Posts Tagged ‘The Economist’

European Dysfunctional Syndrome

October 16, 2015

Europe caused the refugee crisis, because it did not prevent bad actors from launching bad wars in their own, very bad self-interest, inside Europe’s own security area. Now hell is not just to be paid, but it is blossoming. (Europe is just going to give three billion Euros to Turkey’s Sultan, PM Erdogan, so he be nicer!)

Europe is an empire, but it acts either like Uncle Sam’s poodle, or, more frequently, as a boiled vegetable. Europe claims to be wise, human, humanist, responsible, sustainable, just, balanced, historically minded, socially advanced. Nice talk. But talking the talk is not enough. One has also to walk the walk. And for that, one needs power.

Without the will, capacity, capability and historicity of effective power application, Europe is neither of the following:

“ wise, human, humanist, responsible, sustainable, just, balanced, historically minded, socially advanced…”

In Various Colors, the European Exclusive Economic Zone (France & UK Mostly).

In Various Colors, the European Exclusive Economic Zone (France & UK Mostly).

[Europe Is The Reigning Worldwide Empire, Be It Only Philosophically: consider the Charter of the United Nations. A question about Europe’s Exclusive Economic Zone: are the USA supposed to defend it, or are Mr. Putin and Xi supposed to serve themselves?]

Denmark is often produced as the paragon of European virtues, and what Europe ought to aspire to. However, Denmark fought, at most, six hours against the Nazis in World War Two. After that it was collaboration all the way through, until warriors from other countries extinguished Nazism. So Denmark is not an example to follow. Sweden is even worse: it was outright an ENABLER of Hitler, in more way than one. Norway, though, was heroic. And even countries which lost some battles early on (especially France and Yugoslavia, let alone the USSR’s occupied areas, caused huge losses to the Nazis later, even under occupation; in France alone, the resistance was evaluated by the Nazis as having mobilized more than 25 divisions).

Even while excluding Russia, Europe is the world’s economic superpower. You would think that those who preach the supremacy of the so-called “free market” would observe this, and call Europe a superpower. But no, they don’t.

Here is The Economist in its lead, cover article: “A CONTINENT separates the blood-soaked battlefields of Syria from the reefs and shoals that litter the South China Sea. In their different ways, however, both places are witnessing the most significant shift in great-power relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In Syria, for the first time since the cold war, Russia has deployed its forces far from home to quell a revolution and support a client regime. In the waters between Vietnam and the Philippines, America will soon signal that it does not recognise China’s territorial claims over a host of outcrops and reefs by exercising its right to sail within the 12-mile maritime limit that a sovereign state controls.

For the past 25 years America has utterly dominated great-power politics. Increasingly, it lives in a contested world. The new game with Russia and China that is unfolding in Syria and the South China Sea is a taste of the struggle ahead.”

Absent from this analysis is Europe, the richest continent both in GDP and human capital. And not far from being the richest in arable land. One of the countries in the European Union has the world’s largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) at sea (with more than 11 million square kilometers).

So why does The Economist, and its attitude is typical among all and any major media and opinion forming outlet, ignore Europe?

Simply because the so-called free market, or even the economy, is not the master organizing principle of the world. Instead, Will To Power is. “The Economist” ought to be called “THE SUPREMACIST”.

Proof? Contemplate the following section in the article:

“Facts on the ground

As ever, that struggle is being fought partly in terms of raw power. Vladimir Putin has intervened in Syria to tamp down jihadism and to bolster his own standing at home. But he also means to show that, unlike America, Russia can be trusted to get things done in the Middle East and win friends by, for example, offering Iraq an alternative to the United States (see article). Lest anyone presume with John McCain, an American senator, that Russia is just “a gas station masquerading as a country”, Mr Putin intends to prove that Russia possesses resolve, as well as crack troops and cruise missiles.”

The Middle East is the proximal neighborhood of Europe, not of America. It would be only natural that Europe take the lead to impose peace, prosperity, or, at least, order and a modicum of civilization and respect of the United Nation Charter in its immediate neighborhood.

