety Already.

December 18, 2010





Obama signed his second enormous “stimulus” made of enormous tax cuts for the hyper rich. Both on tax cuts for the hyper rich and in war, Obama has expanded considerably G. W. Bush’s policies.

It is a plutocratic trap: there is not enough credit to pay for it, and it does not build anything. Instead, the money for the rich thus created will keep on fleeing the USA. As the moment arrives when the interest on the debt will be even larger than the (near) trillion dollars for the “Defense” department, the plutocrats will turn around, and request savage cuts in what they view as the American welfare state. The plutocrats are the masters of the narrative of reality in the USA.

Krugman wrote an editorial “Wall Street Whitewash” starting with “When the financial crisis struck, many people — myself included — considered it a teachable moment. Above all, we expected the crisis to remind everyone why banks need to be effectively regulated.  

How naïve we were.”

Indeed. Potentates have no interest to advertize how they steal everybody. As long as there is no pressure from the street, things will not change for the better. Understanding will only decay.

Plutocracy is only afraid of the street (a well known fact throughout Europe, hence the demonstrations there). Pressure in the street is not fashionable in the USA, ever since it was savagely, subtly, and everywhere repressed. Americans are basically scared.

The average American is pretty well programmed by the hyper rich, even on the emotional level. The average American feels that “cool”, the emotion of having no emotion, is the superior emotional set-up, and that Very Serious People do not believe there ever was anything such as a conspiracy. Conspiracies do not happen in the USA. All Very Serious People know this. Being endowed with a modicum of gravitas, or culture, is to know that too.

Krugman, and others, have observed that facts and semantics are being reconstructed by the (so called) republicans to claim that the government caused the financial crisis (when actually it is lack of government which did). The republicans decided to banish from now on words such as “deregulation”. Hence deregulation in finance could not have created any problem, since “deregulation” does not exist.

The Reaganosaurs try to foster the feeling that the government is bad, thus it should be terminated (except where it serves them with enormous profits). Presumably everybody should buy weapons to re-establish order, and tanks to drive around the potholes. As the rich would have bigger weapons, private armies and flying machines, they would dominate the situation: a more technologically advanced variant of the feudal order established during the Late Roman empire.

The Obama tax cuts for the rich ought to help that way. In the next stage, his republican ‘friends’, and Wall Street ‘friends’ will propose to Obama savage cuts in government. At this point Obama will be trapped, because he will have to chose between losing the last democrat willing to vote for him, and doing once again, what his very rich friends want him to do.

The same situation happened in the late Roman empire. The Obamas of the time were Christian emperors who had delayed too long cracking down on the feudal rich. Of course they were themselves the ultimate potentates, so they had no moral standing to criticize their fellow plutocrats, and that was, then, as now, an important part of the crisis. (When the Franks replaced the Romans, the wealth and power differential between the richest and the poorest, was incomparably less than in the Late Roman empire.) Let’s try to demolish a piece of the bankers’ lying narrative. Contrarily to what they pretend,



In particular, real estate loans did not cause the crash. As I will demonstrate below in several ways, they were too small to do so. Instead speculation in derivatives caused the crash.

Hyper wealth has made a disingenuous discourse brazenly asserting that the subprime loans created the financial crisis. This is completely false, as can be demonstrated by a few observations, and basic mathematics.

There are 55 million homes in the USA. Let’s suppose very generously fifteen million were paid, once again very generously 100% with subprime loans, and that every single one of these loans was a total loss. Since the median price of a home peaked around $200,000, and went down 30%, we get a loss on each loan of $60,000. On 15 million homes, the total loss in dollars is (15) (ten to the power six) (6) (ten to the power four) = (90) (ten to the power ten) = 900 billion dollars. In other words, less than a trillion dollars.

However the government of the USA given to the banks five trillion dollars to the banks (and so called shadow banks, financial establishments endowed, like banks with money creating ability). (This is according to the Special Inspector General, Neil M. Barofsky; most of the help to banks has no been given through TARP, but through direct loans and Quantitative Easing.) Thus most of the loss of banks is not attributable to non performing loans.

Another way to look at the discrepancy is that, if the housing market in the USA keeps on going down, its nominal loss of value will reach 10 trillion dollars in 2011. But that includes all homes, including many without mortgages. Actually mortgages in trouble, in one sense or another total less than ten million, with presumably less than 2 trillions of nominal losses between them (simple math!). Since the housing market is down less than30%, we get a maximum loss, once again, of less than a trillion dollars. There is a severe discrepancy between one and five.

