Posts Tagged ‘slavery’

The 1609 Project: Cancel Culture And People, Maximize Profits

March 6, 2021

… Profits for the few that is…

Identity politics is tribalism by another name. Tribalism is as old as apes cancelling others for territory. Tribalism fosters simple-mindedness, cancellation, alienation, hatred, annihilation. Jane Goodall found it was systematic when chimpanzees interacted with other groups. Tribalism is the opposite of the open society and the most human activity, debate. It’s as inhuman as it gets.

As I show here, identity politics covers up its true aim, the advancement of the mentality that institutionalized the worst angels of our nature in the US power structure.

Identity politics built the US. In 1609 the English colony was a venture capital firm with state military assistance, the aim of which was gold and extermination of the Natives. Tobacco rendered profitable by inhuman slavery made the English colony profitable in the first half of the Seventeenth Century, creating a virtuous circle calling for ever more slaves. 

The English colony divided the population into indentured servants, red, black, white, slaves, slave owners, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, property owners, and “races” with no rights. Punishment was severe: English colonists going to the Indians were condemned to death, executed by quartering alive. 

The “Market” was “free” to proceed with “creative destruction”, buying and selling people and territory which white men did not own (that tradition continued until the late nineteenth century, when the US offered lots of 10,000 acres next to railroads, to… white men). Result? The American Natives were mostly exterminated… Exterminating most of the Natives is something that happened nowhere else in the world to that extent (except in Australia, also a British colony; in Tasmania, the Natives were exterminated to the last). 

Romans said:”Divide et impera”… Divide and command absolutely. Alienating and alienated identities divide. Who rules and commands (impera) then? The wealthiest families, controlling, and, or, owning all the media in the USA in particular, and the West in general, including Internet social networks. Liberty, Equality, Debate are their enemies.

Identity politics is how the USA was won: by cancelling the “wrong” “identities”, increasing the profits, thus the power, of the exterminators. It is the opposite of how France was created, 15 centuries ago. The Franks, who were originally German, integrated all the Gallo-Romans, accepted all religions and identities, equally, and then outlawed slavery.

The present cancel culture festering in the USA is more of the same alienation, tribalism, violence and destruction, to serve the owners. Far from being a rebellion against the established order, it serves it.

Patrice Ayme

1619. Coming of Africans. But whites and natives had been enslaved and exterminated in the prior decade, setting the tune.

Slavery in the USA, to the extent it happened, was a unique phenomenon. Thus, to speak about a European slavery problem is to divert attention to a secondary problem: although some European slave traders profited from the slave trade, and all Europeans enjoyed tobacco and sugar (and thus shortened life spans from these drugs), most of the profiteering from slavery and its institutions and associated constitutional structures was by white English speaking Americans… the same descendants of whom are giving lessons now.


P/S: A much milder version of the preceding comment was sent to New York Times in answer to:

Is This the End of French Intellectual Life?
The country’s culture of argument has come under the sway of a more ideological, more identity-focused model imported from the United States.
By Christopher Caldwell. (Mr. Caldwell is a contributing opinion writer and the author of “Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West” and “The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties.”)

Mr. Caldwell did not publish my comment, nor any of the short and factual answers I made to other comments. This is a deliberate usage of vicious power to kill debate, which should be illegal (the NYT has state given privileges). Including the following correction, after it was asserted that France did not have female intellectuals:

There are several famous contemporary French intellectuals who are women, including the president of the French academy.

France has of course an immense tradition of female intellectuals, including the most important head of state ever:

@ES The French monarch, Queen Bathilde, outlawed slavery in 655 CE. As the “Renovated Roman Empire” of the Franks conquered Europe, slavery was outlawed all over Europe.

The article and its comments accused France of racism. The question is not whether racism was a force in the past. In truth, racism is, institutionally speaking, an English, and by extension, and reinforced, US invention. Neither Rome nor France had racist laws (with the ephemeral exception of laws passed against Jews under Saint Louis, Louis IX… Ironically and tellingly enough)  

The following comment was also blocked:

@rlschles Allegations of racism  against France have been used by the racist US elite, which ruled thanks to racist laws (that France never had). The US elite is much more abusive than the french one, and is afraid of LEF, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Hence its drive to disparage France (which does not have slavery since 655 CE, 14 centuries ago, at least formally)

What is going on? The New York Times is at the core of the US plutocratic establishment Its principal enemy is then LEF, Liberty Equality Fraternity. France was against the invasion of Iraq, and tried to block it. There was then a war between the New York Times and France. Now that the Iraq invasion president is ruling the USA, the New York Times is redoubling its efforts to destroy LEF. Catwell knows very well that I am for LEF, so he bans me. This is serious, it’s a war. It looks superficial like that, but, as during World War Two, it could end up with dozens of millions killed. No, the USA is not going to attack France. But the US elite is making it so to encourage others to go tribal, and that’s where future war lays. The NYT is telling Xi, the Chinese president, implicitly: go ahead, go tribal, you have the support of the USA… Go invade Taiwan… That’s your “identity right”. Then of course, there would be a big war. Guess who would come on top? Yes, the US plutocratic class, same as in 1945…


Here are extracts from the NYT article describing what is, from my perspective, triumphant intellectual, political and economic fascism:

After waging a decades-long twilight struggle against these movements, Le Débat has lost.

Intellectuals of all persuasions have been debating what that defeat means for France, and they have reached a conclusion: The country’s intellectual life has come under the sway of a more ideological, more identity-focused model imported from the United States.

Le Débat was always resistant to American imports. It never fully made its peace with the free market in the way that self-described social democrats in America did under Bill Clinton. Nor did it climb aboard the agenda of humanitarian invasions and democracy promotion, as left-leaning American intellectuals like Paul Berman and George Packer did. That was all fine.


The NYT turns me into an ally of Macron (should be rather vice versa, as I started decades ago…)

NYT: “Many French people see American-style social-justice politics as a change for the worse. President Emmanuel Macron does. In the wake of the death of George Floyd in police custody last spring, protests and riots across America brought the dismantling of statues and other public symbols — sometimes on the spot, sometimes after further campaigning and agitation. Aware that such actions had found a sympathetic echo among some of his fellow citizens, Mr. Macron warned that France would not follow suit. “It will not erase any trace or name from its history,” he said. “It will not forget any of its works. It will not topple any statues.”

By last fall Mr. Macron was also inveighing against foreign university traditions. “I’m thinking of the Anglo-Saxon tradition, which has another history, and it is not ours,” he said, before singling out “certain social-science theories imported from the United States of America.””


Debate is directly under attack, as a mental principle:

NYT: “To look at how Le Débat unraveled is to see that these tensions have been developing for years, if not decades. They bode poorly for the future of intellectual life in France — and elsewhere.

Not all what the NYT says is incorrect. The best lies are made with lots of truth therein. NYT: “Marcel Gauchet, is a philosopher of democracy and a historian of religion. Totalitarianism, and how to find a politics of the left that avoided it, absorbed Mr. Nora and Mr. Gauchet both.

Mr. Gauchet, for instance, has studied with alarm the slow ouster of democratic principles by the very different principles of human rights. “The touchstone in the system,” he warned in 2007, “is no longer the sovereignty of the people but the sovereignty of the individual, defined, ultimately, by the possibility of overruling the collective authority.” Human rights, often imposed by courts or centralized administrative bodies, could wind up pitting democracy against itself. 


Another perspective that is entirely correct is found in the NYT analysis. NYT: “The first sign in France of a politics focused on minority groups came in 1984. Activists close to the government of François Mitterrand sought to address the complex problem of assimilating France’s mostly North African immigrants by founding an American-style activist group called SOS Racisme. Le Débat reacted in 1993 by publishing a skeptical book by the sociologist Paul Yonnet. SOS Racisme was not replacing a stuffy idea of race with a hip one, Mr. Yonnet argued; it was introducing race theories into a country where they had lately been weak or absent, ethnicizing newcomers and natives alike, and encouraging the French to look at the minority groups in their midst (Jews, in particular) as somehow foreign.”


NYT:”Mr. Gauchet, Ms. Agacinski and many others in their intellectual circle have not changed their politics. Rather they have been outbid by radicals offering a more exciting, if not necessarily more rigorous, critique of society.


NYT:”One questions the “legitimacy”… Where did this very un-French attitude come from?an answer: America. A few days after announcing that the review would publish no more, Mr. Nora spoke about its closing on Alain Finkielkraut’s radio show. Mr. Finkielkraut was pointing to disturbing tendencies in French intellectual life, but Mr. Nora wanted to take the conversation in a different direction: to the “mouvements à l’américaine” that start on campuses across the ocean and tend to show up in France. “What they call,” he said, “to follow the argument to its logical conclusion, cancel culture, which is to say the extermination of culture, the will to. …

Here Mr. Nora paused before continuing: “Anyway, I daresay some of us are old enough to have echoes in our heads of Goebbels when he said, ‘When I hear the word “culture” I reach for my revolver.’”

[Actually it was not Goebbels, but in a Nazi play with the following memorable: “No, let ’em keep their good distance with their whole ideological kettle of fish … I shoot with live ammunition! When I hear the word culture …, I release the safety on my Browning!” Notice that the gun is a US made gun, a “Browning”, because it’s US plutocracy which armed the Nazis, with contraband weapons”]


Cluelessly the ignorant brutes at the NYT observe: “The Goebbels quote may be apocryphal, but it is worth pausing to ask why Mr. Nora — born in the first half of the 20th century and preoccupied with the moral legacy of World War II — should call such a name to mind when discussing the influence of American culture on his own country’s.

Yes, vicious idiots, it is your party, the US plutocrats, the equivalent of whom the Romans used to call the “Optimates”, the “Best”, which gave the weapons to the Nazis! Precisely! As I just said. But of course the NYT blocked hundreds of my comments explaining this, so it can keep on pretending that only idiots would say this.


NYT: ““There is a mighty ideological wave coming from the United States,” the philosopher Yves Charles Zarka wrote last fall in an article about the death of Le Débat. “It brings rewriting history, censuring literature, toppling statues, and imposing a racialist vision of society.” Nor is it as iconoclastic as it looks, according to Luc Ferry, a philosopher and conservative columnist. “However anticapitalist and anti-American they may think themselves,” he wrote last year, “these activists are only aping whatever has been going on on campuses across the Atlantic over the last four decades.”