There around around 300 millions citizens of the USA. However, the number of citizens of the French Republic is in excess of seventy million. It is high time that the Europeans start to project military might, instead of letting others, such as Russia and the USA, do so in their backyard.

But, for acquiring control of its own backyard, the mood in Europe will have to change.

One cannot expect just one UNSUPPORTED European country (France) to project military might in active combat over more than half a dozen countries, as is presently the case (Mali, Niger, Cameroun, Nigeria, CAR, Syria, Iraq).

Europe has to stop considering the USA as its off shore security service. American security comes with a price: submission and subjugation (to American values, ideals, obsession, let alone commercial advantage). Not only it’s unhealthy for Europe, it’s unhealthy for the USA.

How unhealthy? Why would the USA adopt European philosophical and social values, when Europe itself will not fight, or otherwise defend them?

Such is Obama’s message. The president of the USA is clearly inviting Europe, in particular France, to take the lead in North Africa and the Middle East. This is excellent.

Why France? Because the others, with the possible exception of Britain, have the consistency of wet noodles.

Media such as The Economist, should they wish to be independent of USA’s commercial interest (but they are not), have to observe what is going on, and encourage the devolution of imperial and military power from the USA (and Russia!) to Europe. Instead of just affecting to consider empire building as a form of entertainment one can only contemplate from afar, while reaping the profits.

Europe cannot just be an economic empire. One cannot “imperare”, order, if one does not have military muscle. In the symbolic of the Roman Republic, the fasces, representing the people, are bundled around the axe of justice (a picture the Franks made their own, except the Francisque is a double edged axe).

Wars on one door’s step is no good news: they are a harbinger of disaster. The eleven million refugees out there, on the borders of Europe are not just a worry, they are a warning. A warning that peace does not come from wishful thinking, but active enforcement of justice.

Patrice Ayme’

“The Economist” Hates The Qur’an

October 26, 2014
To Comment Moderator, The Economist:
You said the four verses I quoted from the Qur’an broke your comment policy, and you removed them, with all the comments they brought. May I know why? To my knowledge, the Qur’an is not considered to “contain any form of hate speech“. (As you implicitly asserted.)
I am completely baffled…
It is not exactly the first time I detect censorship at The Economist regarding delicate subjects. Mistreating your long time subscribers may not be to your advantage.
Sincerely yours,
Patrice Ayme
On Oct 22, 2014, at 11:48 PM, wrote:
Dear patrice ayme,
The attached comment, posted under the pen name Tyranosopher, has been deleted from The Economist online.  The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy: We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.
Yours sincerely,
Comments Moderator The Economist online
Your comment:
Tough questions? Maybe someone does not understand tough love?Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.
Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

The Economist has also blocked inconvenient observations of mine about connections between bankers and the Nazis, and, more generally non-conventional remarks on World War Two (they sent me a whole package of past comments of mine censored in this area, I guess as an implicit threat; I was unaware I had been censored).
This shows the extent, and delicacy of propaganda. All the material The Economist censored were strictly historical facts (as the Qur’an above is: it’s 13 centuries old!)
Maybe I should do like my friend Paul Handover, condemn the propaganda, and cancel my subscription to TE?
More philosophically, I would say this. The Qur’an, obviously needs to be officially re-interpreted (as the Bible was). Just censoring it in The Economist will not help, quite the opposite. The two young “white” Canadian-born deranged young men who attacked and killed Canadian soldiers last week, obviously heard verses as those above, and took them literally. The verses above encourage converts to Islam to have recourse to ultimate violence.
I long held the opinion that many political and intellectual leaders in the West refuse to attract attention to the problem that the Qur’an causes, precisely because they want to keep exploiting those they encourage to live according to unreconstructed Koranic principles. This is pretty much in evidence in the relationship with feudal regimes in the Middle East (but one can argue that this exploitation through “Orientalist” stupidification is 150 years old).
By refusing to broach the subject of what the Qur’an seems to say, in a public forum, The Economist encourages the furthering of a literal interpretation of Koranic verses. Thus The Economist encourages lethal and hateful activities. But maybe it is what many of the plutocrats who love The Economist truly want?  Nothing like a jolly war, here, there, and everywhere?
Patrice Ayme’

USA Financial Extortion

July 6, 2014

Individuals (famous economists), and organizations that are profiting from the present oligarchic system cannot be too critical against what feeds them. One has to read beyond the mellifluous lines.