Looked at it another way, when insurance companies such as AIG lost money (cost to taxpayers around 200 billion dollars to pay for AIG’s contracts and obligations), what does it have to do with subprime loans? Nothing. It has to do with something we are generally told by noble economists such as Paul Krugman, as having nothing to do with an underlying market, namely, derivatives. in the case of AIG, the derivatives were Credit Default Swaps.

The situation is even more blatant in Europe, since home loans are neglectable there relative to the economy. Instead European banks engaged in absurd risk taking to claim fake profits for an instant, and stuff themselves with bonuses (the clamp down on bonuses of the EU on january1, 2011 should help to prevent such abuses in the future.)

People such as nearly all politicians, having little knowledge of derivatives, mathematics or economics, are nominally in charge of deciding everything about derivatives.



I agreed with Paul Krugman’s editorial on the “Whitewash”, but I went deeper, harping on my usual theme of money creation. Money is basic to economy and finance, but it is not clear what it is.

Krugman recently pointed out that there has been remarkably little relationship between the standard monetary aggregates and the inflation rate.

But here’s an even more basic question: what is money, anyway? It’s not a new question, but I think it has become even more pressing in recent years.

Surely we don’t mean to identify money with pieces of green paper bearing portraits of dead presidents. Even Milton Friedman rejected that, more than half a century ago.”

Not knowing what the basic notion a theory is handling is common. having despaired of establishing clear and definitive foundations, mathematicians discovered that they could establish a lot of very useful basics as Category Theory, although it mightily rests in the air.


Physics has he similar problem with mass and energy. They are both, besides being supposedly equivalent, fundamental to General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. But their definition is completely unclear (gravitons interact with themselves, so gravity breeds gravity, and QFT is plagued by quasi-infinite energy in any volume of space, in any of its official versions).

However, there is a difference between economics, physics and mathematics. I claim there is an absolute solution to the problem of defining value in economics, and, thus, money. But this is besides the point of this humble little note.

I sent the following comment to the New York Times, expanding on Krugman’s Whitewash article. Curiously, it was not published. It is just a variant on a theme that I have harped on repeatedly, the last time two weeks ago. But nobody seems to have picked it up yet, so I have to keep on repeating myself (although my complaints on Obamacare were joined in a universal chorus within a year, I am still waiting for a similar global howling against public financing of private profit as common and usual money creation!)


Bank “deregulation” was the annihilation by Secretary of the Treasury Summers, under president Clinton, of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s work. Summers had actually started his devastation campaign under Reagan, causing the failure of the Savings and Loans. Now he has somewhat changed his spots, but such was his master work.

FDR had analyzed carefully what ailed the American economy. He decided to prevent banks from speculating. Why? Because private banks were given the fiduciary duty of CREATING money. They create it through debt.

Creating money was the prerogative of the state, for several millennia. When private banks realized that they could speculate with the money that they were free to create, they discovered they had found a process for free money that they could inject into themselves in an exponential loop.

FDR, who was not interested by riches, having them already, saw that this infernal exponential was not compatible with the republic, so he outlawed it explicitly, thus accomplishing both justice and fame as a knight of civilization. Summers, who has already made a small fortune with derivative manipulating firms (eight million dollars the year Obama selected him) saw that offering the gift of that infernal exponential to the financial plutocracy, would made him much richer and influential. Different people, different ambitions.

Private banks did this lend to themselves in the 1920s, causing the crash of 1929-1930 (stocks were bought sky high by banks using their infernal free money process, and then went down more than 90%; some of the financiers connected to said banks, like Joe Kennedy, pulled out in time, building huge fortunes).

In the 1930s, many banksters stole the money, and ran away. Millions of simple souls were robbed of all they had. That is why Roosevelt closed all banks the day he became president (a fact Obama does as if he did not know that it happened). Banks were progressively reopened under strict conditions of operation (no more speculation, and the banks were forced to lend money not to themselves, but to the economy).

In the last two decades, derivatives and shadow banking (insurance companies, investment banks, etc.) have been allowed to join that free money machine, that exponential bandwagon. This is the so called “deregulation”, and the plutocrats are now going to claim the concept has no merit, because it does not exist.