And the lying plutocratic New York Times to conclude, mixing the true, the ludicrous, the vicious, the real and the imaginary:

The shoe used to be on the other foot. The United States used to learn a lot from France. Until a generation ago, into the age of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, one could say America deferred to France on matters intellectual. It doesn’t any longer. The demise of Le Débat was marked by not a single mention in any major American newspaper or magazine.

There are still lessons Americans can learn from France, provided we approach it with the right questions in mind. A good one to start with might be whether the American academy of recent decades — with the culture it carries and the political behaviors it fosters — has been, in the wider world, a force for intellectual freedom or for its opposite.

Well, dear fascists, and obscene censors, what you are doing called intellectual fascism, and the day you see thermonuclear suns rising over your cities, don’t say the others came for you, they came from you. In particular, you are teaching Mr. Xi that he is right, and democracy is wrong, that the debate is wrong. There is only one way out of that: violent mass death.

How And Why Civilizational Tech Drive Was Launched By Francia

February 7, 2021

Educated people are supposed to not know at all, whatsoever, how European civilization got launched after the Greco-Roman collapse. They never heard of the Franks, nor should they, because too much LEF, Liberty Equality Fraternity upsets their masters of the Global Deep Plutocracy. So the US Politically Correct have been trained to sneer when hearing of France, and how European civilization arose after Rome collapsed is not supposed to be interesting, or even a mystery. It just happened and the Anglo-Saxons did it: Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin. Then came Washington and Lincoln. However this picture is fake, false, and starting to crack. Even the San Francisco school board is starting to understand what I am talking about. So let me help some more by adding elements of crude reality…

The mood of technological revolution we presently enjoy in this civilization, even and especially in China was France based. More exactly, Francia based. Of course, this also depends what definition of France one uses: the general one valid from 500 CE to 1200 CE, not some fictionalized American primary school.

As I already wrote above, most Americans are thoroughly conditioned to be unaware that the Francia of the Franks created and united Europe long enough for this assertion to be true. To understand this better one has to look into Critical Race Theory and apply it to plutocratic domination.

Clovis takes a bath in the middle of winter… Thus imposing his common sense view of Catholicism on the Roman empire…

Americans, hopefully, are aware of a couple of centuries of US history, or four of them counting from 1619 CE, when racial based slavery was instituted in English America. Frankish control of Europe lasted several times as long, long enough to invent the basis of today’s civilization. The roots of American civilization are in Francia, and that of course infuriates the Global Deep Plutocracy.

Modern France, much of the core of the Francia of the Franks contributed enormously to modern science and technology. However that does not mean this is still going on. Amusingly, both mRNA and the first applications thereof (a vaccine, 30 years ago, which caused allergy problems) were French discoveries (Nobel for mRNA to Lwof, Monod and Jacob). However present France, dominated by MBAs, ENAs and lawyers spent way too little in research and does not have a French-made vaccine. However, that is a state policy, and French research stays alive: a French start-up, financed by Great Britain, got a huge order from Boris Johnson’s government (NOT from the present day French government, which is led by a young M&A banker, and revolving door artist).

Ah, but how, in this perspective, did the pro-technology, pro-knowledge start in Francia? From first beating back the insanity of Christianism with common sense. Told that Christ had been condemned to crucifixion Frankish king and Roman imperator and consul Clovis quipped:”It would not have happened if me and my Franks had been there!”

Second the Franks beat back the ignorance of children by encouraging religious establishments to teach all children secularly.

Third, Queen Bathilde of the Franks outlawed trading as slaves citizens of the empire. The only way out was to innovate cognitively, socially and technologically. A practical consequence was that Europe exploded in hundreds of sovereignties (although the Roman emperor or the French king were supposedly the ultimate authorities).
The dispersion and localization of authority brought some sort of de facto democracy by local responsibilization.


To make sure of infuriating some more the ignorant, I answered the following stupid question: Which country generally has better technology between France and Germany? It is a silly question because Francia created Germania: a notion so correct, it infuriated the Nazis. The Franks even created the written German language (under Charlemagne). As if to foster some more this correct observation, Germany proper, as a country, or more exactly empire (“Reich”), was created in 1871 CE, in Versailles…


Most engineering was invented in France, or by the French, including the steam engine (Papin, 17C, although he was then working in Germany!), chemistry (Lavoisier, 18C), hot air balloons, first automobiles (18C), plane (Ader, 19 C), the first helicopter, and transistor (1948, although the Nobel was given to Americans who didn’t invent the transistor, there were already patents, and some of the inventors working for the French company which mass-produced transistors in 1949 were Germans).

Hey, even Analytic Geometry (Descartes) or Calculus (Fermat)! And Buridan discovered “Newton’s” Second Law… Three centuries before Isaac was born. Did I mention evolution? The theory was established by research professors Lamarck and his enemy Cuvier… Before the amateur Darwin was even born (Darwin had to go to the university of Edinburgh with Lyell to learn Lamarck’s’ evolution…)

To augment the sneering from the pleasantly enraged ignorant, I will point out to the great Frankish bioengineering creations of the First Millennium: among them, huge horses… more efficient than oxen for ploughing.

Speaking of ploughing, the Franks’ demographic expansion rested on their enormous heavy ploughs made of dense steel which were able to overturn the rich dense soils of the Northern European plains. That was the best steel in the world, and soon hydraulic hammers were necessary to forge it. Cathedrals then arose with their walls of light made of metal and glass. It was known as “Frank” style, until a 16C italian who detested the French called it “Gothic” (because the Franks had destroyed the Goths, Visigoths and Ostrogoths… And wiped them out of history). The Franks also developed new cultivars of beans in the Tenth Century, which came to be known as “full of beans”. Beans are nutritious and full of proteins… The mood of invention arose from the abolition of slavery and the practical existence of local democracy.

Recent Nobel attributions in physics consecrated French breakthroughs which found immediate applications in ubiquitous electronics. Tellingly, Giant Magnetic Resistance was discovered in 1988 independently by the groups of Albert Fert of the University of Paris-Sud, France, and Peter Grünberg of Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany. The practical significance of this experimental discovery was recognized by the Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Fert and Grünberg in 2007. GMR was used in hard disk drive, until it was replaced by TMR, Tunnel Magnetic Resistance, an effect was originally discovered in 1975 by Michel Jullière (University of Rennes, France) in Fe/GeO/Co-junctions at 4.2 K.

But yes, it is the US Big Tech led by college dropouts, which makes all the money and the glory they redirect at themselves, to augment further their monopoly and propaganda powers…

Now there is pretty much a fusion between French and German, or more generally, European, engineering, through the likes of MBDA (a missile company with state of the art missiles), or Airbus. The French though have a military-industrial complex with for their nuclear forces which is unique in Europe, and the only one in the West, with that of the USA, of course. (Britain has a nuclear deterrent reduced to strategic submarines equipped with US Trident missiles; the French make their own missiles and submarines, acknowledged to be the best in the world, and they have their own air based nuclear arm).

The intellectual tradition of France was born in the Sixth Century, when the Frankish empire told the Pope that Frankish bishops would organize secular education, in spite of Pope Gregory the Great’s lethal threats against his own bishops. In the following centuries, it only grew. By the 8C, all religious establishment had to teach secularly all children, by law. In Paris the Cathedral School grew into the world’s first university (it became physically independent in the 12C when the present cathedral replaced the old one).

The intellectual dominance of Paris was acknowledged by 1000 CE. It was called, at the time, “translatio studii”, the translation of studies from Athens to Paris. In quick order, the Franks/Normans reconquered Sicily and Southern Italy from the Muslims, and England from the Anglo-Saxon-Viking quarrelous mix which was messily ruling there (1066 CE)… In 1204 CE, a rogue French army took Constantinople, in an unfortunate victory of French secularism over Orthodox fanaticism.

Six centuries later, the USA was born from all this…

France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain, and the USA are distinctions without fundamental differences. The root is all the same: a large German confederation, that of the Franks of the Salt was created, helped by Rome’s better angels, and relaunched civilization on more common sense, hence more democratic, and more technological foundations.

And here we are. And so is China.

What happened? Well, after 13 centuries of various invasions by foreign powers, something that had a seriously debilitating effect on Chinese power and civilization, the Chinese did some thinking in… Paris (where most of the founders of Communist China ended up, except for Mao). How come China was invaded in the 19C by French and British armies, and not the other way around? How come China was invaded so much and controlled by foreigners for 13 centuries? And Europe was not?

Technological-scientific superiority was the answer. Europe founded by the Franks always had the better steel, better horses, mechanical advantage. In the 15C the Bureau brothers, who were engineers, invented the battlefield gun, which was designed to send the English back to England, as it did… But also protected Europe. The Chinese, under Xi, are overlooking one element, though: democracy, which underlays inventivity…

Patrice Ayme

Must A Reserve Currency Explode The Trade Balance? No! Just Look! Also: Avoiding Slavery Is No Socialism!

July 3, 2018

Established economists say that Trump doesn’t understand the nature of the dollar: its status as world reserve currency causes a trade deficit for the USA. Really? It takes one look at one graph, while knowing the USA conspired to make the dollar official world currency in 1944. (And when the French Dominique Strauss Kahn tried otherwise, as head of IMF, he soon fell to a huge sex prosecution, out of which nothing came, except the destruction of his career. That would teach all those who, like DSK, pretend to follow the exact same idea Lord Keynes had in 1944… when Keynes chaired the Bretton Woods conference!) WTF? 

I have a Facebook friend who is a fanatical anti-Trump, she retweets anti-Trump material frequently. 2 days ago she put out 2 posts (retweeting from overseas oversea junk) which were deeply offensive. One extolled a woman cop killer; the young mom he had killed was unarmed; the other compared Trump to Hitler, and emanated from Germany, supporting whom I call Merkler (for her economic war against the Greeks and others… which has killed many).

My friend didn’t know her (French) jailbreaker hero was an unarmed-woman-officer killer (because my friend doesn’t know much about Europe). Neither did my friend, who has socialist pretentions, know Merkel was a fascist exploiter hiding under a “left” immigration policy (importing slaves to better exploit the working class). My friend took down both posts (and my smart comments, unfortunately!). We are still friends. Some of the political hysteria is just misunderstanding. For example, do conventional economists misunderstand what causes the deficit? If we can’t learn to live with (some) intolerance, we aren’t tolerant.