Here is The Economist, June 28, 2014:

“Share and share alike… America should also embrace the OECD’s efforts, already backed by more than 50 countries, to create a truly multilateral system in which tax information on residents’ accounts and certain investments is shared annually. For that to work, America would need to hand over data similar to those which it demands from others—something it has hitherto appeared reluctant to do. The financial superpower looks ever more a regulatory bully, setting rules it ignores itself.

Bullies Kill, Vultures Feed, Justice The Old Fashion Way

Bullies Kill, Vultures Feed, Justice The Old Fashion Way

Setting rules for others one ignores for oneself is the essence of viciousness.

The financial superpower looks ever more a regulatory bully?

The USA is a financial bully, and it started in 1944, when the USA tried to bully Lord Keynes himself (head of the currency commission at Bretton-Woods), into accepting the Dollar of the USA as the world’s reserve currency.

The fact that it started so long ago means that the bully’s institutions have evolved accordingly. A particular case if American justice, which finds American violence to be just: the case of the vulture funds is exemplary. Whoever stands in the way of American vultures is unjust.

Keynes wanted to use the International Monetary Fund to create “Drawing Rights” as needed, a solution Dominique Strauss-Kahn implemented to the tune of 450 billion dollars until his fateful encounter with the maid from hell, taken super seriously by New York “Justice” (until she proposed so many tricks to the officers in charge of “protecting” her, that, well, it was embarrassing, even for New York “Justice”).

Keynes resisted totally, so the government of the USA forged the documents that made the USA into the one and only financial superpower. When Saddam Hussein begged to differ, and started to use Euros, he was hanged. So the BNP executives, who have not been executed yet, ought not to complain too much, as The Economist astutely points out, somewhere else.

What is The Economist alluding to above? “… hand over data similar to those which it demands from others.” To the fact that the USA is the world’s largest tax haven for global plutocrats, while busy destroying all other tax havens. The destruction of Swiss banks and bankers is exemplary that way.

In other words, the USA sucks up capital from all over the world, by stealing other countries’ taxes (as it provides plutocrats, worldwide, to escape taxation, thanks to… Delaware).

Says The Economist in: “Tax havens, The missing $20 trillion How to stop companies and people dodging tax, in Delaware as well as Grand Cayman”: a lower rate on a broader base, combined with vigilance by the tax authorities, would be more efficient and would probably raise more revenue: America, whose companies face one of the rich world’s highest corporate-tax rates on their worldwide income, also has some of the most energetic tax-avoiders.

These reforms would not be easy. Governments that try to lower corporate tax rates will be accused of caving in to blackmailing capitalists. Financial centres and incorporation hubs, from the City of London to Delaware, will fight any attempt to tighten their rules. BUT IF POLITICIANS REALLY WANT TO TAX THE MISSING $20 TRILLION, THAT’S WHERE THEY SHOULD START.”

From the horse’s mouth: to tax the missing $20 trillion, start from London to Delaware… Exactly what I have been saying for years. The global financial exploitative mess is part of an Anglo-American imperial situation.

I have condemned the way “judicial” authorities in New York siding with the financial vultures therein. The Economist now agrees with me, and goes somewhat further, as it alleges state corruption. Here is an extensive extract from:

BNP Paribas in the dock: No way to treat a criminal. The French bank deserved a clobbering, but America’s legal system looks like an extortion racket.

BNP argues that it broke no European laws… That is true enough, to Europe’s shame… It is also true that the underlying transactions had nothing to do with America, but because they were denominated in dollars they had to be cleared in New York, which provided America’s lawmen with a toehold.

But the guilt of a suspect and the justice of a cause do not make a tribunal fair. And America’s system for pursuing errant banks, especially foreign ones, is anything but fair… BNP had little choice but to settle. Defeat in court might have led to the loss of its American banking licence—a death sentence for a big international bank. America’s prosecutors can also wield the threat of criminal charges against individual bankers.