This ability, for the banks to create as much money, that is debt, as they wished, allowed them to push prices of what they speculated in. Because they lend to themselves with money they claim to have, although they do not have it, they can push the prices up, and make real money before the crash, or so they hope. In all markets, from oil to real estate. The best place to have maximum leverage was the “derivative” market. Lehman Brothers (strictly speaking an “investment bank”, thus part of “Shadow Banking”) used 50 to 1 leverage (it lent 50 times the capital it truly had). For small periods of time, sometimes as small as nanoseconds (“high frequency trading”), bankers claim profits, and then give themselves bonuses.

But sometimes, the leverage follies were more tangibles, as in Spain. International airports were built from scratch, in the middle of nowhere. The country is now covered with ultra modern public transportation (not clearly always profitable).

The dysfunctioning of finance became obvious in 2008, as nearly all markets crashed. Common people and taxpayers were left with the bill. For example the collapse of Lehman Brothers was paid for by taxpayers. But the top managers of Lehman, including its head, Mr. Fuld, left with billions.

Overall, a giant crisis is still under way, as the money creation machine has been confiscated by the private money creating industry, and they are using their giant means to corrupt the entire process, starting with the cognitive functions of society (including its semantics).

Obama and top democrats have understood nothing to this cancer, and European socialists are not doing any better.

However, the European Union has limited bankers bonuses cash to a small fraction, as I already said. Repetition is the mother of education.

The rest of the bonuses awarded by the bankers to themselves will be changed, by law, into stocks held 5 years, which should make bankers think twice about strategies leaving taxpayers with bankrupted banks, at least within 5 years.

This is effective immediately, and a singular contrast in effectiveness with the democratic Congress, its democratic Senate, and the democratic president of the USA, who put back in place a system similar to the preceding one they were themselves enjoying, namely with the wolves watching over the wolves (the so called independent Fed is stuffed with private bankers, at least in its most important local branches such as New York).



The European crackdown on bonuses is just a beginning. More drastic solutions exist. Namely what is called discreetly the “restructuring of debt“. The problem is that private companies, banks, cannot be repaid, often for loans they ultimately made to themselves (X loaned to Y, which loaned to Z which loaned to X). A lot of the money disappeared into bonuses, and corruption (such as fat checks to the “agencies” in charge of evaluating credit worthiness).

The Great Fire of 1666 in London was stopped when, after several days of a mighty, but hopeless struggle, the Navy was allowed to dynamite houses.

This sort of analogy has a honorable past: Adam Smith used fire regulation as an analogy to bank regulation.

The equivalent now is to restructure the debts, that is to tell the private lenders (the banks), that they will not make all the money they hoped to make (because taxpayers and citizens, and their children, do not want to pay them anymore). In practice it will often force banks, and shadow bank holding companies, into bankruptcy, because most of their money they still claim to have, has already disappeared in bonuses and corruption.

Then the only way to mitigate the situation will be to nationalize the bank operations (hundreds of banks were nationalized during the saving and loans crisis under Reagan and Bush Senior, so it’s not communism, nor new; the UK has nationalized giant banks in the present crisis).

The Bush-Obama solution has been instead to pay for nationalizations, and then to give all the money back, and the keys, to those same managers, exploiters, banksters, and counterparties who had stolen so much money, that they had driven what they managed, contracted, or conspired with, into de facto bankruptcy. (Technically only Lehman was allowed to go bankrupt, because trillions of dollars were credited by the government to all the other banks in a timely, and secret manner.)



As most of the disposable money goes to banksters, not enough is left for even keeping infrastructure going. This shows up in the educational system (American children are out of school in the early afternoon, and, when at school, between swallowing two “soft” drinks, are mostly fixated on sports). It also shows in the aging of the physical infrastructure of the USA:

As Krugman says: We’re becoming shabbier by the year.” Entire American cities, which were cheaply made in the 1920s and 1930s with glorified chicken houses, ought to be rebuild with modern durable housing. They are highly energy inefficient, creaking, deformed, and pervaded with mold. They would not be considered fit for human inhabitation in Europe. Malware versus welfare, that is the question.

Ruling is most comfortably done by ruling the minds. That means imposing a narrative. An example is that Obama’s narrative that he could not make any progress in his first two years, as long as he could not persuade… the opposition (which would have been completely impotent, but for Obama waiting for it, literally and figuratively). This is what being a bipartisan meant.

Hence the semantic and cognitive shifts of the last few weeks. Krugman describes that pretty well in ‘Springtime For Hypocrites’: …”all the concern about the deficit was a front for opposing anything progressives might want, to be dropped as soon as debt was being run up on behalf of conservative goals.