Another friend, an economist objected to my playing dumb in economic matters. I had asserted there was no connection between reserve status and deficit (contrarily to what self-declared “liberal” economists say). To the price of starting a squirmish with dropping a thermonuclear warhead on the opposition, here is the proof:

Those Who Brought You Reagan, Brought You the Trade Deficit. Economists of the Clinton-Obama persuasion say the dollar as reserve caused the deficit. This is obviously false: the dollar has been a reserve currency for about a century, and officially since 1944. However, there was no sizable deficit before Reagan. Reagan was a tool of global plutocrats, so the deficit exploded under him, right away. He was succeeded by G. Bush, who knew all too well where real power was an re-established the balance. But then came the stooges of plutocracy, and they let the deficit fly, as their masters told them to. The idea was to weaken American US unions, workers, and citizenry.

Eugen Roden wrote:

“Even if it is hard to believe, that you Patrice don’t understand how reserve currency will necessarily create deficit, I will do my best to explain to you and to your followers in a very easy way, why [the status of the dollar as] reserve currency necessarily creates deficit in US.

Reserve currency means,  that the currency is saved in other countries, than [the] country of its origin. It can be done by private corporations or public entities,  or even private individuals, who prefer to hold the reserve currency, as media of savings, because of the trust [they have] in it, compared to the local currency.  By doing so, they create demand for the money itself, as if it would be commodity or item of value by itself. And the truth is the reserve currency is an item of value, because of the trust people all over the world put in it. This trust is result of long history of reserve currency origin country’s military dominance,  democratic political system, free competitive market economy and unchallenged right for private property and wealth. China, even with its size of economy, (a bigger economy than that of US, not in nominal but real terms) doesn’t have a reserve currency, because it couldn’t create the trust in its sincerity in most of the above mentioned issues.  Europe succeeded only partly in making the Euro a reserve currency, because of its history of because of the world wars it initiated, and their economic consequences on Europe. Even 70 years of peace was not enough to create enough trust in Europe, to make from its currency a reserve currency comparable to US dollar, which has a history of continuous respect for the values mentioned above, since its declaration of independence.

The need for reserve currency exists,  to create trust in local currencies, based on these reserves. Just as in the past precious metal reserves, like gold or silver, made the currencies trustworthy, today holding of US dollars makes local currencies trustworthy.

But then if there is demand for reserve currency,  not as media of exchange, but as value holding item, its price, or exchange value will be influenced by this demand, without the question if exists enough additional production capacity to satisfy the value of potential demand that reserve currency promises. But then the relative prices in the country of origin of reserve currency,  have to be higher than in countries who accumulate the reserve currency, that has to create surplus in trade with reserve currency origin country, to be capable to accumulate these reserves. Such a surplus can be created only if the local currency value is undervalued compared to the reserve currency. Then the other side of this surplus has to be the deficit of the reserve currency origin country.”


Too Much Reserve Makes You Deficient?

The argument seems partially to be that, to create a store of dollars overseas, one needs to send said dollars there, to start with: a deficit. The graph of the deficit from the Federal Reserve which I put on top shows this is not correct: a continual flow of dollars is not needed to entertain a stash. A stash is a stash, it’s not a current.

OK, so we need X amount of dollars to create an overseas dollars stash. Say that stash is $10 trillion (a large overestimate). That’s 25 years at the present rate of deficit with China alone. And the stash existed before, it started before 1945. And also 4 trillion dollars of the stash is unpaid taxes by US corporations…

Moreover, consider, say, Argentina. It has a dollar stash. However the US has long exported cars to Argentina, so how did the stash develop? Through plutocratic mechanisms involving either tax cheating (laundered Argentine currency) or US plutocrats buying vast tracts of the country (also done in Chili).

In any case, the fact that the US dollar is considered reserve doesn’t mean one needs to have a deficit! And the fact is the US has been reserve since 1944 (after cheating Lord Keynes who didn’t want the $ as reserve, and headed Bretton Woods, but documents were switched!) There was no deficit for decades! And the fact is the massive deficit with China and Germany, or Ireland are recent. And the fact is, Germany has used its bankrupt small banks to self-finance its massive export machine, even within Europe…

And the fact is, the industrial core of the USA in the Middle West, got gutted, although it had a large educated population, and lots of fossil fuel energy. I say it got gutted precisely because it was educated (and thus a risk). Unions used to be hyper powerful in the USA, now they are near nothing…

Trade is good, exporting work, exporting ALL work, is bad… Yes, Merkler, 44% unemployment in Greece thanks to YOUR policies, was a terrible thing. Yes, the Greek government was an accomplice, an accomplice of you and your ilk. But We The People of Greece was innocent.

There are legal incentives to exporting job overseas, because corporate plutocrats told politicians to pass such friendly laws: watch how wealthy the Clintons are. And now the Bamas. Bahamas Bamas: a jungle rhythm. Main offenders in trade should be punished, until they cease and desist:

  • China/Hong Kong exported to the US 3 times as much as it imported from the US.
  • Japan exported to the US 2.2 times as much as it imported.
  • Germany exported to the US 2.2 times as much as it imported.
  • Ireland “exported” to the US 32 times as much as France, per capita, all of it being tax evasion by US corporations.

Notice that the French Republic should not save Merkler’s skin: whereas Europe didn’t have the muster to correct the exporting and exploiting ways of Merkler’s Germany, Trump does, and Southern Europe (that includes France, which is both northern and southern…) should enjoy the shooting down of the Merkler vulture by Trump, hopefully ending the austerity which has, and is destroying Europe (see Brexit).


Krugman, Smelling Blood In Global Plutocratic Waters, Turning “Socialist”?

Krugman blocked and banned my comments for years, presumably because they were “socialist” (what else? I supported Sanders, Krugman dined with the devils, including Obama and Clinton, and took systematically anti-“socialist” position). But now he is changing. Suddenly, “Radical Democrats Are Pretty Reasonable“, opines Paul.

A “Socialist” newcomer young woman defeated the fourth ranking democrat in Congress in New York.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset primary victory has produced a huge amount of punditry about the supposed radicalization of the Democratic party, how it’s going to hurt the party because her positions won’t sell in the Midwest… But I haven’t seen much about the substance of the policies she advocates, which on economics are mainly Medicare for All and a federal job guarantee.

So here’s what you should know: the policy ideas are definitely bold, and you can make some substantive arguments against them. But they aren’t crazy. By contrast, the ideas of Tea Party Republicans are crazy…

Ocasio-Cortez’s positions: Medicare for all is a deliberately ambiguous phrase, but in practice probably wouldn’t mean pushing everyone into a single-payer system. Instead, it would mean allowing individuals and employers to buy into Medicare – basically a big public option. That’s really not radical at all.”


A hefty minimum wage is not a question of having it more social, it’s a question of avoiding a slave society:

Medicare for all was proposed by yours truly, more than a decade ago: the idea is to open Medicare to all… As long as they pay the cost of insuring themselves. As Medicare is not for profit and is huge (economies of scale), it would be cheaper than ANY private health plan. So Medicare for All would quickly devour for profit healthcare gouging. My friend Obama meekly proposed it to his cabinet, which unanimously rejected it in favor of giving subsidies to healthcare billionaires, their sponsors (“Romneycare aka, Obamacare”).

Employment for all, as presently done in the USA is a good thing… Except if people work for free, in which case that’s called slavery. Thus, to avoid slavery, a hefty minimum wage insuring minimum living standards, in particular the capability of affording a home. In places like Oakland, California, or cities around, with all those jobs, a minimum one bedroom is $3,000 a month. That’s 36K a year. Cities around Oakland are instituting a minimum wage of $15. That boils down to 30K a year, working full-time, 2,000 hours a year: not enough to afford a roof! Thus college professors in San Jose have been observed, sleeping in cars….

$15 an hour is not socialism, it’s not even, a realistic minimum wage in the most booming part of the US. It is just an effort to avoid a slave society.

We are all socialist, just as we are all progressive. Just as we have to be somewhat conservative (to save the planet). The only question is how much. Not whether. 
Patrice Ayme

Inconvenient Truths On Immigration & Related Plutocratic Plots

November 26, 2017

A civilization is a system of thought, and a system of mood. In other words, a system of mind. Importing massively individuals who have been forged with a deliberately hostile system of mind they cling to, is counterproductive for the host country. However it is exactly what the plutocrats who truly own and govern the host country want: the imposition of a hostile system of mind procures the .1% owners with cheap, compliant labor eager to please, and, moreover, it divides the country, while castigating a spell against all values previously known, anchors of the minds of the little ones vicious plutocrats lord over!

That should not be too hard to understand. (And for the vicious character of it all, please just look at the sexual harassment allegations, and, even more telling, the reactions of the ilk of Paul Krugman, who, now that is dear, extremely wealthy friends are brandished as sexual harassers, turn around, and proclaim that they are “redeemed” by their good thoughts. Telling!) 

Careful reading of the first, and most basic texts of Islam, in particular, show a deliberate intent to destroy Greco-Roman and Zoroastrian civilization, ans, more generally the spirit of the rule of law of these two empires. First time in 1,000 years that raids inside the Fertile Crescent were possible, said Muhammad.

Law is local, but plutocracy is global. This means that importation, and, in general, movement of capital itself, is outside of the rule of law. In other words plutocracy is free to grow. Worldwide.

Example: a painting was sold for 480 million dollars. We The People don’t know who bought it, and how the capital to buy it, moved. It could be the Mafia for all we know, laundering blood money. Or a pawn of Putin. And art is not taxed, enabling a worldwide tax-free, secret transfer of properties.

GDP can’t feed a family. The rise of GDP is the rise of plutocracy. Obama made the elite richer and more arrogant than ever.

An essay in “Project Syndicate” pounds on the obvious:

Inconvenient Truths About Migration

Nov 22, 2017 Robert Skidelsky

Standard economic theory says that net inward migration, like free trade, benefits the native population after a lag. But recent research has poked large holes in that argument, while the social and political consequences of open national borders similarly suggest the appropriateness of immigration limits.