Bank against the wall

Not only were BNP’s tormentors, such as Benjamin Lawsky, New York’s politically ambitious banking regulator, able more or less to dictate their terms, they also had an incentive to make the fine as big as possible because the agencies involved divvied up much of it among themselves. Mr Lawsky’s outfit gets $2 billion, four times its annual budget, which it will triumphantly deposit in New York state’s depleted coffers.

There are no meaningful checks on this process, let alone a plausible procedure for BNP to appeal. Bank bosses cannot even publicly criticise deals they agree to under extreme duress. No precedent is set and no guidance provided as to the limits of the law and the proportionality of the punishment.

So even if BNP fully deserves its punishment, the legal system that meted it out is closer to an extortion racket than justice. France’s economy minister, Arnaud Montebourg, has compared America’s pursuit of BNP to “economic warfare”. In other words, a bank that catered to mass murderers has had some success in portraying itself as a victim. Any process that can make BNP’s dealings with Sudan look anything less than shameful must be very flawed indeed.”

“Catered to mass murderers”? Is that not the story of the invasion of Iraq by the USA? Did BNP invade Sudan? Is the USA pursuing the invaders of Iraq?

No, the USA is using imperial might in ways very similar to Putin. (Putin also has laws and judges and Congress on his side, nota bene.)

Two months ago Argentina reached a settlement with the Paris Club, a group of government creditors.

On June 16th the Supreme Court of the United States decided twice in favor of NML Capital, a “vulture” fund (and subsidiary of hedge fund Elliott Management) that snatched dirt cheap bonds after Argentina’s 2001 default. The fund and its plutocratic owners have since pursued the country for the payment of all principal plus outstanding interest in US courts. For at least 1.6 billion dollars.

The ability of struggling countries to restructure their debts has been dented. Hold-outs everywhere have greater incentive to litigate; creditors who might accept exchange offers could see them gulped down by vultures, catered to by USA judges.

Those who play with fire to burn others may find where the concept of “backfiring” comes from.

Patrice Ayme’

Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Atrocity

March 14, 2014

Either We  Kill That Entanglement, Or It Will Exterminate Us.

“Oligarchy” means the rule of the few. In representative democracy, as only a few really rule, it’s a pleonasm. So why do the Main Stream Media use the word “oligarch” so much? To hide a terrible concept with a more mundane one.

“Plutocracy” is what is really going on, what the word “oligarchy” hides. The rule of the invisible Pluto, of Satan, the Dark Side… And of the wealth found by mining underground.

Small minds ardently believe that “plutocracy” is only about the rule of wealth. That allows many of them to adore the “Golden Calf” in peace.

However, plutocracy is much more than the rule of wealth. It’s the rule of hell.

It’s empowering to know what we are dealing with.

Thus, naturally “The Economist”, organ of the plutocracy, and tax evasion, obfuscates the situation in its main editorial in “The New Age Of Crony Capitalism”: Political connections have made many people hugely rich in recent years. But crony capitalism may be waning (March 15th 2014).”

It’s hard to see how it could be waning as in the USA, the leading country (de facto), people have been conditioned to pay for everything.  And first of all, politicians (Obama is always asking for money). There thrives a legalized system for injecting giant amounts of money in a hyper professionalized political class trafficking influence through revolving doors between private and public.

Part of the problem with Putin, just as with Hitler, is the certainty of those dictators that they had the world’s plutocrats as their tools (instead of the converse). Thus the leaderships in the Kremlin, Ukraine and London are deeply entangled now, just as they were in the 1930s (with Berlin, Washington and Wall Street thrown in the mix). This theory that I loudly promoted for more than a decade, is starting to get some traction, as The Economist admits:

“AS THE regime of Viktor Yanukovych collapsed in Ukraine, protesters against it could be found outside One Hyde Park, a luxury development in west London. Their target was Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man and a backer of the old regime. “Discipline your pet”, they chanted.” 

Ukraine’s troubled state has long been dominated by its oligarchs. But across the emerging world the relationship between politics and business has become fraught. India’s election in April and May will in part be a plebiscite on a decade of crony capitalism. Turkey’s prime minister is engulfed by scandals involving construction firms—millions of Turks have clicked on YouTube recordings that purport to incriminate him. On March 5th China’s president, Xi Jinping, vowed to act “without mercy” against corruption in an effort to placate public anger. Last year 182,000 officials were punished for disciplinary violations, an increase of 40,000 over 2011. 

As in America at the turn of the 20th century, a new middle class is flexing its muscles, this time on a global scale. People want politicians who don’t line their pockets, and tycoons who compete without favours. A revolution to save capitalism from the capitalists is under way.”

Apparently, The Economist is not following the news: Crony capitalism has basically been made legal in the USA, in the last two decades: watch the flow of money from the government to the political class revolving between filthy rich compensation in the private sector, and the government’s levers. Crony capitalism is becoming best business practice.

It’s rather saving capitalism from thieves, The Economist! Yet, as long as there is no revolution in the USA, nothing will happen. And the USA is asleep under the seducer-in-chief, the languid, self-described “navigator” who nominated to power again, exactly the same teams that made Clinton and the Bushes’ presidencies.

Legalized corruption is the problem in the USA, not the illegal type. And that’s worst.

To undermine plutocracy, one has to undermine the nature of the economic activities that foster it, such as the secretive, unregulated nature of the public-private fractional reserve, money creating system. All tax evasion, tax havens, shell companies and lack of transparency have to go with that.

Why have we been unable to get rid of plutocracy? It is not just that it holds the Main Stream Media. It’s more general than that.

The principle of plutocracy is intrinsically sadistic and cruel: there are its rewards. So its practitioners, followers and servants call for a society reflecting those values. It makes psycho sense, and the economy to reflect that.

Beyond this, we have to impose real, that is, direct democracy. It has gained in Switzerland in the last three decades, and has contributed obviously to the success of the Swiss economy, by creating a much more equalitarian, meritocratic and caring society, with fairer rules and regulations (hence the 3% unemployment rate in Switzerland, the lowest anywhere).

Direct democracy makes oligarchy, a crucial element of which is professional politics, difficult, and plutocracy, impossible. So to reduce plutocracy, one has to reduce oligarchy, and, in particular professional politics, the intrinsic enemy of direct democracy.

That’s the future we need, because plutocracy’s ultimate hide-out is war itself. And this, in full, neither we, nor the biosphere, can afford.

Understanding that plutocracy is not just the rule of wealth, but the reign of hell outright, is of the essence. One cannot understand Putin, Hitler, or World War One, without it.

Weirdly, Obama pontificated that “we are not in competition with Russia”. Of course, not. But the better angels of our nature are in competition with hell. And this starts with the oligarchs our political system consists of, at home.

Patrice Aymé

Note: That plutocracy is the definition of hell is not a new insight. That hell thrives on the Dark Side, far from the light, and “enlightenment” was already central to the ancient Babylonian religion (“Zoroastrianism”). That ancient version of the devil was called Angra Manyu.

The Greek birth of the concepts of hell with Hades and Ploutos (or “Pluto”), and how Pluto came to replace Hades was a purely cosmetic replacement, because Hades had such a terrible reputation. I guess you would not be familiar with the hellish conditions of deep silver mines in Ancient Greece, or Rome.

Crazy Lie Technique

November 30, 2012

The Economist, the celebrated British tabloid, teaches economy thus: it siphons its European profits behind a mangy door of a second floor apartment in a poor part of Luxembourg. Would it be economical to pay taxes in the countries where The Economist is sold? Tax havens is where the good life is at, and The Economist just contrived a list to prove that.

Major profiteers and corporations do the same all over the world: they hide profits in tax havens they enabled through subtle conspiracies and deep propaganda. Why is the insanity allowed to go on? Not just because of corrupted politicians. Also because plutocratic agents made common people too confused to realize they are robbed blind. Instilling insanity is the plutocrats’ first barrier against common sense and decency.

Propaganda fabricates the spines of the sheeple (sheep-people). Here is a spectacular example. The “Economist Intelligence Unit crunched hard numbers” to answer this: “Which country will be the best for a baby born in 2013?” Here is its somewhat deranged answer:

Better Serving Emirs, Without Health Care?
Intelligent To Make Us Crazy & Stupid?

First of all notice that, among the first 15 countries, none is a major military power. In other words, these 15 countries depend upon the military superpowers for their protection. That is nothing to encourage, lest one wants to repeat World War II.

We saw what this kind of parasitism brought in 1939-1940: the pro-Hitlerian antics of Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands caused the loss of France, enabling 50 million Europeans to die subsequently; as a telling aside, Dutch Jews were killed nearly to the last person. 

Observe that sexist Muslim Fundamentalist regimes, with their subjugation of women, score high in The Economist’s esteem. This sadomasochism theme, unsaid, runs deep.

Among other amusements, Cyprus is one of the better places to live, according to The Economist Intelligence. Cyprus is an island cut in two, a few years ago, when Turkey attacked militarily by sea and in the air, invading it with its army, twice (well named operations Attila). Cyprus survives, without a peace treaty, the butt of Turkish hostility. Another full war, with more atrocities, is entirely possible as Turkey increasingly veers towards Islamism. But, according to the mental retards at The Economist Intelligence, Cyprus ranks higher than Japan, France and Britain, none of which is under foreign occupation. Maybe The Economist Intelligence finds lethal atrocities of the massive type one of the better spices in life?

So? What else? Why to live in a place that could be wracked by war again, just off Syria, with so many who have lost their property and can never again where they were born? Cyprus is a tax haven. Tax avoidance, the meat of life, according to Economist Intelligence!

According to The Economist Intelligence, Singapore is deemed safe, while the acceleration of sea level rise is 60% higher than the most pessimistic official forecasts (countries such as the Belgium or the Netherlands are spending already much to fight the advancing sea). For those unawares, Singapore, a tax haven, is barely built above high tide.

The Economist self glorifies, as it pontificates that “the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a sister company of The Economist, has this time turned deadly serious. It earnestly attempts to measure which country will provide the best opportunities for a healthy, safe and prosperous life in the years ahead.”

So the other times, The Economist admits that it was not “deadly serious“? It was just seriously deadly, as when it  supported Pinochet? I sent the following to The Economist, and they published it:

The Economist’s biases comes in many guises. The Economist now tells us that tiny Israel, hated on all sides, surrounded by a ghetto like wall, and with the high likelihood to be plunged into five or six horrendous wars, nuclear or not, with impacts all over its minuscule vegetated territory, scores higher for a “healthy, safe and prosperous life” than all major West European countries?

Does The Economist know how to spell C R A Z Y?

And Switzerland, a small enclave stuck between France, Germany and Italy, does particularly well? As if it were on another planet? Whereas, in truth, Swiss schemes are highly dependent upon whether the EU and the USA are going to let them happen, looking forward. 

And Ireland, which lives partly from being an outrageous tax heaven (like Switzerland with its Vereins) will keep on being a tax heaven, thus staying rich, while keeping on getting subsidies from its poorer, but ten to fifteen times larger European neighbors?

And Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are much safer than Italy? The Chinese plutocrats will not go silly in the next 50 years? The Chinese leaders will not abide by the deep desires of their underground Lord? Just in case The Economist does not know, let it be reminded that the People Republic of China reserves itself the right to recover Taiwan, anytime, by force, and that, should there be problems within the PRC, it will be only natural to distract the sheeple with a good foreign war.

Crunching numbers” is good, thinking, better.

This incident offers a troubling two dimensional space: along one dimension, The Economist is really stupid, along the other, The Economist is launched into a multi-dimensional propaganda operation, no holds barred. Notice that in The Economist’s classification, tax heavens score high. Notice also that the large countries, which are taking increasing measures against tax cheats, are scoring low. An argument The Economist uses, even against the USA, is that they owe large debts.

What The Economist “forgets” to say is that the large countries, which defend the West, owe large debts, because they pay rent to tax cheats (including, but not limited to tax cheating plutocrats, tax cheating countries such as those glorified by The Economist, and tax cheating corporations, such as the one that owns The Economist).

In passing, The Economist mentions that the Netherlands, a sneaky tax haven, is the only Eurozone country worth living in. Just in case Luxembourg does not work anymore, the Netherlands, which is 30 times larger, should be able to shelter The Economist from big bad Franco-Germano-British taxes. (Netherlands population: 17 million, UK + FRA + DEU = 210 million.)

The Economist’s analysis of the best places in which to be born started with another piece of classical propaganda. That great plutocratic philosopher, Warren Buffet, one of the world’s richest and deepest men (Buffet splurged with various manipulations that turned Greece into a colossal profits him and his associates) was quoted extensively as opining that he was who he was, that splendor of a vulture, because he was born in the right country, as the right time.

The Economist Intelligent Unit is intelligent enough to pose as exemplary the USA in general, and its plutocracy in the 1930s, and in the 2010s, while talking about the good life.

Hitler famously explained in “Mein Kampf” how Big Lies work: “little people use little lies all the time, they do not expect big ones…“By using Big Lies, Hitler succeeded to persuade the Volk of things that were not true, as he pursued what he viewed as higher aims, that he knew the Volk would disagree with, such as preparing for a world war in 1945 or the extermination of the Jews.

If most Germans had learned about either of these secret aims of Hitler, they would have been horrified and would have viewed Hitler as insanely dangerous… So, knowing this, he lied, big time.

However, as time went by, Hitler became a mental investment most Germans believed in, and the more they invested in him, the more they believed. (A phenomenon well known in the stock markets, as all too many people tend to fall in love with their investments… however bad those turn out to be.) In the end complete collective insanity took over, as the book Soldaten, relating secret recordings of German POWs, shows (Soldaten is also in English with same title).

Now we have something new, that even Hitler did not think about: the Crazy Lie. The Crazy Lie technique makes people accepting of modes of apprehending reality that prevent them to think seriously.

The Crazy Lie Technique is, first, emotional. The Economist used to support Pinochet’s dictatorship for its economic prowess (paid in part with around 5,000 killed and 31,947 officially tortured). Some will say: that was then. Indeed. The USA helped or led, and paid terrorists right wingers to make a coup in a democracy that never had any coup (the USA was furious about losing control of Chilean copper).

Chili was, is, a European foundation. What happened to it was horrible, but The Economist applauded, just as Milton Friedman applauded. Many in the Pinochet junta were on CIA pay roll, while heating up their electrical pincers.

By posing the United Arab Emirates as what we need to emulate, The Economist is actually sinking even lower than it did under Pinochet. The UAE has no European foundation. The UAE is a sordid medieval pluto-theocracy. Some emir, son of his father, is chosen by his medieval tyrannical peers to be the chief, just as was the case in Transylvania 8 centuries ago.

Differently from Middle Age France, though, more than 80% of the UAE’s inhabitants are NOT citizens. They are basically salaried slaves. Health spending proportionally to UAE GDP is only 2.8%, the 181th rank in the world (there are only 193 nations in the UN; as Emirati citizens get health care, that means that non Emirati, the slaves, get none). The UAE enjoys four billionaires with worth around ten billion dollars. Out of a million Emirati (among 4.5 million foreign slaves, servants & mercenaries).

The UAE is Sunni Muslim, and it faces hated Shiah Iran just across the sea of the Arabic, I mean, Persian Gulf. The UAE is basically a Western Plutocratic outpost, not exactly what the Iranian theocrats fancy. Fortunately for the thousands of Persian rockets at the ready, the hundreds of huge towers of the UAE (culminating up to half a mile high in Dubai!) offer themselves as ready targets.

To warn Iran off, the French were requested by the UAE to open a sea-air base, with half a brigade of the French Foreign Legion in residence. Thus the Camp de la Paix came to be.

War with Iran is more likely than not. Although crumbling towers and fireworks among great explosions promises a good show, by assimilating this to the good life, the Economist Intelligence Unit apparently advocates massive lethal sadomasochism as the dominant pursuit of our desires.

Not all is dark in the UAE; it is a place that strives very hard, from pretty bad initial conditions (aside from having the world’s 7th highest oil reserves). But here what I target is the cult that Anglo-Saxon plutocratic media such as The Economist, and the Financial Times enjoy.

Both of the much admired tabloids ferry their revenue through Luxembourg for tax avoidance, which, on that scale, surely is satanic.

So why convey the insane idea that the United Arab Emirates provides with a healthier (2.8% of GDP on health, remember) and safer (obvious target for Iranian nukes) life? Just out of love for plutocrats? Not, not just that. What is taught here is insanity itself.

What is taught is an erosion of intelligence. The Economist Intelligence Unit is out to destroy intelligence.

Teaching people that “crunching numbers” leads to the mathematical conclusion that the UAE provides with much nicer prospects than Japan, France, Britain, Italy or Spain, is so crazy that the notion can only be accepted by suspending one’s critical and intellectual capabilities.

And this suspension of rationality and criticism is what The Economist teaches.

So we are supposed to join the plutocratic cult that Singapore is a much better place to be born than the USA. Or that the United Arab Emirates, a rabidly sexist medieval pluto-theocracy where most inhabitants are foreign slaves, just a handful of minutes away for the thousands of missiles of the hated Iranians, is obviously much safer and healthier than… the French Republic (of course!)

After I wrote most of this essay Lord Justice Brian Leveson, mandated by PM Cameron, came up with his report on the UK press. Leveson writes: “Most responsible corporate entities would be appalled that employees were or could be involved in the commission of crime in order to further their business. Not so at the News Of The World (the now-shuttered tabloid that was owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, owner of the WSJ, Fox news, New York Post, etc., and powerful enough to be a part instigator of the war in Iraq, hence Murdoch’s nickname: Murderoch).

“Lord Justice” observes that the press “did not fullfill its role of guardian of the nation“. (Hey, The Economist spits on the nation!) The ‘Right Honourable Lord Justice’ recommends that the press  should create its own regulator, backed by legislation to make sure it meets certain standards of independence and effectiveness.

What we contemplate in The Economist is a further problem. What to do when crazy lies are created, just to erode reason? The problem is not restricted to the plutocratic cult, but other cults, as the Islamist one.

Egypt’s Muslim Fundamentalist parliament is rushing to pass Islamist legislation, making the Sharia into law. Never mind that Egypt thrived without Islam, a military-industrial superstition, for 4,000 years. Egypt was 100% Christian, for centuries. The word “Copt” itself is the Arabization of the word for Egyptian in Greek. In other words, to use some humor, the Muslims stole Egypt from the Egyptians, and are still at it, because, well, truth is secondary.  There are up to 20 million Copts in Egypt (Islamists will tell you that’s a lie).

Plutocracy and superstition reign best upon decerebrated chickens. So the chicken they decerebrate. Nowadays, though, the tsunami threatening civilization is not a few meters high, but kilometers high. Even the plutocrats and other exploiters will be destroyed by it, with most of the biosphere.

What we need is legislating for more truth. I proposed to make TRUTH as a new branch of government. After all, experiments show that equity, thus justice, is fundamental to primates. But what is equity without truth? What is a primate without truth? TRUTH & REASON ARE ESSENTIAL TO HUMAN RIGHTS.

What is essential ought to be legislated, thus civilization is enabled.


Patrice Ayme


P/S: Last, but not least, morality, at the scale of nations, makes happy (at variable scales of time). And safe. Thus morality is a crucial component for tomorrow’s health and happiness (although what ‘morrow’ means will vary considerably: Germany was punished on the scale of generations, Sweden never was, the USA already self punished, in part, with the Secession War, but more works need to be done).

Notice that I excluded not just the medievalists countries, or those waiting for heavy military action, but also the tax cheats from the list: Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Singapore, Hong Kong (also disqualified as owned by a dictatorship). Others have also to disqualified on even worse moral grounds.

I do not contest that Australia and Canada are good countries to be born. If one’s aim is wealth and comfort, in the next few years. However the ecological policies of these countries are so greedy as to endanger the planet’s ecology. They contribute massively to fossil fuel burning. One wants to keep in mind that the unfolding catastrophe of heat trapping gases pollution will be terminated by a massive world war, not just flooding, droughts, hurricanes, mass extinctions, rising heat, and collapse of oxygen production.

Being born in countries where one’s moral system will be tweaked towards tolerance for mass criminality is not, regrettably a criterion that The Economist put as an input. But it is neither willing, nor able, to do so.