The “conservative” goals of conserving increasingly shabbier housing, roads, trains, schools, health care and transportation, while conserving expanding profit margins, is ambitious in its own way. And that sort of “conservation” can last a long while, as the history of France (say) during the 18C showed: a needed revolution can be delayed by several generations, as established order dominates the narrative of what reality is supposed to be. “Conservative” is so nice a word as to be misleading. Exploitative and plutocratic is more like it. But Krugman needs to keep on looking as a Serious Person, or he would not be as influential as he is, and would be deprived of his pulpit at the New York Times (or even Princeton!).

Right now, as the real economy in the West is being starved of money, and investment, one can also see the minds increasingly robbed of the means to understand what is going on. That is even worse. By the Fifth Century, all what the Roman people cared about was sports (riots between supporters of various teams of charioteers caused dozens of thousands of dead in Constantinople alone).

Plutocracy ultimately robs minds: that is the way plutocracy has always ruled. In the long run, nothing else will do to keep plutocracy going. Why? Under plutocracy, the socio-economy and civilization always decay, on the largest scale.

An inkling of that encroaching mental corruption: when the Secretary of State of the USA, Clinton, orders her ambassadors to steal (source: WikiLeaks, but not denied by the government of the USA). This is more than a violation of international conventions, it’s a deliberate violation of civilization, as was the refusal to prosecute all and any of the malversations under G. W. Bush (such as the official re-instauration of torture).

So the cognition and logical levels will keep on decaying, at least in the USA. Europe is a different matter, as one may hope that it realizes that is plutocracy which was behind Nazism. One may hope that Europe remembers that plutocracy killed well above 60 million Europeans, in one generation. One may also hope that Europe remembers that peace is an acquisition one fought over, not a gift of the gods.

Pluto has no gift for the many, except hellfire. As far as the gods are concerned, there are way too many people already, and they have been insolent too long.


Patrice Ayme


August 6, 2008


A debate has been raging in France around the following simple question: Why is it politically correct in many circles of the West to criticize Islam but not Judaism? (For the particular situation that led to this typical Franco-French fighting, one can read the long note (7) below. One can also consult the original inspiration for this essay, from Roger Cohen: “Aux barricades! France and the Jews” (New York Times and IHT, August 3, 2008).)

France and the Jews is of course a gigantic subject: simply put, there were Jews in Gaul before there were Francs. Anti-Judaism was encouraged by Saint Hilarius, bishop of Poitiers (and also inventor of the Trinity), in the mid Fourth century (~ 350 CE). Saint Hilarius was a straight forward fanatical racist: he preached to ignore and ostracize Jews, and not to return their salutations (Jews and Pagan had full rights as citizens of the Roman empire before the theocratic dictatorship under Constantine removed them). The Pagan Franks founded Francia in 486 CE (soon they gave the Jews their full rights back).

As Roger Cohen puts it: ” It’s not quite the Dreyfus Affair, at least not yet. But France is divided again over power and the Jews. While the United States has been debating The New Yorker’s caricature of Barack Obama as a Muslim, France has gone off the deep end over a brief item in the country’s leading satirical magazine portraying the relationship between President Nicolas Sarkozy’s fast-rising son, Jean, and his Jewish fiancée.”

As it turns out the young lady is extremely rich. Just pointing out that fact brought howls of “anti-Semitism”.

In these sort of debates, about who hates whom and why they are right to do so, it may help to use accurate vocabulary, the first necessary step towards accurate thoughts. Otherwise, it’s garbage in, garbage out, here, there, and everywhere. The air itself becomes garbage.

In conventional usage, people who have something against Jews are called “anti-Semite”. It’s not completely false, because Jews are Semites. But neither is it really true, either. It can even be completely false.

Socrates and Plato used to love pointing out logical trivialities, but it may have been more useful to point out illogical trivialities people engage in frequently. Maybe then Athens would not have gone down.

A lot of the debate about Jews, pro and con, rests on such illogisms, and thus, unsurprisingly, can be all things to all people. 

If one is against snakes, and snakes are animals, then one, according to many an anti-Anti-Semite, ought to be labeled “anti-Animal”. But such a generalization would be unfair to truth and animals in general, and one self in particular, if one happens to be an animal. By the same token, always according to many of our funny friends the anti-Anti-Semites, since Nazis were anti-Jew, and (German) Jews were German, the Nazis ought to have been called “anti-German” (that’s definitively a reasoning the Nazis would not have been comfortable with, all the more since, as it turned out, it was so true: the Nazis’ little adventure was bound to kill lots of Germans, and, indeed, it killed 10% of them).