LONDON – Sociology, anthropology, and history have been making large inroads into the debate on immigration. It seems that Homo economicus, who lives for bread alone, has given way to someone for whom a sense of belonging is at least as important as eating. This makes one doubt that hostility to mass immigration is simply a protest against job losses, depressed wages, and growing inequality. Economics has certainly played a part in the upsurge of identity politics, but the crisis of identity will not be expunged by economic reforms alone. Economic welfare is not the same as social wellbeing.
Let’s start, though, with the economics, using the United Kingdom – now heading out of the EU – as a case in point. Between 1991 and 2013 there was a net inflow of 4.9 million foreign-born migrants into Britain…”

[That, by the way was nearly 13% of the pre-existing English population… The problem was augmented by multiculturalism which argued that the delirium of a hyper violent analphabet in the desert before the Middle Ages was just as good, and as respectable as 6,000 years of Euro-Egypto-Sumero-Indian Greco-Roman civilization]

We have been governed by the greedy agents of the unfathomably corrupt. The sexual harassment behaviors of the top guys (including many so-called “democrats”) is just a small new indication of what is going on. In the 1990s, when Bill Clinton’s sexual corruption came to light, people who self-described as “on the left”, or “progressives”, or “liberals with a conscience” scoffed. However, if a guy is corrupt in the semi-private domain, so will it be in governance: the argument is 25 centuries old, and it was made heavily by Confucius and his countless supporters. Indeed, under Clinton, finance became supreme. The reforms of President Roosevelt were rolled back, circumvented, or removed.

Of course from Clinton to Obama, “reforms” were made, making it easier for plutocratic corporations to become ever more powerful. Clinton was behind NAFTA, Obama tried to pass a treaty across the Pacific which would have enabled corporations to sue in front of (paid) arbitrators for laws they viewed unfair! Even Hillary Clinton turned against that monstrosity. Obama made discreetly many “reforms” of Intellectual Property which reinforced the tech monopolies which he also used as spy agencies, while destroying the common person (who can now be criminally pursued if Facebook, Apple, Google, etc. judge that they have been stolen by them by thinking engineering the GAFAM claim they own. (GAFAM = Google Apple Facebook Amazon Microsoft, Obama’s lovers…)

Mass migration as observed today is often a symptom of the failure of the post-colonialist order. It turns out, it was just a plutocratic order, and billions are left, excluded, exploited and ignored.

Even when slavery and colonialism were at their worst, Africans didn’t jump in the sea with their children, to join the European civilization, nearly sure to drown. Think about it. Think about what it means in the world we have. It’s one world, but it’s not for us. Nor for hope.

Time for populism, people!

Patrice Ayme

“Anti-Racist Racism” Is Still Racism

January 14, 2017

One of the fundamentals of (evil) Political Correctness has been that: “when we do it, it’s not evil, but righteous’. Unbeknownst to these criminally PC fools, evil men have always said that, when they did it, it was not evil.

The ideology of Négritude” (“Blackness”) appeared in France in 1931. Jean-Paul Sartre had plenty of time to contemplate it. In the 1950s, Sartre called Négritude an “anti-racist racism”.

“Anti-racist” here is an adjective, racism is the substantive. Substance versus adjunction. 

In the preceding essay, I observed that:

‘Aimé Césaire was from Martinique, not Africa. So he did not know that, in Africa, qualifying people by skin color is viewed as racism.’

Césaire was first of all a French intellectual posing as a rebel. This judicious observation of yours truly, that qualifying people by skin color is viewed as racist in Africa, ticked off François Luong. Luong wrote: @Tyranosopher An utterly ridiculous claim. & I’ll take 1 Aimé Césaire over 10^6 Patrice Aymé. The former made the world a better place.

Whereas, I suppose I am working hard to make it ever worse… Luong has never been to Africa. I grew up there.

That Luong implied insult was of course a much appreciated gauntlet thrown. I am an African philosopher, talking in the name of the Africa which brought me up. Aimé Césaire was not an African, and he talked in the name of skin. Not just this, but when he talked against colonization, he was also talking against civilization. By this I am not saying that colonization as it happened, was optimal. It was not. Yet, consider this:


Africa Enjoyed Slavery For 1200 Years After the Franks Made It Unlawful In Europe. Actually One Of The Argument For Imperial European Control ("Colonization" Without Colons) Of Africa, Was To Stop The Slavery & Cannibalism There. I don't Object To That Lofty Goal.

Africa Enjoyed Slavery For A Full 1200 Years After the Franks Made It Unlawful In Europe. Actually One Of The Argument For Imperial European Control (“Colonization” Without Colons) Of Africa, Was To Stop The Slavery & Cannibalism There. I don’t Object To That Lofty Goal.

Analyze this: For Césaire’s (1913–2008), the concept of Négritude is historically derived from the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the slaves’ plight in the New World. In his own words, “Négritude is not a cephalic index, or plasma, or soma, but measured by the compass of suffering.”

In other words, Africa as pathos. Africa as a pain. Well, F you, Césaire and your followers. As an African, I stridently object. Africa is neither a pain nor a pathos, except in the eyes of deranged racists. Africa is rather a quickly changing hope.  Césaire’s blackness has to do with “blacks” as found in the new World… Who often have, in part, slave master ancestors (as FLOTUS Michelle Obama does; it was actually probably a love story between Irish owner and colored slave… don’t laugh.). Nothing to do with Africa.

Insinuating that Césaire was racist is not new: “Even then Communists would reproach me for speaking of the Negro problem— they called it my racism. But I would answer: Marx is alright, but we need to complete Marx. I felt that the emancipation of the Negro consisted of more than just a political emancipation.” [Discourse on Colonialism.]

In other words, “the Negro” is a child. The Negro child needs to be emancipated some more.

The argument can be made that making “blackness” as a noble goal, forged the way for the Nazis to make “aryanism” (“whiteness”?) as a noble goal too. This Césaire, who insisted very much after WWII that Hitler was not dead, could be viewed as a fellow traveller of Hitler. Thus, indeed, Hitler was not dead. Césaire angrily denounced “colonialism”, although he was a pure product of it, in more way than one.

Trump has campaigned against Political Correctness for a long time, and me for even longer. I have a total objection for not saying things as they are (except to a dying child, of course!)

Even Socrates practiced Political Correctness: he was deadly set against total democracy, but he refused to admit that he was just that, DEADLY set against democracy… If he had admitted to himself and others that he was deadly set against total democracy, Socrates could have had healthy debates. Instead, he went around like a sting ray, injecting venom which caused a torpor, as was pointed at the time.

Until Socrates was in front of a jury for his life: then he had to either show himself to be a coward, for all of society and posterity to contemplate, or he had to drink his own medicine. He famously did the later; but it may be viewed as an admission that he had to commit (assisted) suicide.

Some will say, some have said: anti-racist racism is OK. Right… Until one knows history well. Racists are generally loudly claiming to be anti-racist: or so they claim to others, and, often, to themselves.

For example the Nazis were out to protect (“German”) minorities from assault, or even holocausts (Eastern Europe was full of German Settlements, just as it was full of Jewish settlements, and the settlements of various Natives, let alone Gypsies). In India, the hyper racist, hyper violent upper crust (the upper castes) viewed itself as an endangered minority (of superior beings).

In Antique Greece, as all Feudal regimes, the best people (“Aristos”) viewed themselves as an endangered race (the Aristos looked racially different, be it in Japan or Europe; interestingly modern genetics revealed that the Japanese Aristos genetically mixed with their own slaves, the original Natives of Japan, hence a different, more “European” physical appearance).

There is good colonialism, there is bad colonialism. Most of humanity descend from colonialists, not just Césaire. The latter wrote a whole discourse on colonialism, influencing generations of parrots thereafter.

Suppose Eurasia were still in the Middle Ages. What would Africans be doing? Besides enslaving other Africans? Well, eating other Africans of course. It is still going on, from conflict zones, to expensive restaurants..

(Notice that I am not trying to apply indignantly degenerate Euro philosophy to robust African wisdom. The philosophical strength of Africa is precisely to contradict a lot of Euro-American received ideas. African barbarity has a wisdom that even American barbarity does not possess).

There is fake news

There is fake history

There is fake wisdom

There is fake knowledge

There are fake intellectuals

If we want hope that really work, we have first to learn to distinguish what’s real, from what is not so. Self-justifying racism is the paradigm of hell paved with good, self-glorifying intentions. As an Asian proverb has it, nothing worse than a tiger who thinks it is in the right.

Patrice Ayme’

Washington, Slave Master, Coverup, Spiritual Gangrene

January 11, 2017

When Big Ideas Are Needed, But Lacking, Extinction Is A Solution:

Obama gave his “Farewell Address” (the most interesting bits of which I could have written myself… or maybe I did, come to think of it, much earlier…). Yet, he made a snide remark about those who believe the whole US system is so corrupt, that decent people should not touch it. Well, he does not understand. Some political systems are so flawed, they cannot be incrementally improved.

That was true of Sparta and Athens, in the greatest age of Greece (for drastically opposite reasons which amounted to the same). The Greek political system (yes, there was such a thing), a set of moods and ways, was so unsustainable, it was threatened with extinction. And it sure got extinguished (Pericles, restricting Athenian nationality; Poleis, fighting all over, for often ridiculous reasons, were a serious problem).

The solution? Union. What Sparta refused to even talk about. We are in the same global, worldwide, situation as Greece, by the way, and the solution is the same. The one which was not seized, and could not be seized, because Greek civilization was too flawed in some of its moods (such as the one about honor…) Something to be said for Trump’s desire to sort it out peacefully with Russia…


Much of the US system is, fundamentally flawed:

Especially in some its meta-features. Meaning? The Founding Fathers were lying in the matter of which civilization they truly wanted. Greed was foremost to them, and they hid that below big words. As long as this is not a well-known point, the entanglement between many of the worst flaws of the present civilization will stay unexamined.

If one lies too much, one cannot think enough. This is true of society, as it is of individuals.

One such ruling mood is the lack of examination that presided over the elaboration of the American Republic. The Founding Fathers stole, and brandished, a lot of their soaring rhetoric from philosophers (most of them French), precisely to hide the fact they were the exact opposite.

Slavery Made Washington, & America, Rich. So Did Holocaust. Refusing To Look At The Truth, Enabled These Behaviors, And Lives To This Day, as General Mood, The PC Mood.

Slavery Made Washington, & America, Rich. So Did Holocaust. Refusing To Look At The Truth, Enabled These Behaviors, And Lives To This Day, as General Mood, The PC Mood. Gentleman In Black Is Colonel George Washington, On His Lands, 1753.

Thereupon, a great tradition of lying, fake news, dissemblance, was launched. (Somewhat related accusations can be directed towards the mother civilization, namely France; however, in France, a tradition of excoriating some presidents (called kings, centuries ago), or even a tradition of ferocious philosophical wars is firmly installed…)

Obama, in his “Farewell Address”, claimed “America” (the US, actually, there is imperialism, the Monroe Doctrine, in the over-claiming word “America”) is always improving (and exemplified this by the “smooth transition to a new administration”). Maybe. However, it’s like saying a plane trying to take-off sees its speed always improving. Right. Yet, one has to clear the trees. One hundred H bombs would cancel the “America” show, forever.

Obama talked as if the US would profit mightily from further incremental improvements, as if there was all the time in the world. However he himself admitted that the calamitous effects of “climate change” will be upon us soon, and that they may the only thing the next generation will be doing. (He left war out of it, but that’s how changes shows up, always.)


The Evil Origins Of The American Republic,

the USA, have been carefully hidden, to enable the citizenry careful denial that such are some of the traits which animate them. Thus enabled, said citizens are free to pursue, or let their masters pursue, the same ways and means, slightly translated to new settings.

To progress, one has to question the origins, and one’s origins. Those are not questioned enough in the USA. Therefrom the origins of American “naivety”. American “naivety” is a cover-up. Being outwardly naive enables one to practice evil, while claiming, to high heavens, that one is nothing of the sort.

Obama evokes the “corrosive influence of money in our politics”, and he sheds ((crocodile) tears, no doubt feeling all the good money coming his way: all theater, George Washington’s style. Actually, he loves the money. Most of us, normal types, would.

What did I just suggest? That the slave mentality is one of the things that is being inherited (that’s the part of the Trump revolution others missed: those who voted for Trump, voted against the slave mentality imposed upon them, and that  they welcomed, for all too long!)

The results, of so much mental inertia, of course, could be catastrophic; whereas said mentality just enslaved some continents, while devastating others, we are now all the continents, all the Natives, squirming on the chopping block.

President Washington was a slave master. A slave investor. A slave driver. A vicious, conniving exploiter of his fellow-man, exploiting loopholes in law to keep on torturing his fellow-men, by the hundreds, on a very personal basis. Should he have the capital city named after him? Get to know him better, before jumping to the affirmative. As The Economist puts it in The first president, slave-owner. The spectre of slavery haunts George Washington’s house,

Jan 5th 2017, WASHINGTON, DC:

“When Washington was 11, he inherited 10 slaves from his father; when he died five decades later, he owned 123 of the 317 slaves who lived and worked at Mount Vernon. In that time the estate grew from a fairly modest farmhouse with 2,000 acres to a 21-room mansion and nearly 8,000 acres. It was in this way that the first president became rich: by buying, owning and sometimes selling people and by forcing them to work for him, under pain of flogging, beating or being sold away from their relatives and friends. There had hitherto been little acknowledgement at Mount Vernon of this dreadful blot on Washington’s reputation, or of the hundreds of black slaves who lived and worked there.”

This abominable stain on the start of the American Republic was covered-up for decades of fake news:

Insofar as slavery was mentioned at all in the plantation house’s literature and by its guides, it was to talk up the second thoughts on owning people Washington claimed to have had in the second half of his life. He thought it better, he wrote in 1778, to “get quit of Negroes”… This apologetic view of Washington’s slave-owning is still espoused by many school textbooks and historians… many Americans were surprised when, at the Democratic National Convention in July, Michelle Obama alluded to the fact that slaves helped built the White House.”

Slavery was an elaborate abomination. It was the free market (of people, as usual) in all its splendor. No indecency was left unturned:

“…an exhibition on slavery, “Lives Bound Together: Slavery at [president] George Washington’s Mount Vernon”, describes the lives of 19 of the slaves who lived on the estate. Sambo Anderson, for example, a carpenter, born in West Africa, whom Washington appears to have purchased in the 1750s and freed in his will. His wife and children were owned by the estate of Martha Washington and handed on to her inheritors after her death. Anderson spent the rest of his life saving money, from his work as a beekeeper and hunter, in order to buy the liberty of a handful of his children and grandchildren.”

To this day, The Economist recognizes, a mood of cover-up, of hiding the truth, and of fake news dominate the exhibition of the First President’s disgusting being:

“Even in the slavery exhibition, there is little sense of the violence Washington visited on his slaves—the whippings and beatings, the slaughter of his slaves’ dogs he ordered to prevent them alerting their masters to the approach of his overseers.  Much is made of his growing misgivings about slavery. But there is too little recognition that this appears to have been at least in part motivated by economics; by growing less tobacco Washington reduced his demand for slave-labour.

For Washington’s slave-owning was not, as the experience of Mount Vernon might suggest, a painful footnote to a great life, but as central to it as anything he did. Washington’s zeal for efficiency, order and money-making are all part of his mythology; these qualities help explain his success. They were also the spirit in which he traded in and worked his slaves. He approached the business of buying slaves as he might livestock, insisting, “all of them to be strait limbed, & in every respect strong and healthy with good teeth”. He worked them into the ground, expecting that “every labourer (male and female) does as much in 24 hours as their strength, without endangering their health or constitution, will allow.””

Washington always refused to free his slaves, as Lafayette urged him to do, for years. They were friends; at the battle of Yorktown, when the British army had to surrender, there was one American army, but also two French armies, one of them headed by Lafayette, and one French fleet, which had defeated,and put to flight,  the British fleet. Understand that the tradition, the culture and the legal system Lafayette came from, had outlawed slavery more than 11 centuries prior. Washington came from a tradition, a culture, a legal system, which had reinstalled slavery, 160 years earlier, to maximize profits.  

In truth, the US First President was a great beast of abomination (as I have pointed out in writing for more than eight years: see Plutocracy Originated Slavery and Racism). The Economist notices that Washington’s misgivings about slavery are given prominence in contemporaneous exhibitions. A type of Fake News. Fake News of the deepest type.

Less prominent attention is paid to Washington’s lifelong efforts to protect the system that made him rich.  In 1783 he signed the first fugitive slave law, which authorised the recapture of escaped slaves in any state and the punishment of anyone found harbouring fugitive slaves. He also sought to circumvent anti-slavery law for his own purposes.

Pennsylvania’s Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery of 1780 ruled that any slave who entered the state with an owner and stayed longer than six months must be freed. Because Philadelphia was America’s seat of government at the time, this gave Washington a headache. His solution was to surreptitiously arrange for his slaves to be cycled in and out of the state every few months (“I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself & Mrs. Washington” he wrote to his personal secretary in 1791). Only twelve weeks before he died, Washington was still trying to track down a slave who had escaped three years earlier, having learned that Martha Washington planned to give her away as a wedding present.”


The Dark Side Created The USA In No Small Way:

To start with, just as slavery was central to President Washington’s successful life, slavery, and holocausts, were central to the success of the early American society, and its Republic: enslavement and extermination enabled to get rid of the American Natives, their control of the continent, and made the European colonists immensely rich.

Slavery, introduced in the first few years of the English colony, in 1619 CE, was unlawful in England (since the Frankish conquest of 1066 CE; slavery was unlawful in the Frankish/Roman empire since 655 CE!) Slavery was actually unlawful anywhere in Europe (out of the Muslim controlled area).

However, slavery made the cultivation of tobacco possible, to the point the English American colony became highly profitable.

By comparison, the French colony in Canada did not allow slavery, nor holocausts. Thus French Canada depended only upon trading furs with the American Natives: thus Canada was much less profitable than the slavery propelled English colonies.

The clashes with English authorities about “taxation without representation” were real. However, they were not the main bone of contention. The real, main problem was that real estate speculators and greedy colonists were eager to spread their colonization, and destruction of Native American societies, west of the Appalachians. Whereas the English authorities felt more decent, and wiser, to stop the holocaust (OK, certainly they also wanted to keep control). This was the main cause of the US war of independence, and no accident that a real estate speculator such as Colonel Washington played a central role.

Nor is it an accident that this fact is still covered-up (below the “taxation without representation argument”).

The Economist pondered that panegyrics to Washington’s generosity and humanity leave little room for the horrors he oversaw. For an alternative view, your blogger asked a young black security guard at the slavery exhibition what he made of the first president’s much vaunted second thoughts on slavery. “You know, I’ve been studying this quite a bit since I started working here”, he said. “People say George Washington was against slavery. I say actions speak louder than words”.”

Indeed. Actually there is a remedy to all this.

Why should we pay attention to all this history? Because yesterday’s origins created today’s reality. Civilizations have moods and meta-moods. US religiosity is entangled with the desire of not wanting to know too much what is really going on. The Bible justified holocausts and enslavement, and the mood that, whatever good men do, it was ordered by God. That overall mentality is still in power, and enabled by the imperial manner of many an US institutions, and the aura they bathe in.

As the USA has become the world’s most influential power, the roots of the American mentality, greed, slavery and holocaust, should be carefully examined.

As whom many have depicted as a clown is going to be endowed by the immensely evil power of thousands of nuclear devices, each capable of annihilating a city in seconds, it is worth remembering how the whole empire got launched.

European conquered America, because they succeeded to do, what the Nazis (stupidly) dreamed they could do in Europe (Nazis had seen too many “Westerns”, and even absorbed all too well the idea that Westerns were fake news, to some extent, thus that Americans were not for real…) To put it even more bluntly, Nazism, for real, armed with the Bible, not the Swastika, is how the West, but also the Eastern Seaboard, and the fly-over country in between, was conquered.

The unexamined life may be too unworthy to keep on living.

And the obverse is true. A thoroughly examined life is much more worthy. Athens had only 60,000 citizens, yet dozens of them among civilization’s most prominent intellectuals. Total democracy endows with total power!

How? Any Athenian could pretend to the highest functions: they may be bestowed on him (many offices were drawn by lot). So all paid attention to what was going on. Obama had only to pay attention to what big money and gigantic power wanted him to do.

Was if why Obama shed a tear in his farewell address? Full of sorrow, for his departed soul, as he looks at the hopeful face of his youngest daughter? Remembering that he was the Faust in chief? President of all the little Fausts out there?

Time to study in greater depth the roots of our moods, lest we want to shed even more tears.  

Patrice Ayme’

All Animals Equal? Including Brutes?

October 30, 2015

That All Animals Are Equal, is a most respected philosophy in the USA and other parts where plutocracy reigns. I explain why below.