But let’s come back to our friends the denizens of Arabia. The Arabs are Semites. Calling an Arab “anti-Semite” is calling him anti-Himself, self destructive. That maybe true, but certainly it is not a nice way to engage a conversation. Still, there is a grain of truth in this, because the Jews not only are Semite, but they come from the root of the Arabian peninsula. Arabia is that big peninsula between the giant African and Eurasiatic plates. This is shown by linguistic, historical, and genetic evidence (contradictory pontificating will be adressed in the notes below).

In other words, the Jews are denizens of Arabia, just as “Arabs” are. Looked at it this way, a Jew is an Arab. By being anti-Jew an Arab is anti-Arab in some sense. So the Judaic-Arabic argument is a sort of civil war in the minds of generalized Arabs (see notes). They don’t need another war, they need a shrink.

Now for the money context. The screaming by people of more or less Jewish origin that it is anti-Jew to say that there is a connection between Jews and money is disingenuous. For religious Judaic reasons, it was forbidden to Jews to borrow money against interest to other Jews, and so universalistic Jews calling themselves Christians having adopted that doctrine too, among themselves could not borrow either. That left the religious loophole that Christians could borrow from Jews, etc… Not only they hated each other, but they would have invented each other, if they did not already exist… Oh, why did the Christians, or more exactly Catholic Orthodox, as they called themselves (!) hate the Jews so much? Very simple: they had killed everybody else (intellectuals, Pagan, other types of Christians, etc…), but could not quite kill the Jews (their mythical founder being a Jew followed around by Jews, and their “book” being the “book”, i.e., the Bible), so the Christians were very frustrated. Soon the Pagan Franks took power, and put the Christians in the dog house for centuries, and forced them to behave. (After six centuries of best behavior, though, the Christians found their Crusade trick, and came out barking each time a Jew passed by, poisoning Europe again with enchroating madness, until the full religious wars of the Renaissance.)   

But back to the original position of the Jews in the High Middle ages. The Jews, who had full citizen rights under the Carolingian Imperium Francorum, became richer, and started a tradition of riches, by lending to Christians. Those the closest to money end up with more. And those who want to learn from history have to learn even what they decided they did not like. The history of the Jews in Western Europe is full of enough horrors to excuse many Jewish defects, real or imagined.

Many Jews were very rich, hence, sometimes, as happened in the 13c., the king of France and his vassal the king of England, woke up and threw the Jews out, keeping there riches. Before allowing them back, like the cows are brought back to the farm to make more milk. Another method was simply to marry rich Jews (the French monarchy used to marry its Italian bankers too). That’s how most of the French population ended with Jewish ancestors (including De Gaulle). Besides, since Jews had equal rights, and Judaism was looser, there were mass conversions to Judaism throughout the empire of the Franks. Accusing the French of anti-Judaism is accusing them of anti-Frenchism (that they do everyday to amuse themselves, but it’s another story).

It is also disingenuous, and anti-European, not to say anti-Civilizational, to claim as Elie Wiesel, Claude Lanzmann, Robert Badinter and Bernard-Henri Lévy and others do, that their philosophical fire should be directed towards what they call “the line between humor and insult, caricature and hatred”. So doing, they make the point Quran fundamentalists want to make in places like Afghanistan, with a knife across little girls throats.

Elie Wiesel, Claude Lanzmann, Robert Badinter and Bernard-Henri Lévy, and their kind should be ashamed that their petty opportunism encourages Quran fundamentalist killers (by making such a big deal that the insult line was crossed, those worthies agree with the Quranist killers on their number one claim: insulting humor matters a lot, and should be punished).

If humor is really so terrible, they should go to court and defeat it (but they probably fear that the judge would punish them instead; French judges punish the losing side). And if it’s so false, then seriously disprove it, whatever it is. It can be excellent for philosophical thriving, to search for valid arguments.

I will have some freedom fries…

Patrice Ayme


1) Genetics show less intermixing of the Jews than with surrounding population (an argument to support the “right of return” of the Jews to their homeland around Jerusalem; after all, they were chased away by Romans, Christians, and Muslims).

2) Some gentic markers have been found more in common (10%) with Kurds, so some scream Jews have nothing to do with Arabs. But first genetic science is not advanced enough, and, secondly the argument above is geographical: at some point, and for more than a millennium, Jews were home around Jerusalem (and Muhammad’s ancestors were not!). Moreoever nations moved in the past. Finally liguistics has often proven more precise than inchoating genetic. 

3) If Jews are generalized Arabs, then they are natural allies for Arabs, and Iran should rather meditate that one carefully…

4) Initially Muhammad set himself to bring to Pagan Arabs, with their cult of the moon and of the meteorite, a flourishing religious tourism in Mecca, the great and real JEWISH God. Initially He wanted the day of the Lord to be the Sabbath, and the Jews of Yatrib (now Medina) were his best friends. But they had a serious different, one of the Jewish tribes was annihilated by Muhammad, and the others fled to Palestine-Jordan. There they helped the invading Arab Muslim armies, a few years later, in their assault against the Roman army (!)

5) A careful digestion of the sort of information above shows that the Palestino-Jewish conflict is much ado about nothing. Not only are Jews generalized Arabs, but Islam is a desertic version of universal Judaism, just as Christianism is a Roman (Constantine!) version of universal Judaism. The anti-Judaism of Islam was invented by Christian fanatics (Constantine, Saint Hilarius, etc…), and Muslims picked it up like parrots! (Sorry for the humor, or was it a fact, or an insult?) It’s all a brawl among historically challenged siblings!  But those who confuse categories and make big friends with what they hate to win one argument against someone they dislike, contribute to the problem they claim to want to fix.  

6) It is often said that the West feels culprit about “the” holocaust, so they created Israel to atone for their guilt. But first Israel was created more than 3,000 years ago. a better argument is that Isreal is an outpost of democracy, or there to divide the Middle East. There is something to the later point. It seems that the E.U. and the U.S.A. have ample power to impose a solution. Not doing so keeps the Middle East divided. The USa, in particular has long been allied to Muslim fundamentalism, using it as a weapon of mass destruction against whatever it wanted to level. 


7) The Sinet affair background: A lifelong provocateur (he is 80 years old), whose previous targets have included Christians, Muslim fundamentalists and gays, Maurice Sinet (pen name: “Sine”) went to the police after a website called for him to be murdered. He penned a critical paragraph on the rising fortunes of the 21-year-old Jean Sarkozy, who was elected this year in his father’s political fief, the wealthy Paris suburb of Neuilly (where he organized a mimi coup). Sine wrote that Sarkozy junior “has just said he intends to convert to Judaism before marrying his fiancee, who is Jewish, and the heiress to the founders of Darty,”  “He’ll go far, that kid,” he wrote (Darty is a French retail giant).

Charlie Hebdo editor Philippe Val said Sine was sacked for remarks that “could be interpreted as drawing a link between conversion to Judaism and social success”, thus alluding to the old stereotype linking Jews and money. Val said the text was “neither acceptable nor defendable in court”.

The “Affaire Sine” escalated into a tug-of-war over raw freedom of expression and alleged “anti-Semitism”. France has a long history with Judaism and anti-Judaism, ever since Saint Hilarius riled against Jews in the Fourth century, and a few centuries later Jews were given full rights, eleven centuries before the Dreyfus affair, and still a sensitive issue in a country that has both Europe’s largest community of Jewish descent, at 600,000 people, and its largest  community of Muslim descent, at around five million (I’m careful to say “descent” because most French are atheists, including not just many so called Christians but also many so called Jews and Muslims).

In an open letter in Le Monde in July 2008, 20 writers and politicians including Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe, Nobel Peace prize winner Elie Wiesel and former justice minister Robert Badinter, and the hyper rich philosopher Bernard Henri Levy defended the paper’s firing of its satirist. They said he had “crossed the line between humorous insult and hateful caricature”. The chorus of condemnation was joined by French Culture Minister Christine Albanel last week.

Eight thousand people have signed up to an online petition defending Sine, including the architect Jean Nouvel and the far-left former presidential candidate Olivier Besancenot. They insist he is not an anti-Semite, merely an agent provocateur, that his remarks were well within the law, and part of a healthy and necessary tradition of irreverent satire. “We can’t breathe in this country any more,” complained the writer Jean-Marie Laclavetine in Le Monde. “We need the outrageousness of someone like Sine.”

“Charlie Hebdo has dealt a terrible blow to freedom of expression by seeking to gag Sine the libertarian,” wrote Gisele Halimi, a high-profile lawyer, defender of dangerous leftist causes and women rights, and a former lawmaker, who is half Jewish. The satirical weekly made headlines in 2006 for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which sparked a wave of violent protests around the world, as well as an irreverent cartoon of its own. It later won a defamation suit brought by French Muslim groups in a trial seen as a test case for freedom of expression, and over which it received the support of the French media and political establishment.

Why, indeed, should it be possible to criticize Islam but not Judaism? Well, a subject not broached here is that a lot of those who do not want to criticize Judaism are themselves European, and so are many Jews and Israeli of apparently European descent, contrarily to most Muslims… A white angel covered with Svastikas rotating the wrong way passes by…


June 9, 2008


In an otherwise excellent editorial in the New York Times (“Deracialization: It’s a Different Country”, Monday, June 9), Prof. Krugman points out that: “we’re about to elect an African-American president … racial division, which has driven US politics rightward for more than four decades, has lost much of its sting.”

To further decrease the sting, I propose some psycho-semantical antiracist advance.

Why to systematically call Obama an “African-American” candidate? If this is an allusion to his father’s origin in Africa, by making this labeling systematic, one is giving African origin more weight than to his mother’s origin in Kansas. Is then his father’s origin more prominent than his mother’s because his skin was black whereas his mother’s skin was white? Would one label him “African-American” if his father had been white, born in Cape Town? So then it’s all about color? Is black such strong stuff that it warrants a permanent, hereditary label?

Now, according to the Nazis, a person was Jewish under two conditions:
a) that person had more than one Jewish great grandparent, and,
b) Hitler had not given that person Honorary Aryan status.

(Even pure Jews could be made Aryan by Hitler’s pen. Thousands were.)

To keep on calling Obama an “African-American” rather than a European-American is a marker of racism and sexism. Indeed, on the face of it, Obama is just as “European-American” as “African-American”. Thus, by not calling him a “European-American” one weighs black more than white, and father more than mother. It’s similar to what the Nazis were doing; if one had some Jewish origin, then one was labeled a Jew.

Distinction is the first necessary step towards discrimination. To avoid the later, better to root out the former. Ironically, at the very least, one could at least be at least a bit more modern, follow Hitler, and make Obama an Honorary Aryan. After one of his Marshals, a pure Jew, had done well in Norway, Hitler made him and his family honorary Aryans, thus not defining them according to their origin anymore.

Racial divisions start with sharp semantical divisions, where there should be none. Obama is a US citizen, end of the story. Such is the non racial future. Stop calling them names, if you don’t want to insult them.

Patrice Ayme.


February 9, 2008

Abstract: we establish a useful distinction between fascism (a combat reflex, and fundamental tactic), and totalitarianism (more general than fascism).

Roger Cohen points out that (East German) totalitarianism is remote to East German teenagers (IHT, Feb. 4, 2008). Indeed the East German regime, towards its end, was totalitarian. But earlier on, communism (Soviet style) was certainly not only totalitarian (as defined by the authors of the words, Gentile and Mussolini) but it was also, in its Lenino-Stalinian version, what we call fascist. Totalitarianism has to do with having just one mind for the multitude, fascism has to do with using that mind to kill.

(OK, this is my own terminology. “Total” means the whole, everybody agrees to that one. For the idea that fascism is deadly, I go back to the Romano-Franco-American symbolism: a murderous axe, surrounded by We The People, ready to strike: a lethal symbol, which the Romans, and then the Franks, brandished, for, by now, more than 25 centuries… This is not how the Twentieth Century Italians used “fascismo”… but what did they know? Not much, that’s for sure…)

The term “totalitarianismo”, employed in the writings of the philosopher Giovanni Gentile, was popularized in the 20th century by the Italian fascists under Benito Mussolini. The original meaning of the word as described by Mussolini was a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens.

Fascist is more of combat reflex, when the group fight as if of one mind, the later being strongly provided by the leader. It’s blatantly exhibited by threatened, or threatening, baboon troops. Fascism is how baboons win wars against lions at the watering hole. Fascism is much stronger than totalitarianism, because it implies the later, Verily, it works by using the later. The mind of the average member of the troop becomes part and parcel of the mind of the leader, allowing the troop to fight as one super organism (discipline makes the strength of human armies too, for the exact same reason). So great is this combative advantage (the facist instinct), that it has got to be anchored in human ancestry as inherited psychobiology.

Mussolini, originally a wily socialist politician, invented his own fantastic, self serving elucubration of what he called “fascism”. Although he claimed antique Rome’s fascism as an ancestor, Mussolini style fascism had little to do with historical fascism (as found in antique Rome, the Franks, and revolutionary republics of the 18C, the USA and France). Those had to do with justice and the “E Pluribus Unum” principle. Nor did fascism, Mussolini style, had to do with the ethological reflex that the term “fascism” should depict (to be denied at civilization’s risk).

The fascist reflex is generally activated by terror. Maximal deadly fight against maximal deadly terror is a euphemism for fascism. (That is why overdoing it in “the fight against terror” will activate the fascist reflex.) Looked at it that way, fascism can be a good thing (that was the point the Roman republic and its Merovigian, and Franco-American successors made).

The fascist reflex can also be abused by autocrats to establish a totalitarianism they profit from.

Stalin admitted having killed dozens of millions of Soviet citizens as he was doing his thing (outdoing the Nazis). The Nazis were actually out-fascized by Stalin. If Hitler was a fascist, so was Stalin.

Many people and thinkers who wanted to be viewed as of the socialist persuasion insisted to call Stalin’s fascism, “totalitarianism”, as if there was a difference. In this they followed Hitler, and Stalin, and Mussolini, who all had interest to claim there was a huge difference, a deadly contrast between Stalinism and Hitlerism. Thus they were themselves justified to use each other to go out and kill (whoever they decided was in the way, or they liked the teeth of).

This illusionary, erroneous contrast between “fascism” (as defined by Mussolini) and “totalitarianism” (as defined by the Soviets) also allowed a lot of “left” thinkers (especially countless French philosophers, such as Sartre, Althusser, etc…) and, on the other side, Nazi thinkers (Heidegger, etc…) to claim that they were right when they promoted totalitarianism, war, dictatorship and deadly methods of mass coercion (in other words, fascism), so as to fight … the other side. In the same way flying butresses in a cathedral “fight” each other, as they lean against each other. They could be, precisely because they were the same. That illusionary difference also served as excuse and conceptual background to justify holocausts such as the one which occurred in Cambodia (the instigators of the later had been instructed in Paris).

ONLY EVIL CAN DEFEAT EVIL, SO IF ONE WANTS TO BE EVIL, NOTHING LIKE DEPICTING ONE’S OPPONENT AS EVIL FIRST (on a miniature scale, this tactic has been successfully used by both sides in US politics in recent decades, something Obama seems to be alluding to). Many so called socialists, by depicting their opponents as “fascist” implicitly wanted to proclaim that they were as far from fascism as could be imagined (an application of the “big lie” technique dear to Hitler). Whereas in truth our semantics replace them where they belong, as pure and simple fascists.

All these categories, terror, totalitarianism, and fascism need to be made very precise, because not only are they at the core of the war against terror, but not having studied them carefully in a timely manner led to both the fall of the Athenian democracy and of the Roman republic (with civilization shattering consequences). Another lack of timely study led to the fall of France, in 1940, and the near end of civilization, while the USA basked in treachorous obliviousness until Japanese Zeroes showed up over Pearl Harbor for Christmass 1941.

Western Civilization in the Middle Ages survived and thrived, because the Franks, and their successor regimes, were able to keep in check the totalitarian and fascist tendencies both in their ruling states, and in the Catholic church (they could do this, because Francia was ruled by philosophical meta principles higher than Catholicism or fascism). The case of Islam, a totalitarianism and fascism squarely directed against the democratic, anti theocratic core of the West, is of course completely different: it was made to call a paradise the very pitfall the Franks had extracted Romanitas from, so it made a virtue out of hell.

In 2003, as more than 80% of the US population totally accepted to be of one small nasty gullible mind with Bush about invading the other side of the planet, for oil, while claiming it was to be good, totalitarianism was in action.  More awareness of the symptoms of totalitarianism would have helped to awaken to its occurence. Totalitarianism is often the last stage before fascism, and, indeed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

P/S 1: The definition of totalitarianism from Gentile: “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.” (“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”.) So nobody has to die, versus the fact that fascism, as identified in Rome, was symbolized by a terrible looking weapon (an axe, soon generalized by the Franks as a double battle axe).

P/S 2: Arendt and Hayek, to their credit, argued that there was not much difference between Hitlerism and Stalinism: both were totalitarian. But, in light of the considerations above, one should have pointed out more strenuously that they were both of this sort of totalitarianism whose justification is the extermination of the opposition (murder): in other words, according to our own semantics, fascism.

Patrice Ayme