Philosophy is not innocuous, far from it: it’s how people are ruled. Ruling over others is intrinsically evil. So evil, actually, that baboons, these super aggressive and militarized animals, have diluted rule in three ways. Baboons have two sort of “guides”, the rulers, and the innovators. In a baboon troop between alpha females, alpha males and numerous innovators, few adult baboons are just subjugated.

This makes the present situation of the human species all the more remarkable. We are subjugated. Rousseau said it was because of civilization itself. That was stupid (yet, it led to Nazism and Sovietism). In truth we are subjugated because of particular philosophies. Generally I target the (sort of) wisdom known as Abrahamism (Judeo-Christo-Islamism), because rather rabid citizens in America and the Middle East claim to believe in it enough to bomb others (see invasion of Iraq, etc.).

This French Spider Monster Is Your Equal, Says Princeton

This French Spider Monster Is Your Equal, Says Princeton

But then there are those philosophies which are a bit more sophisticated in the way they subjugate. The animal rights movements first blossomed under Nazism. Coincident with the rise of plutocracy, and the decay of everything else, this time in the USA, not Germany, it has also blossomed in the USA.

Peter Singer claimed in 1974 that “All Animals are Equal“. This made him extremely famous. He got a prestigious appointment at Princeton University. Many professional “philosophers” throughout the Anglo-Saxon juggernaut claim loudly to view Singer as the “greatest philosopher alive”. I have an adverse interpretation, naturally. Before I come to that, I should expose Singer’s fundamental idea. Let’s quote him extensively, lest I be accused to distort him. (Those who are more interested by what I have to say about them rather than what I view as sophisticated inanities, can hyper-jump after the quote.) Peter Singer wrote:

“I gave reasons for believing that the fundamental principle of equality, on which the equality of all human beings rests, is the principle of equal consideration of interests. Only a basic moral principle of this kind can allow us to defend a form of equality which embraces all human beings, with all the differences that exist between them. I shall now contend that while this principle does provide an adequate basis for human equality, it provides a basis which cannot be limited to humans. In other words I shall suggest that, having accepted the principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own species – the nonhuman animals.

This suggestion may at first seem bizarre. We are used to regarding the oppression of blacks and women as among the most important moral and political issues facing the world today. These are serious matters, worthy of the time and energy of any concerned person. But animals? Surely the welfare of animals is in a different category altogether, a matter for old ladies in tennis shoes to worry about. How can anyone waste their time on equality for animals when so many humans are denied real equality?

This attitude reflects a popular prejudice against taking the interests of animals seriously – a prejudice no better founded than the prejudice of white slaveowners against taking the interests of blacks seriously. It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own beliefs, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among them. What is needed now is a willingness to follow the arguments where they lead, without a prior assumption that the issue is not worth attending to.

The argument for extending the principle of equality beyond our own species is simple, so simple that it amounts to no more than a clear understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of interests. We have seen that this principle implies that our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess (although precisely what this concern requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do).

It is on this basis that we are able to say that the fact that some people are not members of our race does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that some people are less intelligent than others does not mean that their interests may be disregarded. But the principle also implies that the fact that beings are not members of our species does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that other animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests may be disregarded.”

There are so many wrong idea in the preceding quote, which contains all what Singer is famous for in a nutshell, that it’s hard to know where to start. I will keep to the mains (what gives electric shocks, yes).

Notice the preeminence of the word, and concept, of “interest” in Singer’s thought system. This may sound innocuous. It’s not. In Islam (as in Judaism and Christianity) charting interest to a fellow-man is forbidden (haram). I believe in moods.

By making the notion of INDIVIDUAL interest, which is the center, and crux of so-called “capitalism” or so-called “markets”, as in “free markets”, the highest value imaginable, Singer and his accomplices are, not so implicitly, putting “the market” (aka American imperialism), at the very top of the pyramids of all values.

So notice, that if we want no more sexism and raise, Singer says we have to embrace interest, thus markets. Plutocracy shall make you free!

No wonder Singer joined in 2011 the professoriate of New College of the Humanities, a private college in London, in addition to his work at Princeton. Instead of lashing out, with high taxes on plutocrats, and thus trample their delicate interests, Peter shall strive to prevent their suffering.

After all, plutocrats may be of lesser intelligence than us, yet, we have to respect their interests, because they are animals, and their right to life and no suffering, are primordial..

How come such stupidities have become so famous and respectable? Precisely because they force the philosophically minded, if they want to graduate, to respect stupidity. Thus the mood of abject submission to stupidity is enforced as the highest moral value, and proof of the highest smarts.

Now of course, Singer’s incredibly offensive message is disguised with mould red herrings about (correct) trivialities. Singer’s Key Idea is that equal does not mean the same (who could say otherwise?). Example: one doesn’t have to assign a right to abortion to men in order to assign it to women.

The real issue is the concept of equality. We make a mistake in thinking that it requires equal rationality, says Singer. Singer claims that rights used to be denied to women and non-whites on the grounds of their limited rationality.

To “prove” this, Singer rolls out an example. A woman feminist in England wrote an essay on women deserving equal rights: She pointed out that, just across the Channel, in Paris, a strong attempt had been made to give women the right to vote. A Cambridge philosopher replied by asking if “brutes” also deserved equal rights. That was in 1794. Singer says, then, yes, even brutes have rights.

Women had been fighting for their rights, and getting some, sometimes, for 22 centuries, ever since Roman Pater Familias were deprived of their right to kill their wives.

However Singer exhibits his own limitation: “limited rationality” was an Anglo-Saxon argument: in Antique Rome, there was NO assumption of limited rationality on the ground of difference of origin! Similarly for the successor regime of Rome, France. Racism, race, limited rationality, exclusion are ANGLO-SAXON concepts, enshrined in the congenital slavery of “blacks” (some of whom were white).

As a child I lived in Africa. French speaking Africa (more than 200 million people in Africa ). Once I crossed over into an English speaking African country. To my amazement, I found there were two sets of toilets at the customs. A first set, immaculate, very fancy, for “Ladies and Gentlemen”. In the distance there was another set, rough and disgusting, of a suspicious brownish color, for “Males and Females”. That was my first introduction to racism. (In French Africa, there were only one type of toilets.

When the Franks got to England in 1066 CE, they freed the slaves. They conducted a census: 20% of the population was enslaved. Recently the buried corpse of a Black African was found in England, post Frankish conquest. He was a free man.

Singer’s thesis of deep racism in history is not correct. Rome was NOT racist. The two large empires which made Western civilization, Roma and the Imperium Francorum, believed exactly that. That’s why seven queens of the Franks reigned around 600.

So what is the connection with Nazism? If Nietzsche were here, he would say: nihilism. By claiming that mold, lichen and arthropods have “equal rights”, Singer is trashing the human race, he may as well say cow dung has equal rights.

The Nazis were crafty enough to find that angle well before Singer. Nobody could accuse the Nazis to be inhuman, quite the opposite: they passed strong laws preventing cruelty to animals, and created vast and numerous national parks.

It was all a smokescreen. The interest of Nazis was to kill people, so they could suck their riches, from their hair, to their teeth (!), to the properties they owned before the Nazis stole them.

The solution to Nazism was to inflict on Nazis enough pain, suffering and death, so they will quit by force their pretense to animality.

The rise of plutocracy is directly connected to the mood we have equal right to sheep. No wonder Mr. Singer is well employed.

Patrice Ayme’


June 22, 2015

Plutocracy tends to install SLAVERY FOR 99%… Or maybe it’s 98% (the percentage of non-Nobles in the European Middle Ages). Plutocracy, as a concept is much more general than considering the color of the skin, or other origins, as the primary value of an individual. Generally the interpretation of “plutocracy” is the rule of the wealthy (from associating Pluto to wealth, and kratia as power). So plutocracy is usually interpreted as a society where money can buy anything and everything… from power, to freedom, health and happiness.

Obama and others have woken up to the fact that “300 years of slavery” have left a mark in the USA. “The legacy of slavery… discrimination in almost every institution of our lives… casts a long shadow, and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on,” the president said“We’re not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not.”

Yes, indeed. It goes much further than that, all the way to the root of human ethology. Slavery itself has roots in the organization of English AMERICAN society. It appeared there exactly in 1619. Slavery had been unlawful in Europe, per Frankish law which was nearly a thousand year old… in 1619!

The mentality of masters and slaves is all over the USA. To this day. This is why the USA is different from Europe.

Road Not Taken: New France Failed Out Of Goodness

Road Not Taken: New France Failed Out Of Goodness

Road not taken: New France was supposed to offer civilization to the Natives. What for? said the Masters. And the Masters proceeded to exterminate all those who could not master them, including the French.

Yes, masters and slaves were all over Europe too, and a war was fought about that from April 1792 (general attack by all European plutocrats against the French Constitutional Monarchy) until June 1815 (Waterloo). Superficially the plutocrats won. But there were a number of revolutions in the Nineteenth Century, and the French Republic got re-established. In the end, anti-plutocratic principles of 1789 came to rule the United Nations after 1944.

So what is the Plutocratic Principle?

That the best way to organize society is for the haves to rule, and exploit, no holds barred, and sky is the limit.

The idea that Plutocratic Rule is best, is already found in Aristotle. Thanks to his intimacy with the world’s mightiest men, that’s how Aristotle destroyed democracy. Aristotle thought monarchy was the best organizing principle of society. He conveyed that idea authoritatively to a number of very close friends and students. Among them the Macedonians Antipater, Alexander and Craterus, who were like family.

As a result, Direct Democracy has been buried for 23 centuries, and counting.

The liberty for the haves to exploit was optimal for the quick conquest of the Americas. It’s a success story. Who can argue with success? Philosophers? Deep thought? That’s why they are not welcome, in Plutocratic quarters.

The conquest of the Americas, fundamentally, was a military operation.

The French tried to make it into something else, an ethical operation, helped with a bit of fair trade. This moral calling arose from the discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier. The next attitude the French explorer and commander found, to his dismay, was that many American Natives were actually hostile to the invasion of their land by Frenchmen. So it was decided, and it became a tradition, to use a light touch for the colonization of North America by France: it had to be made with the approval of the Natives, in particular the Hurons.

It worked splendidly.

The Hurons got civilized, Christianized, they built farms, grew and prospered. French “Coureurs de Bois” established fair trade all over Canada and the West, to Colorado, and beyond. They fraternized with the Natives, married them, had children.

It worked splendidly, until English plutocrats showed up, the “West Country Men“.

Those investors (including the English King) had refined the Plutocratic Principle in Ireland. It involved lining up roads with human skulls, to enlighten the Natives about what resistance untailed.

Against the Plutocratic Principle, Civilization contend in vain, if it does not go to war.

The French state insisted that only individuals of the highest morality be allowed to visit Canada. And that was with a return trip in mind. Women were carefully interrogated and inspected to make sure that they would not use their charms liberally.

The English plutocrats and their agents (the Iroquois) defeated the French, and annihilated the Iroquois.

Even before this, it became clear that Native Americans and Africans made excellent robots to help conquer the land, so, propped by the Plutocratic Principle, they introduced slavery. And soon there were much more slaves in some states than white masters.

Slavery was defeated by Lincoln.

But its root has not been. It has not even been detected, let alone condemned.

The Plutocratic Principle is better at war. To win a war, an army, a country, needs to act as one large body with just one brain. This is why the Fascist Instinct is crucial to a world conquering primate such as the genus Homo: E Pluribus Unum. The Plutocratic Principle is a generalization, to society, of the Fascist Instinct.

At some point, the human tendency to over-exploit the land has to be kept in check: thus the Dark Side. In the Americas, as anywhere in the world, this involved massacring people, to keep the numbers down.

But genocide is still something else: it reduces cultural diversity.

The Interest of the Dark Side has been, ultimately, sustainability. There is goodness in the Dark Side, on the level of the genus Homo. It protects against termination of the genus.

However, nowadays, the technological powers at our disposal are so great, that one cannot give free rein to the Dark Side. Let’s suppose that American Natives had nuclear bombs instead of horse and tomahawks: trying to massacre them may have been counter-productive to the English Colony.

Similarly, all out war against the biosphere through “climate change” and acid ocean, will turn out just as good as it did for the dinosaurs.

The Dark Side, the very success of the Plutocratic Principle in the USA, are leading us to a collision course with reality. We are now at war with physics.

Thus the Plutocratic Principle has to be jettisoned now. That means that the USA should strive to be more like Europe, and less like its old exploitative self. In turn, that may teach some emerging superpowers, such as China, that the Plutocratic Principle is counterproductive.

Patrice Ayme’


May 12, 2015

Many who founded the English colony of America were forcefully brought there. It started with English adults or children given the status of “Indentured Servant“… they did not have much choice as at least a fifth of the English population lived in abject poverty and was homeless. Indentured servitude was basically slavery for a number of years, accompanied with the threat of a robust execution for a number of crimes, including quartering for fraternizing with the Native Americans and hanging for hunting pigs without authorization. Starting in 1615, convicts facing judicial punishment (in practice often death) were sent to the colonies (officially more than 52,000 English convicts got to North America… and 388,000 African slaves got there). 

Naturally enough, within a decade, starting accidentally in 1619, importing African slaves naturally came up.  Notice immediately what happened: slaves were imported. Those people were already enslaved. And enslaved by whom? At the time, the West Coast of Africa was mostly free of any European control, outside of a few trading counters: the Africans had steel arrows, plenty of them. A five centuries before, the Almoravids, who ruled over much of Senegal and Mali, among other things, had even conquered not just Morocco, but more than half of the Iberian peninsula (and even parts of France). 

The short of the thesis in this essay is this: Regions of Africa in the Eighteenth Century produced more human beings than they could ecologically afford (something reminiscent of what is happening today, nearly everywhere…) The solution was traditional: the engineering of deliberate mass death by the authorities in power. However, slave traders made selling slaves more profitable than killing unsustainable humanity, while relieving African nations from ecological overload…

Humanitarianism is not about imposing a goodness which cannot be. Humanitarianism is about optimizing the goodness which can be. In this perspective, slavery was a lesser evil than the status quo ante. Nothing too shocking, for those who can think, I reckon… but quite enough to melt millions of minds as fragile as snowflakes, who know nothing but hating superior considerations.


An ex-African child brings to you a NEW, SHATTERING PERSPECTIVE ON THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE: it saved lives! (A friend who is a lawyer raised in Los Angeles inside an Indian family told me to remove this essay, it would endanger my reputation permanently, she insisted… But really new truths often hurt, so not endangering my reputation would reduce me to no creativity, so here is the truth, and let the haters hate…)

No philosophy is new, if all it does, is to tenderly stroke the minds of the past, their pet theories, and the errors of their deepest, most obscurantist emotions. Really new wisdom breaks old minds, and it hurts, yes: in spiritual matters, no pain, no real gain.

It is a given, among the self-glorifying Politically Correct, and the fashionably liberal, that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a gigantic black eye for Western Civilization, an irremediable error we should all attune for the rest of times, and all times to come, even when our ancestors had nothing to do with it, or even when some of our own ancestors were slaves, and other ancestors, masters. (For example is Michelle Obama, a descendant of both master and slave, stained with mastery, or slavery? I say, neither, and this essay explains why…)

Does that received truth, that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was abominable, hold under global, thorough, hyper-critical relativistic, fully informed scrutiny? No. It’s not that simple. Granted that slavery was an atrocity, the US leadership was one with it, and this is having a huge, nefarious influence on the USA, to this day. However, just transporting Africans out of Africa was another matter: it saved lives. A few remarks:

1) It’s a subset of plutocrats who organized the slave trade, not “Western Civilization”. The average European knew nothing about slavery, and didn’t profit from it (although some towns did, indirectly). Indeed, slavery had been unlawful in (what the Franks called) “Europe” for a millennium, thanks to Queen Bathilde around 655 CE. Plutocrats organize a lot of lucrative horrors nowadays, far from prying eyes.

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful Inside Europe Since 660 CE

Bottom Line: Notice that the slave traders are themselves Africans. Slavery Was Unlawful In Europe Since 660 CE. In Africa, as in all distant history, slavery flourished, and, much worse, so did mass human sacrifices. Yes, confronted to that choice, people would prefer slavery to summary execution.

2) It is better to (let) drown Africans by the thousands as they try to reach Europe, as is practiced nowadays? (Some days, hundreds drown in the Mediterranean, because conditions are so bad in Africa, and so good in Europe, they prefer to risk death than to continue with horror in today’s Africa…)

Is it worse to be put in chains, laying on one’s back like sardines, exercised one hour a day, as during the Transatlantic Slave Trade, rather than drowning in the Med, as endured by at least 50,000 in the last few years? And on this latter point, drowning in the Mediterranean because Africa has become such a terrible place, one can’t live there, we can’t say we never heard about it (whereas most of the European population had never heard of slavery during the colonization of the Americas, as slavery was unlawful in Europe: slaves were immediately liberated… except for those of (future) US president Jefferson (who, protected by diplomatic immunity, moreover lied to his slaves and French Ancient Regime authorities).

3) At least, indeed, differently from today across the Mediterranean, slave traders were keen not to drown their expensively purchased slaves (as they wanted to sell them, and in the best conditions).

4) Coach passengers in today’s airlines are in worse cardiovascular stress positions than slaves were (the latter could lay flat). Right, that should be unlawful (and many passengers die).

Let’s dig in the slave logic.

The claim is generally made that 11 million Africans were transported in slave ships, from Africa to the Americas. Once arrived there, they were used as living robots. They were moreover generally submitted to racism, the idea that they were not quite human. Accordingly they were treated inhumanly.

Between 650 CE and 1920 CE, 18 million Africans were transported to Muslim countries. Many were castrated, and suffered high death rates, so the slave population did not increase much. Islamist jurisprudence frowned upon enslaving born Muslims (and initially Jews and Christians, except if captured in war; however, that was rescinded soon).

The transatlantic slave trade was organized by pretty satanic individuals, right.

However, differently from slaves in Muslim countries, American slaves were not castrated, and however inhumanly treated, not only suffered much lower death rates than in Muslim countries, but grew and multiplied.

African slaves in the Americas were never treated so badly that they engaged in as a large scale rebellion such as the Zanj (= East African Great Lakes Bantus). 500,000 African slaves captured the large port of Basra in Iraq, and fought for 15 years. (The largest North American slave rebellion involved barely more than one plantation, and killed a few dozen people… Who all knew each other.)

The slave population in the Americas augmented rapidly… From doing what comes naturally, namely copulation, when conditions are not so bad.

But let’s reconsider the basic point. How did Euro-American plutocrats get their slaves? By buying them. (Europeans hunting Africans down was tried a bit by the Portuguese early on, but proved way too expensive and dangerous, past the first element of surprise.)

African states and empires were well armed (with native steel arrowheads). Starting in 1300 CE, in the empire of Senegambia and Mali, one third of the population was enslaved. Slavery does not have to do with riches: the emperor of Mali went to Mecca and blinded all the Arabs with his incredible wealth (Mali was full of gold and slaves to extract it). He was probably the Earth’s richest person.

In Madagascar, half of the population was enslaved. In Zanzibar, 90%. Slavery was all over Africa, and it had nothing to do with evil white men.

And the natural question is this: had these slaves not been sold, would they have lived?

Africa was crisscrossed by wars. Ever since the Carthaginians, white men had been unable to conquer it, because Africans were expert at war, and mastered steel technology. It’s only after 1850 CE that Europeans achieved military technology so advanced that they made local, African soldiers into conquering armies (or, at least, that’s the way the French did it; the British used their own soldiers and suffered two tremendous defeats, one in West Africa, the other at the hands of the Zulus).

So would have these prisoners of war and other criminals live, but for the slave trade?

The observation is the perennial one, the great enforcer of the Dark Side in the human species: the first thing humanity always had to kill, was overpopulation.

Bartolome’ de las Casas stopped all by himself the Conquista of the Americas by Spain (he did not like the genocide and persuaded Charles V). He also condemned the African slave trade, pointing out that it “incited Africans to sell their own children”.

A fine, very humanitarian, cute and cuddly argument, but is it really true? Could one cut and paste European ethical logic onto Black Africa?

In truth we know that mass human sacrifices as happened during the Grand Customs” in Dahomey were stopped, because the captives got sold as slaves instead of being chopped into bits. Instead of killing up to 10,000 captives, it was found smarter to sell them to white slave traders (Dahomey provided up to 20% of the transatlantic slave trade). The fact is, there were too many Africans to go around, considering the state of farming then.

Hence the wars, slavery, mayhems, to control the population in many African countries (and not just African): One can’t have a population without an ecology, but one can’t have an ecology with too much of a population. That old quandary of the genus Homo evolved all of us into all too many bits and pieces of Doctor Jekyll, and Mr. Hyde.

Dahomey was not bad intrinsically: it was just organized, considering its capabilities. After the French (and Senegalese) conquered it, more advanced farming was introduced, while slavery and human sacrifices were outlawed.

It is no accident that, shortly before its civil war, Rwanda was the most densely populated country in Africa. 20% of the population was killed. In three months. (And the story is more complicated, and troubling, than usually told, as some observe that a majority of the people killed were Hutu, not Tutsi, as supported by the evidence that the “genocide” happened during the invasion of Rwanda by the Tutsi “Rwanda Patriotic Front”.)

Morocco closed its last slave market in 1920. It helped that Morocco was then under French supervision. Saudi Arabia made slavery unlawful in the 1960s. (Islam, by giving a precise legal framework to slavery, allowed it to fester forever.) Mauritania, a country of ineffable charm, which I have resided in, criminalized slavery in 2007. 600,000 people, 20% of the population, are currently enslaved there (the French had abolished slavery in Mauritania in 1920, but the country became independent in the 1960s, allowing to re-establish slavery).

A well-known reason brandished to justify the invasion and occupation of Africa by European powers was the presence of slavery in Africa (the source of the Transatlantic Slave Trade). That argument failed in Christian Ethiopia, which, although attacked by Italy, was never conquered… But also was never part of the slave trade.

Amusingly, as “passengers” are packed like cattle in planes nowadays, getting strokes by the thousands, as a result, nobody points out that slaves at least enjoyed flat beds. (I had still another friend who died, yesterday, from a stroke within days of flying; not a subject airlines and their sponsors are keen to examine.)

Once transported to the Americas, slaves were branded, and treated worse than 3,500 years prior in Mesopotamia. Well, that was a problem with the inhuman character of the laws in the Americas. And yes, it is unforgivable.

However, as far as the slaves were concerned, enslaving them may have saved their lives. I am not saying that this is sure, obvious, and proven.

Just, that it seems very likely. Reality is harder than fiction.

Think, but verify.

Nowadays, slaves can be discreetly purchased in several African countries for a few hundred dollars. Meanwhile, please consider the possibility that the situation with thousands drowning in the Mediterranean, as they try to flee to Europe, is actually worse than the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Many view colonialism as responsible for almost all of Africa’s current evils. In truth, with few exceptions (the Congo), the first thing colonial regimes did, was to outlaw slavery… and they used their outlawing of slavery to justify their existence ethically speaking.  In practice African societies were forced to instantaneously transform in non-slave societies, something that took centuries in Europe. Anybody who thinks an instant realizes that it is difficult to imagine any other way: after all Senegal was already trading with Carthage (dried fish, among other things). The East Coast of Africa had been in contact with (more civilized) Arabs for centuries (and Nubia with Romans). Why Africa was left behind has lots to do with physical and biological geography (long story). For centuries, European slave masters and African trade masters traded. They could have traded more than human chattel, for example scientific knowledge, and they did: some on the Gold Coast learned to make guns, and serve the British some of their own medicine.

For most people, in most circumstances, it is better to be chained than to be dead. The atrocious, uncivilized slavery organized in the Americas by European immigrants and their descendants may, paradoxically, have saved lives. And it surely enabled Africa to partly colonized the Americas in much greater numbers than it would have done otherwise, and thus contribute to civilization in more ways than simply music.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S 2021: I am fundamentally an African (and several other things besides as a full Earth citizen). My first memories and most of my childhood, are from Africa. We Africans know more in an important way, 3,000 years of civilizations before our eyes: Africa is where many civilizations collided. Thus we Africans think very differently, especially about race and skin color… Including very differently from African-Americans, who are, like European-American or Asian-Americans, Americans first, having all gone to American school while swimming in an ocean of Americana. Adding an ocean of Post Modernism/French Theory/Critical Race Theory has made the situation even more… American. Africa is of course in a sense responsible of the Slave Trade… Most Africans, like most Europeans, had nothing to do with it… Being rather on the receiving side of violence. As usual what is culprit and needs to be changed is the institutional side, especially some cultural institutions: the exploitative chief system in Africa, a plutocratic institution, which was symbiotic with slavery, is what one needs to graduate from. All the more as that system, also present in Europe in the last few millennia, did not arise by surprise or accident, but rather necessity…


May 10, 2015

And then slavery was abolished again in 1794, and in 1848. So what happened? Why, how, was slavery stealthily reintroduced? Outremer, plutocracy and its pet demon, Napoleon, a Corsican bandit, happened. In truth, 1794, and 1848 were when laws were passed to abolish French overseas racism, not just slavery. But first the good news, scrupulously ignored by those who want us to believe that all the goodness in the world was the work the pillars of the presently established order.

“Francia” Abolished Slavery In The Seventh Century:

The French government abolished the slave trade within the Frankish Empire around 655 CE. That was the work of Bathilde (“BALDAHILDIS”), queen of the Franks and regent. Bathilde had been captured in England, sold to a plutocrat, from whom she later escaped. Re-captured, she attracted the eye of the king of Burgundy and Neustria, who bought her for a very high price. He then freed, and married her. Soon after being elected king some more, he died, and Bathilde became reigning queen of the entire Frankish (“Merovingian”) empire.

I, Former Slave, Queen Of the Franks, Abolished Slavery

I, Former Slave, Queen Of the Franks, Abolished Slavery

[Luxembourg Garden, French Senate, Paris, Bathilde’s Capital.]

Queen Bathilde proceeded to buy and free slaves, first from her own treasury. Slavery was disapproved by the Frankish Church. It subsisted among the rich and mighty, and in the countryside. Bathilde lowered taxes on peasants so that they would stop selling their own children (the more children they had the less taxes they paid).

Then Bathilde’s French government outlawed the slave trade within the empire. (Owning slaves per se was not outlawed, as it was too injurious and infuriating to mighty Gallo-Roman aristocrats.) Selling or buying slaves was outlawed.

Any slave stepping on Frankish territory was to be freed.

Bathilde’s three sons were all elected kings (she kept directing things, some have claimed ruthlessly, from a monastery near Paris, where she retired).

Bathilde was made into a saint by the Pope in 880 CE, 200 years after her death.

However, the slave trade was not outlawed in Frankish March States such as Venice. Venice merchants, would sell slaves for centuries from southern (present day) Ukraine to the Muslim Caliphate (both outside of the Imperium Francorum).

Yet, this is the foundational act of abolition of slavery. When the Franks invaded Great Britain in 1066 CE, under the Duke of Normandy, they immediately outlawed slavery (more than 20% of England was enslaved).

Holding slaves anywhere in Western Europe was against the law, and stayed against the law. Slaves coming on European territory were freed.

Still there were two exceptions: one systemic, the other anecdotic.

Portugal had been occupied, for centuries, by the Islamists. Islam made slavery legal (although one could do whatever to obedient slaves, there were laws, slaves who tried to escape were typically impaled, to instruct their fellows, as they squirmed sometimes for days). Once freed, the Portuguese king asked the Pope for permission to enslave Africans. That was accorded.

The other exception came within Paris in the 18C: the leaders of the American rebellion held slaves in France, and were told by the French King’s police that they had to cease and desist (Jefferson, future third president of the USA, weaseled his way out)


Culprit of the African Slave Trade: African, American & European Potentate & Plutocrats:

I have to excuse the French Prime Minister: a Catalan of Spanish citizenship, he became French only when he was 20, and apparently history was not taught where he came from.

Catalonia was freed from Islamist potentates in the Eight Century by a Frankish army led by Charlemagne himself. So Catalonia became part of the empire of the Franks, slavery was outlawed, and Catalans such as French Prime Minister Valls ought to know their history. But they don’t.

How come the French and Catalans completely ignore the abolition of slavery in the Seventh Century?

Today, from the other side of the planet from France, I opened TV5Monde, the French TV. A banner blared “Commemoration de l’Abolition De L’Esclavage”. By this French leaders, the president, the PM, and the president of the Senate, meant the outlawing of the “traite des noirs”, a three ways trading system also used by Britain, Portugal, Spain, the USA, etc.…

In this system goods were sold by European plutocrats to African potentates who exchanged said goods against slaves who were then sold to plutocrats of European origin who, by then, had become colossal exploiters of the Americas producing massive quantities of sugar, tobacco, precious metals, etc.

In 1794, under the First French Republic, slavery was abolished in overseas French territories. It is instructive to realize that this had to be repeated in 1848, and why.

Slavery overseas was reintroduced by the dictator Napoleon in 1802.

So Valls, Taubira, Hollande and other well-meaning clowns: you want to condemn erroneous history? Then throw Napoleon’s ashes down the Seine, or something. In any case, stop reverence for the SLAVE MASTER IN CHIEF. Throw him out of the Invalides.

The Second French Republic re-established the abolition of the overseas slave trade.

Do the French know their own history? No. That is pretty bad, because deep French history is THE deep history of Western Democracy.

That slavery was outlawed by Western Civilization in the Seventh Century provides a metric with which to measure civilization.

That Napoleon was a criminal against humanity ought to be taught.

That fact, presently occluded, explains a lot of subsequent abuses against civilization. Why? Napoleon is still widely admired (differently from his imitator, Adolf Hitler). Worldwide, not just by the clueless French.

The other day, I had a heated argument with a francophobic, yet very educated American (USA) woman. She told me France was now despicable, irrelevant, although France used to be great in the time of Napoleon. Wrong. Napoleon was a monster, he should be despised.

You want to teach slavery right? Teach Napoleon right. You want to learn from the past? Learn about Napoleon. Yes, French revolutionary armies freed the Jews in Germany, and Napoleon let that stand. However, as the Corsican dictator e re-established slavery, it is no wonder that Metternich and other German speaking leaders re-established the enslavement of the Jews after Napoleon’s defeat.

Learning just a bit of history always lead to imbalanced minds.

History ought to be told right; in full, to the best of our knowledge.

Ignoring the Frankish empires, and the world’s most advanced constitutions which they imposed by force, which forged Western Civilization is not just incoherent, and stupid, it is criminal. Because, you people who go around admiring Napoleon and his institutions, deep down, what you admire is slavery, Napoleon’s unique contribution against the flow of progress, and, thus, you are not just hypocrites, but ridiculously ineffectual.

Patrice Ayme’

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

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


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

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


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

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


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism