Posts Tagged ‘war’

Cracking Down On Literal Islam

November 25, 2016

Europe is finally waking up to the danger of Literal Islam. “Literal Islam” means reading the fundamental texts of Islam as what they are supposed to be, according to Literal Islam itself: as the word of God. For me, Literal Islam, Salafism and Wahhabism are roughly synonymous.

Says The Economist:”In the very loosest of senses, all Muslims are Salafi. The word literally describes those who emulate and revere both the prophet Muhammad and the earliest generations of Muslims, the first three generations in particular. There is no Muslim who does not do that.”

So what did these three generations of Muslims do? They conquered, by the Sword, the greatest empire which the world had ever been. In a century. If You Think The Sword Is True, Islam Is True. If you think there are higher values than The Sword, Islam of the first three generations, is just an invasion by the most bellicose fanatics The world had ever seen. Have a look at this map, showing the brutality, the violence of the most significant Islamist attacks and invasions between 622 CE and 750 CE:

The Franks Fought Back Four Invasions in 715 CE, 721 CE, 732 CE & 737 CE To Islamist Caliphate Collapse in 750 CE.

The Franks Fought Back Four Invasions in 715 CE, 721 CE, 732 CE & 737 CE To Pure Arab Islamist Caliphate Collapse in 750 CE.

Tremendous civilizations were wiped out by the Islamist invasions, such as those of Mesopotamia and Iran, and the Mother of all Indo-European religions, Zoroastrianism. Not content with wiping out millennia of common civilizations, Islam tried to wipe out millions of years of human evolution itself, by making women half, or less, of men. (Whereas the human species has low sexual dimorphism.)

Thus, celebrating the Fundamentals of Islam is celebrating the fundamentals of a dramatic, extremely brutal invasion. The Economist however, pretends moronically that: “…there are Salafi mosques whose preachers are theologically conservative but are far from terrorists…”

You mean they are not making bombs? Sorry, The Economist: that makes no sense. The lethal violence in Literal Islam is overwhelmingly present in the texts, maximally nasty, boringly repetitive, and extremely scary. Yes, scary, like in phobia. As in Islamophobia. Can one not be a terrorist, when one teaches that terror is what God wants, and orders?

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

There is nothing subtle about Islamic violence as found in the Fundamental texts of Islam: vast categories of (most) people are supposed to be killed (either by God, or the Believers, or both). Apostates, Non-Believers, Gays etc. Those who kill in the name of God will go directly to paradise: they will not be submitted to the last Judgment: hence the great success of the Islamic invasions. The Islamist warriors were persuaded that death would bring them eternal happiness, life, and being on the right of God.

The Last Judgment will happen only after the last Jew has been killed.  (Hadith 41;685: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…”. That Hadith is repeated a lot, and is part of the Hamas Charter.)

Some will say: no problem we will keep an eye on those who read Fundamental Islamic texts literally, make a terror watch. Propped by Saudi and other Medieval types, oil money, those people are already millions. Is surveillance to become the most important industry? Or is it easier to strictly outlaw all Literal Islam?

A few days ago, more than half a dozen Salafists were arrested in France. They were all unknown of security services (which track more than 10,000 Islamists already!). The Islamists had planned murderous attacks throughout France. One of them taught in a public school. Nobody suspected him (they hide among ourselves, like the crocs below the murky waters, ready to strike, causing ambient paranoia, as intended).

When is someone who does not follow Islam literally not a Muslim anymore? That is a simple question pregnant with a dreadful answer: those who do not believe in Islam anymore, apostates, are to be put to death.

At this point, Politically Correct demoncrats generally lash out, from their tiny knowledge base learned by rote, that Christianism is just as bad as Islamism, so we are racist to implicitly claim a difference, etc., etc.  (Never mind that most of those who lash out at Islam don’t believe in Christianism either.) Well not quite. There is not a symmetry between Islamism and Christianism. Christianism was worse, in the sense it came first, and got the ball rolling, by terrorizing first. But then Islam copied it, but it was worse, because Islam is the state, whereas the relationship between state and Christianism was much looser (except in the periods from 386 CE to ~450 CE and again, for two long periods in the late Middle Ages/Renaissance; in both cases, state terror got enacted under the guise of the Faith.

Yes, Roman officials launched condemnations to death for heresy. In 380 CE, the Edict of Thessalonica of Roman emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. By this edict the state’s authority and the Church officially overlapped. Thus the state enforced religious terror, whenever convenient. Thus church leaders executed (some) heretics. Within six years of the official criminalization of heresy by the Roman Emperor, the first Christian heretic to be executed, Priscillian, was condemned in 386 CE by Roman secular officials for sorcery. He was put to death with four or five followers. The edict of emperor Theodosius II (435 CE) provided severe punishments for spreading Nestorianism (a Christianism found all the way to Mongolia). Possessing writings of Arius brought the death penalty (Arius influenced the Coptic church, hence Islam).

So the Christians, more exactly the Roman Catholics, were anti-civilizational savages. Guess what? The empire of savage fanatics soon collapsed. It was replaced by the fresh Confederation of the Franks, which reinvented Christianism from scratch, complete with plenty of newly created saints. The Franks viewed Christianism, or, more exactly, Catholicism, as a help, a secular help, to rule over dozens of millions of Roman subjects throughout much of what is presently the Eurozone (Netherlands, Germany, Eastern Europe, Italy, Gaul). But all religions were allowed, including Paganism, Judaism, islam, etc.

Things changed just at the time the Frankish emperor in Paris decided he was king of France, and it was high time to submit the giant County of Toulouse. “Philippe Auguste” allied himself to the Pope, killed a million Cathars, grabbed their lands. Thereupon, Christian terror was back, as it was so profitable. The Enlightenment would put an end to that Christian terror.

Islamist terror had been profitable all along. Still is.

A further problem is that Literal Islam is not just an incitement to ultimate violence. It is also an incitement to unreason, and violating the most basic standards of what makes humanity, humanity.

Amusingly, The Economist, propelled by the anxiety of sounding indiscriminate, contradicts itself: “It’s important to understand that of the various forms of Salafism described, there is one, the unreconstructed kind, which can (though does not always) morph into terrorism.” Well, real Salafism is “unreconstructed”. By definition.

We need clarity. Go read all the basic texts of Islam, then report. Stop parsing red herrings, please go to the meat of the matter. Religious terror was extirpated from Europe during the Enlightenment, it is high time to bring some light to all this darkness. So, instead of leaving Islam as a darkness which cannot, and should not, be explored, please visit it.

It’s instructive. The basic texts reveal that Muhammad actually ordered women’s faces NOT to be covered. So why the contemporary insistence, now, that they should be? Because it’s a way for Islamist dictators (like the various kings, emirs, ayatollahs and what not) to terrorize the Republics.

Or, at least, to put them on the defensive:’Oh, you see you don’t respect freedom of religion!’

The French Republic installed a law outlawing face covering. Islamists howled to the Moon, naturally, that’s all old tradition of Mecca, older than Islam, but the French Constitutional Court upheld the law as it was explicitly made for security reasons.

I would advise Donald Trump to have such a law passed ASAP in the USA. Every time a woman goes fully veiled in the streets she attacks civilization, human ethology, the Republic, public order, and helps convert the Enlightened West into the incomparable messes that all countries ruled by, and with Islam have become (yes, from Morocco, where Islamists are in power, to Indonesia, where the governor of Djakarta is prosecuted for “blasphemy”, because the Islamist god is that weak little simple-minded creature that needs very much to be protected, by killing lots of insulting people, lest that fragile entity wilts away…)

Just do like France, Donald: after all, it is a question of security (veiled women were used massively in the Franco-Algerian civil war, to carry explosives, allowing a tiny minority to seize power and keep it to this day, while leading Algeria through another civil war which killed at least 200,000). Outlawing Islamist veils will help to change the mood: no more blatant tolerance for the nefarious ways of the enemies of reason.

It will be interesting to hear the devilish ones preaching that Islam is perfect for the countries they, themselves exploit. And it also means the rather drastic observation: Whenever, pretty soon, burning hydrocarbons is made unlawful, Islam will disappear. Because the main reason for its modern existence will be gone. As simple as that.

Patrice Ayme’

CONQUEST Of England, 950 Years Ago: End of Slavery, Birth of Modern Democracy

October 16, 2016

The BATTLE OF HASTINGS, WON By The FRANKS 950 YEARS AGO: Outlawing Slavery, Jump Starting Democracy

How did British democracy arise? With the exact opposite maneuver from Brexit. What is the opposite of Brit-exit? Frank-in. And when William the Conqueror, came in, conquered-in, he did not just bring, but enforced a more advanced civilization, and much more, a process to self-feed democracy.

The ascent of Britain, blossoming into the edge of world civilization is a long story which started well before Caesar’s two landings in England. The mighty, yet disorganized Celtic civilization had been divided into a diversity of a bewildering obfuscation (fostered by the Druids) of countless small units: Gaul had 60 nations, with 60 central banks, senates and three languages. Roman organization put an end to that non-sense, and Gaul came out much stronger, wealthier and more intelligent (the Druids cultivated stupidity, by outlawing written expression, except among themselves).

The collapse of the Roman state brought an even greater mess to Britain, while the continent got reorganized under the Franks’ Lex Salica (see chapter inside the essay on Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood). The reconquest of England by the Franks under the command of a Roman duke of Normandy added a whole new layer of complexity in the subtilty of government. It is William’s Conquest, a conquest by a plurality, and the most advanced principles, which instigated the rise of the world’s most advanced democracy, protected, as it was thereafter, by the insular nature of Britain (whereas the rest of the Roman empire, on the other side of the Channel, fell in ever worse divisions sheared from ever mightier armies).

After its conquest under Claudius, a Roman emperor born in Lyon (Lugdunum), Britannia was unified and pacified for more than four centuries. However budget cuts by the theologically minded plutocrats who ruled Rome around 400 CE, led to the withdrawal of the legions (which constituted the core of the crack field armies of the empire). Local Roman militia was unable to repel waves of invasion of determined Angles and Saxons in the next two centuries. Finally British forces retreated towards Wales or took refuge in what came to be known as Brittany (formerly Armorica, the large western peninsula of France advancing in the Atlantic). Then the Viking came, overrunning much of England, and all of Ireland.

By the Eleventh Century, the king ruling England, Edward the Confessor, had no direct descendant. (His earlier life had been astoundingly full of battles and unlikely events; suffices to say he was the seventh son of his father, from his second wife, Emma of Normandy who ended up marrying a Viking invader, Cnut, who conveniently executed some of Edward’s half brothers. Edward spent many years in exile in Normandy (and acted accordingly: Edward could see that Frankish civilization was superior). 

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of Some Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue (Poitou, Anjou, Flanders) or Green (Bretagne)

The Reconquista Of Britannia By A Dux Of The Roman Empire:

The reconquest of Britannia by a Roman Dux was no accident: five centuries after being overrun by the Angles and Saxons, the British Isles were more of a wasteland than ever, as waves of Viking sloshed all over. It was high time for re-establishing civilization. Only force can re-establish civilization (a theme of mine). William would apply overwhelming force, in the service of the most advanced civilization anywhere. And it worked splendidly: the progress he launched became self-feeding, and promoted peace. Indeed, after William’s conquest, except for a victorious Dutch invasion in 1688 CE (with the objective of defeating France’s dictator, Louis XIV), England would never be conquered again. 

The closest relative of king Edward the Confessor was the Norman Dux (“Dux”, Duc, Duke, was a Roman military title of the Late Empire: a Dux was the superior military officer of a large province, only subject to command from the Emperor himself). More exactly, Edward was the grandson of the maternal uncle of William the Conqueror. The accession of William to the ducal throne had been difficult because his father had died in Nicea (Anatolia), when William was seven years old. William’s mother was his father’s mistress, an independent business woman who then married somebody else. However, Dukes of Normandy were often “illegitimate”, and there is no doubt that his father intended William to be Duke (he made his vassals take an oath of obedience to his son, before leaving for the crusade, over his family’s objections).

By the age of 23, the battle tested William was the uncontested Duke of Normandy, and Edward was back, overlording an English realm streaked by Viking raids. Thus, in 1051 CE, Edward selected William as heir (no doubt feeling that Britain needed to be reintegrated in the Roman ensemble, for its own good as it indeed turned out). In 1064 CE, a top officer of Edward, Harold, showed up in Normandy, helped William wage war in Brittany, and told him that he, Harold, would support his claim to the throne (at least that is what Normand discrediting propaganda claimed at the time).

On January 5, 1066, Edward died and Harold, treacherously, took power as king of England. Many other claimants and grandees were not happy, and a complicated war started, with four parties involved.

However William was an official Duke of the Roman empire, had been named future king 15 years prior, and thus William was the only one with real legitimacy, and enormous clout (but making William king meant that Britain was reintegrating the Roman empire! And thus who thrived from the mess were going to suffer). Indeed, consent of Pope Alexander II for the invasion was obtained, and a Papal banner was flown by William. The Roman emperor also gave consent. On top of this, William was an extremely experienced military leader, used to command in the Roman imperator tradition (namely ready to execute miscreants as needed). William had been at war since age 8. And he was now 38 years old.

An enormous fleet was built, 3,000 ships it has been said. It sailed from the Somme river, once intelligence informed William that Harold’s army had been removed from the Channel and was battling in the north.

William led an army greatly composed of contingents under the direct command of many French barons who were not his vassals. In particular William’s forces comprised Breton, Anjou, Poitou armies (which made the left wing at the Hastings battle, commanded by Alan the Red, a relative of the Comte de Bretagne) and a French, Picardy, Flanders army (which made the right wing at Hastings, and was commanded by the Count of Boulogne, who was severely wounded in the pursuit of the Anglo-Saxon forces).

***

That two-third of William’s army was made of Frankish allies not his vassals was of great consequence: his non-vassal allies would shortly enforce upon the king the MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM, the Great Charter of Liberty.

During the battle, William’s left wing, the Breton army at some point cracked and fled, and was pursued by Harold’s forces, led by two of his brothers. That stretching of the enemy in the open enabled William’s cavalry to surprise and destroy them. The Normans feigned retreat twice more, to expose Harold’s army to cavalry (Harold had no cavalry, and no archers, William had both). William engineered attacks after attacks, changing strategy repeatedly, and had several horses killed under him. In the end, Harold was killed, some say by William himself (that Harold was killed by an arrow is apparently a later legend which arose when the Bayeux tapestry was misinterpreted).

The war was not finished.  English clergy and aristocrat nominated Edgar the Ætheling as king to replace Howard (whose body William had ordered thrown in the sea). To win the war, William instigated reforms right away.

William changed England in many ways. For example he was partly financed by Jewish financiers and brought rich Jews from Rouen to foster lending in England (an activity forbidden to Christians with Christians, but allowed from Jews to Christians). Thus William introduced Judaism to England (so Jews were not always victimized by it did not exist prior to that there).

William had made church reforms in Normandy. He extended them to England, and replaced English clergy by Normand clergy. William also enforced all the laws passed by Edward the Confessor (the preceding English king, who had spent most of his formative years in Normandy, thanks to William’s family, and much of his life, and had made his relative William his heir). Some laws protected especially the “Frenchmen who had come with William to England”, as one would expect after a conquest. But William went much further.

***

William The Conqueror’s Laws Created A New Polity And New Civilization:

William introduced ten major new laws. The first made Christianism the official religion (exit the pagan gods).

William’s second law made all Englishmen take a direct, personal oath of loyalty to the king, as if they were soldiers in the Roman army. Those who did not take the oath would not be considered to be freemen. The oath had to be witnessed by many. That was a very significant advance: prior to this, citizens did not have to take an oath of loyalty (only the Roman soldiers had to, except for a few years under Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius around 308 CE).

All problems have to be solved in court, ordered William. Non-attendees were heavily fined, up to the amount of the charge against them.

The final two laws passed by William were stunning:

No man is allowed to sell another man. Anyone breaking this law will pay a fine to the king.” This law outlawed slavery in England. 20% of the population had been enslaved under Harold. William, as a Roman Dux, had to implement the Lex Salica’s most prominent feature, the one that distinguished it more saillantly from Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman Law, was the interdiction of slavery. It is also on that law that the prosperity of the “Renovated Roman Empire” rested. Britain had been reunited with the empire (although, it was implicitly intimated that it never left).

No one shall be executed for crimes they have committed; but if they are guilty of a crime, they will be blinded and castrated. This law is not to be challenged.” Outlawing the death penalty was very much a world first. (Although the EU has outlawed the death penalty, the USA still uses it, 950 years later.)

***

Outlawing Slavery Was Not Just Frankish Law, But An Essential Part of William’s Power Grab

As a Dux of the Roman empire, William had to implement (Franco-)Roman law. Slavery had been made unlawful by the (English-born) Queen Bathilde of the Franks in 650 CE. Later the Franks conquered most of Western Europe, including the British isles and the part of Iberian and Italian peninsulas still held by the Muslims. The outlawing of slavery by the Franks was extended to these liberated territories where Roman rule was re-imposed.

In turn, the outlawing of slavery no doubt facilitated this Roman reconquest. For example, the 20% of Englishmen who found themselves to be “freemen” as long as they took a loyalty oath to William were no doubt enthusiastic supporters of William.

***

Frenchmen, and French

In the following centuries, many powerful French characters and adventurers in England, would try to preserve their power, or try to seize power, and would push for various democratic reforms limiting the power of the king. Out of that came the Magna Carta Libertatum (the descendants of the allies of William wanted to keep the powers William had conferred to them, that of allies, not vassals), the power of Parliament (Lancastre hoped to be elected king through Parliament, so he boosted its power; Lancastre was killed on the battlefield, but his reforms stayed). And so on.

Ever since William’s conquest, France and England have been entangled (although intellectual life on both sides of the Channel had been entangled for two millennia already: Druids would study in Wales, Saint Patrick was educated in Cannes, Anti-slavery queen of the Franks Bathide was from Kent, Alcuin, Charlemagne’s main PM and philosopher was English).

The reason for thinking otherwise, that England and France have serious differences (instead of being family), was the dictatorial drift under the fanatical Jihadist tyrant Louis XIV, while England went the other way, towards more democracy. Democracy brings power, dictatorship, weakness. The result was that France became weaker and England blossomed into a superpower. In the (world) wars of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Year War, and the Revolutionary-Napoleonic wars, a haggard France was defeated and more subtly plutocratic England became a world empire.  

It is the mess of more distributed power which rendered England ever more democratic. Whereas in France, the emperor-in-his-own-kingdom (that was the official expression!) Philippe-Auguste (literally: the lover of horses who augments!) colluded with the Pope to destroy the (quasi-republican) giant County of Toulouse (which was ruled under a Count, but mostly by Parliament).

However, moods perdure. Lancastre, one of those who exploited Toulouse got there the idea of using Parliament as a weapon against the king, and implemented the idea in England.

Intelligence is greater, the greater the ability to detect, distinguish, identify & imagine (knowledge, distinctions, equations & allusions).

Contemplating history shows that reason is not linear, but a web. And guess what? Quantum Theory says the same, and it has a name, entanglement. This is an entangled world, and to reveal it, one has to reveal its implicit order. It arises from occurrences. By building one’s neurology while missing the most important occurrences in the world pertaining to it, one risks becoming stupid. 

Patrice Ayme’.   

 

Europe & Obama: Guilty Of The Syrian Massacre

October 7, 2016

Ultimately, & practically, the Syrian Civil War’s primary cause is not even Islam, or the plutocratic effect, but European impotence (except for the French Republic, which is engaged in half a dozen wars… but financially and diplomatically hobbled by most other European powers… and, of course, its occasionally ingrate progeny, the US). Europeans, Merkel, and especially European youth, talk big about peace, human rights, freedom. Yet, what good is talk when it is not followed by enforcement? Replacing action by the dream?

Refugees, you say? Millions of them? Well, six hundred million Africans and Middle Orientalists want to enter Europe. For starters. Any questions?

I guess not. Shall we reinstate European colonialism, so that Africans want to stay in Africa, as they used to?

Here are further observations of mine: Europeans (semi-) intellectuals talked big about imperialism, decolonization, peace, flowers, bad-mouthed the strong-arm of the USA. So who did they enable? Assad. Assad is smoother talking than Saddam Hussein. But as far as killing his own people, he is much better. Connection with the plutocrats in London made the British Parliament friendly to him. And his kind.

Obama refused, at the last moment, to strike Assad, in collaboration with France. French pilots were in their seats, ready to go unleash Scalp missiles on Assad’s palace, but The One in the White House changed his mind. Annihilating weddings, or Americans on the beach with drones in Yemen, OK. Hitting big bad dictator, whose family holds billions in assets in the West, not OK.

Those Who Do Not Defend Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of This: Europe and Obama

Alep, August 2016. Those “Leaders” Who Do Not Defend Humanity Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of Leading The Wrong Way: European Peaceniks and Obama

What happened next? Putin saw the green light from Obama. Putin is an opportunist (see below). A much encouraged Putin invaded Ukraine, grabbing Crimea… which had been Ukrainian for eleven centuries. Now Putin is in Syria, training his army, extending his empire, and helping his fellow dictator Assad re-establish his rule (of terror). (Putin had seized parts of Georgia earlier. However Sarkozy intervened in various spastic ways, and Bush put a few hundreds US troops in the way of Russian tanks, persuading Putin to back off…)

Cynics will observe that the USA is the world’s number one producer of fossil fuels… Followed by Russia. Do those two have interest to see fossil fuel prices go too low for their own comfort? As long as there is a total war mess in the Middle East, most of the oil production out of Turkey, Syria, and especially Iraq, is shut down (by some measure, Iraq has the world’s second largest reserve of conventional oil). That lack of production keeps the prices up much better than the conspiracies from (a much weakened) OPEC.

In this light, Canada, which is trying to build a new giant pipeline, to exfiltrate the planet’s dirtiest hydrocarbons has also interest to extend the mess in the Middle East as long as possible. And sure enough PM Trudeau, that dashing ecologist in words alone, pulled the Canadian Air Force out of the Middle East.

Some will say Canada acted in a spirit of peace, alleluia, let’s save lives from horrid bombardment. By the same token, the Jihadists are all for eternal peace too. One does make peace with those who organize Auschwitz. Aleppo, right now is pretty much Auschwitz for all to see. Aerial bombardment is no panacea, but it remains the ultimate weapon. Who controls the sky and bombs from it has won more than half the war.

History will not be kind to Obama and those Europeans who pay only lip service to humanity, Socrates’ style (See Socrates on the lake of selfishness). To defend the position that one should not defend humanity and humanism is beyond vile, it is also illogical… if one is not a plutocrat of the most ferocious type.  

Trump accused Obama to have founded the Islamist State, ISIS, or words to this effect. Then he explained this happened through Clinton and Obama’s lack of action. Of military action. I agree, and said so at the time. Now I am making the same charge about the Syrian war. I have been making it for several years, if anything Trump is parroting me, and not the other way around.

These are symptoms of the White Flag Syndrome.

Obama maybe vile, from a humanitarian point of view, by refusing to strike a mass-murdering dictator, but, he is in the best American tradition: the US has helped many a dictator during the Twentieth Century, starting with Kaiser Wilhelm II (from 1914 to 1917). Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, countless bananas dictators, and many others more recently (Nasser, the Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Saudis, etc.)

America first, make America ever greater is a policy which has been most profitable. President Franklin Roosevelt in World War Two, following President Wilson in  World War One, refused to come to the help of the French Republic in a timely manner, after being begged to do so. That did not work very well for humanity, but it worked very well for America.

Roosevelt’s refusal to help France in 1939 and 1940 against Hitler, although Auschwitz had just been opened for business by the Nazis, for all to see, was despicable, anti-humanitarian. However, it brought the death of 50 million Europeans, the loss of the European empires, and, not the least, the coming of the so-called “American Century”.

Europeans, though, do not seem to have learned history as well as US think tanks did. Weakness in front of fascism and its associated plutocrats (Yesterday Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler, Franco, now, Assad, Putin, etc.) brought calamity to Europe. Syria, like Libya, should be part of the European empire of justice and peace, because it is the neighborhood of Europe. Actually, Syria was, until it was devastated by the brutal Muslim assault, the richest part of the Roman empire.

The king of Jordan believes World War Three has started. What is sure is that, for World War Three to start, the surest strategy is weakness in the face of infamy. It is known that many in the Russian chain of command believe that a surgical nuclear strike would intimidate the Western Europeans into abject surrender. Whomever the next US president is, Trump, Clinton, Kaynes or Pence, I would not bet on it. Indeed any of these four is clearly more aggressive than Obama. And the US chain of command is very deep.

Here is an example:
Low key and calmly cerebral, four star Admiral Haney, whom some would probably insist to call an “Afro-American” is Commander, United States Strategic Command (four star is the greatest number of stars, aside from times of world war). As such he would be the one talking directly to the president in case of nuclear war, real or potential. Haney commands  not only this country’s nuclear forces but its cyber weapons and space satellites as well.

David Martin, “60 Minutes”: Is it riskier today?

Cecil Haney: Well I think today we’re at a time and place that I don’t think we’ve been to before.

It is Haney’s job to convince Vladimir Putin that resorting to nuclear weapons would be the worst mistake he could possibly make.

David Martin: When you look at what would work to deter Russia, do you have to get inside Putin’s head?

Cecil Haney: You have to have a deep, deep, deep understanding of any adversary you want to deter, including Mr. Putin.

David Martin: So how would you describe him psychologically?

Cecil Haney: Well, one I would say I’m not a psychologist. But I would just say he is clearly an individual that is an opportunist.

[Sell, most politicians are opportunists. The job selects for opportunists. This is the major problem of representative democracy. Any politician is going to be a variant on Trump or Clinton, just those two make it more blatant. However, in the case of Putin and the nationalist mood in Russia, the sky seems to be the same limit as it was for the Nazis.]

David Martin, loaded question: Does it concern you that an opportunist has a nuclear arsenal?

Cecil Haney: It concerns me that Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. It concerns me that Russia has behaved badly on the international stage. And it concerns me that we have leadership in Russia, at various levels that would flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.

Well the psychological scenario for the use of nuclear weapons is in place. It came from weakness. No force, no moral. Only a perspective of great ferocity and fury, in defense of democracy, the republic and optimal human ethology will convince those seduced by the most devilish and oligarchic instincts to refrain from acting up.

Patrice Ayme’.

Syria, Garden Of Torturous Delights

May 24, 2016

What is going on in Syria? A zoo of human passions, and traditional patterns of history. A war is going on. There are simple wars, and complex ones. Syria’s war started simple, one dictator against his subjects, and it is now very complex, having become the war of all against all.

Big Bombs: Western Coalition Air Strike, Syria, 2015. The Islamist State Buries Underground

Big Bombs: Western Coalition Air Strike, Syria, 2015. The Islamist State Buries Underground

Initially the calm and secular Syrian society came of age, and a consensus was reached: the hereditary dictator got to go. However, the dictator, a trained doctor, son of tough and crafty tyrant, did not want to go, and those attached to him, all the way to Western Europe, in particular the City of London, did not want to go. Chess, Go, and other games people play have rules. War does not. War’s limit as those of the human spirit.

Don’t believe me? Remember then the Obama’s administration “signature strikes”: killing gatherings because terrorists also gather. On the face of it, the theory was as barbarian as anything in known history. Even Genghis Khan’s forces would massacre, but only after a fair warning: ”Surrender, or we will massacre you!” Even the Nazis, who did worse in secret, on a much larger scale, did not dare claim to be as vicious, for all to see.

Thus, definitively, progress is not a quiet, long stream. Instead it can go in full reverse.

Actors in Syria are now many: much of the Western world is involved, including Russia. Yet the motivations of Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, US, Britain, France, Assad, etc.., are all different.

So what does Assad, initial master of that game, want? Initially, dictator Assad wanted just to stay in power, as all dictators do. But then, his strategy to free the Qur’an fundamentalists worked. He helped them, be it only by purchasing “their” oil, just like Turkey did (and sent back weapons, in the case of Erdogan; some people writing this in Turkey, got five years in jail, just for writing this…).

However, Assad is head of the Alawites. Alawites have their own Muslim religion. As the Qur’an promises to kill apostates and unbelievers, worshipping Mahomet and his god differently from one’s neighbor, is a grave, potentially lethal, fateful tragedy. Romeo and Juliet is nothing in comparison. The end result was that the Alawites were badly treated until the French showed up. Under the French, they quickly reached the highest spheres. Alawites have been reluctant to leave them ever since, especially considering that it’s not just a question of social status, but of survival.

Assad was able to get away with his savage repression of pacifist, secular civilians. Then he was able to get away with his manipulations of Islamists, freeing them and endowing them with enough power to become a justification to his brutal, homicidal rule.

Then a new mood surfaced: why not to just eradicate Non-Alawites?

How do I know (correctly guess) that such is the main motivation of Assad now? Too many strikes on schools and hospitals rather than enemy soldiers. That’s called reading between the facts.

So Assad is a monster, in the line of perfectly respectable historical monsters: just as Alexander the Great, or Little Father of the People Stalin, Assad sounds perfectly reasonable. Not to say that the “West” is not also an accomplice. In other words, it’s not just Putin who is a collaborator of genocide (Putin did save Palmyra, so he is not all bad… Far from it, on this subject).

And of course, Assad does not stand alone anymore than Hitler (or the Kaiser) did: when Cameron, France and the US stood ready to strike Assad, British MPs, copiously paid by the sort of fake prosperity the likes of Assad and his family bring to England, voted against striking him, blocking PM Cameron. Thus giving the pusillanimous Obama such cold feet, he had in turn to betray the French…

As we may see next, the mood of the so-called “West” is divided on the subject of striking monsters in a timely manner. In Syria as in many other places. Under the pretext of loud anti-”colonialism”, genocide is authorized… As it is perfectly compatible with the plutocratic doctrine, that evil should rule. Thus anti-”colonialism” is a fig leaf to hide the most significant naughty bits, namely free reins for torturous delights, hidden by tortuous denials.

Genocide of the mostly Sunni population of Syria is a delight many secretly savor. Too bad for the collateral damage.

Patrice Ayme’

Asia After Full Glacial Melt

April 24, 2016

The Way Of Life Of Some "Leading" Countries Brings Us Back To The Jurassic

What is that a map of? (Answer at the bottom.)

The positive side of a full glacial melt is that the devastated Aral Sea will be reconstituted to its former glory, and more. Tourists may be able to travel from Missouri to the Aral Sea on electric cruise ships. Let’s notice in passing that shallow seas were characteristic of the Jurassic, and exerted a positive feed-back on the climate, which was remarkably warm and wet then… thanks to these shallow seas. The Earth was ice-free (except on the top of very high mountains).

The Decision Is Now. The Next Two Decades Will Decide If This Is What Will Be

The Decision Is Now. The Next Two Decades Will Decide If This Is What Will Be

Some may sneer, but there is tremendous inertia in the system. Here is a depiction of temperatures in the last half a billion years:

The Projection That We Are On Two Degree Centigrade Rise By 2050 Is Optimistic: It Ignores Positive Feed-Back On Ice Melt

The Projection That We Are On Two Degree Centigrade Rise By 2050 Is Optimistic: It Ignores Positive Feed-Back On Ice Melt

As soon as we launch the shallow sea effect, it will feed-back on itself. That will be another feed-back on top of the ice melt feed-back. Scandalously, a European Union Commissioner just declared that the COP 21 treaty will be ratified in 2018 only. The French government has declared this “scandalous”, and intends to do something about it on Monday (EC Commissioners have been obviously on the take from major fossil fuel company such as Exxon, as stealth recordings recently showed).

Hence the moral quality of the following graph depicting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, per capita, and per country:

GHG Per Capita: The Redder, The Worse. The Way Of Life Of Some "Leading" Countries Brings Us Back To The Jurassic

GHG Per Capita: The Redder, The Worse. The Way Of Life Of Some “Leading” Countries Brings Us Back To The Jurassic

At this point, some always ask: what can we do? Shall we recycle? Recycling is a related question, yet mostly independent of the energy problem. It’s much more efficient than fighting racism by never saying “nigger”, but still, it pales relative to burning fossils. Energy procurement has got to change radically. One has to de-carbonize. Now. Not just in 2050: by then it will be too late.

To de-carbonize, there is just one way: tax carbon so heavily that silly activities such as frantic tourism by plane, disappear altogether. So those who want to do something moral should agitate for an enormous carbon tax (while compensating for the poor with some of the proceeds).

Something similar is to push for local sustainable energy. An example: San Francisco just passed a law requiring plants or solar panels on roofs of all new building less than ten stories tall (to start with). Starting January 1, 2017. The law is identical to a mandate passed in France last year that all new buildings be covered in partial green roofing or solar panels.

In France, buildings producing more energy than they use have been erected. In other French news, Paris organized its first car race since 1951… 65 years ago. It was done with Formula One style cars: monospaces. It was also remarkably silent: the cars were electric. An Audi driven by the Brazilian Di Grassi won this “Formula E” event. There will be another one, next year (a necessary way of fighting terrorism is to act and behave as if there was no terror).

If enormous de-carbonization is not imposed quickly, fabulous wars may ensue… Except if some countries have such a lead in military matters that none of the others will try anything; as is presently the case of the West, mostly the USA, relative to the Rest; a fascinating twist on might makes right.

However, morality means “the mores”, what has proven sustainable to a tribe. And this brings still another moral twist. Some tribes (also known as nations) have profited a lot from war, thus may not be, very secretly, deep down inside, that adverse to adversity of the lethal type. Indeed, if adversity enables them to unleash the Dark Side, their empire may extend. Or, at least, such is the computation. because, in the past, war always proved such an excellent lever. It is especially the case of the USA (although Russia also lives under that illusion; and giant countries such as Canada and Australia are not far behind in that same general mood; even China, considering its recent conquest of gigantic, highly profitable Tibet and Xing Kiang, may feel that way, all too much).

Notice in passing that the US emits close to 20 tons of GreenHouse Gases per year, per capita. That’s around three times more than the French. And France is not three times poorer, per capita. Actually, according to Hillary Clinton, France is richer, per capita, than the USA: she herself says that the USA cannot afford universal health care. Whereas the French can afford a universal health care system. It is even worse than that, as the French health care system (with the Italian and Swedish ones) is leading in quality, whereas the USA trails, in quality of health care, behind all developed countries.

Once again, what Hillary really means is that those who are paying for her propaganda and helping her with various services, cannot afford a country with universal health care, because they are too busy overdosing inside their private jets (allusion to Prince, one of many). One’s morality not better than one’s logic.

The naïve, gullible and thoroughly obsolete, often believe there is just one way to be logical. But logic can be pretty much anything. Anything goes in logic. Differently from cooking ,where a few rules apply. In cooking at the very least, one should not put too much salt, or burn food to such a crisp that it becomes, well, pure carbon.

However logic is much more adaptable. And thus, a fortiori, is morality.

Tomorrow’s morality has often be made from yesterday’s computation. And computations can sometimes go awry.

So what to do? Change the moods ASAP. Solar roofs are an example. Another is the just announced change of the Twenty Dollar Bill. It figures president Jackson. Jackson followed Jefferson’s example, conquering and annexing giant swathes of territory for the USA. Those two, with Washington himself, were the three most important presidents, in the sense that they created, not just the USA as a state, but also its extent and its mood. Jackson was as macho as Washington, if not more. He went on his conquests, as the head of the US Army, without any order, and Congress did not dare contradict him, lest he made a coup. He had no problem harboring a bullet or two from successful duels.

Nowadays, more and more people in the USA feel that Jackson’s mentality is something which should not be viewed as an example anymore. So Obama and his sidekicks want to replace him by an abolitionist ex-slave who happened to be a woman (I had never heard from, I think, demonstrating that the masses need to further their education, indeed.)  Not bad. At the last hour, Obama and Al. minister admirably the details. However, if one removes all the slave masters from US currency, one may be left with the insipid mild and neutral pseudo-bridges found on European currency.

Removing the face of slavery would not be progress, if all one did, was to forget, and thus deny, where one came from, institutionally speaking, and in the genealogy of moods.

Without its demonic males to lead and fabricate appropriately evil systems of thought, the USA would not have become the world’s leading empire it is now. Beyond whether this is right or wrong, it’s important to remember that, first of all, that’s what happened. Yes, the USA was fabricated by slave masters. This politely brings in the natural question: Is the USA still ruled by slave masters?

The first moral duty is always to the truth. When the morality used is the one closest to the essence of the genus Homo. Yet, special circumstances, (such as inheriting a continent which has been grabbed,) have incited special moralities to blossom.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Logic Is Not Everything: It Can Be Anything

February 24, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

The value of logic, February 23, 2016, Massimo

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

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

‘Yes.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

How Humanism Dies

January 19, 2016

Humanitarians Killed By Jihadists

Some of those who have Islamophilia claim that we obsess too much about Islamist terrorism. However, terrorism terrorizes. Everybody.

Merkel invited a million marvellous Muslims in Germany, and a few thousands of them, Muslim men, went on a rampage against German women in Cologne. The Qur’an has lots of passages about “women that your right hand posses”. (One can do plenty of things to those!)

Read the Qur’an, ladies and gentlemen, oh yes, read the Qur’an, and then you talk. The Qur’an is much much more fun than the completely insipid “50 Shades of Grey” (a book about a vaguely sadistic guy and a vaguely masochistic girl engaging in vaguely reprehensible practices). The Qur’an brims with fully endowed sadism, and uncomplexed total sexism.

Franco-Moroccan Leila Aloui, A Teenage Jihadist Faced Her, And Absolutely Had To Pump Her With Three Bullets. Too Beautiful. She Took Four Days To Die.

Franco-Moroccan Leila Aloui, A Teenage Jihadist Faced Her, And Absolutely Had To Pump Her With Three Bullets. Too Beautiful. She Took Four Days To Die.

But do not gun killings as in the USA kill much more? The question has been asked by the Islamophiles (some of them no doubt pedophiles, as pedophilia is part of the sacred Islamist texts). Yes, they do: more than 300,000 in the USA in a decade. Murder, one by one, as in the USA, creates a pervasive mood of fear. Yet, it is not mass terror: the victims generally know their assassins (and many are gun lovers).

Whereas mass terror affects everybody, all the time. And it is capable of destabilizing entire countries. Some say: let those countries go. The objection to this is simple: how many North Korea do you want?

Bush and Blair made a deal with the bloody Libyan dictator Gaddafi, the “Deal in the Desert” in 2004. In exchange for dropping his nuclear bomb and chemical weapons program, Gaddafi got non-prosecution for mass murders committed in the West, oil going to Britain, and then lots of prisoners sent over by Blair and Bush, to torture to death, etc. And Gaddafi also got a lasting friendship: Blair called his friend the despot to try to save him from the wrath of the French led assault onto his satanic kingdom.

Leila Alaoui, already a famous photographer, 33 years old, was on a mission from Amnesty International. Leila, a talented artist, in the company of researchers from Amnesty International,  photographed young women who had been forced into marriages, by Islamist abusers. Some were as young as 11 (eleven) years old.

Leila was shot three times when she went to buy a salad, and found herself in front of a Jihadist. He had no idea who she was, except that she was obviously a free woman. She lost a lot of blood. A young African passing by picked her up, brought her to the hospital. She asked about her driver. She was not told that her driver, also from Amnesty International, had been burned alive in his car.

The Jihadists in Ouagadougou shot everybody in sight. They assassinated a six member Canadian family who helped, in a humanitarian effort, with a school since December. And two famous Swiss humanitarians, ex-MPs who had also been on an humanitarian effort were also killed. Then the Jihadists went back to finish the wounded. Many played dead. The Jihadists set the hotel on fire. Many burned alive.

French special forces were flown from Mali, and wiped the terrorists out. If you want peace, first make war.

Meanwhile, Oxfam, a British charity, came up with its annual report on inequalities.

62 billionaires own as much property as 50% of the world population, 3.6 billion people. Since 1998 the 10% richest got most of the increase in riches.

Moreover, Oxfam found that 7,000 billion Euros of tax evasion, mostly from corporations. This is 12% of world GDP. It’s more money than the GDP of any country, except the USA and the EU.

Meanwhile, French industrial production collapsed by 50% in 15 years. It’s not all a simple, direct effect of globalization. Something more subtle is at work.

What? Why? ENA, the National Administrative School, a sort of French Harvard played a big role. Know not knowledge, but how to “Mange”, I mean “Manage”, that is, exploit, fellow men. Big French companies selected the most “intelligent” 20 year olds, those who got to the likes of ENA, coincidentally those children are those of the elite. Many of these companies had been created by “privatizing” large French public companies. Something similar happened with Russia at the same time, with the same sort of “advice”, in the end emanating of that same source of neo-capitalism, Harvard.

Volkswagen instead replaced its CEO by an employee who started at VW as a teenage apprentice.

French savings go mostly to life insurance, which, “strangely”, by French law, cannot go to investments in industry (or maybe it’s not so strange when one realizes that the legislative process is increasingly dominated by the financial plutocracy!). Instead French savings gets to government bonds, and, first of all USA government bonds, thus feeding the American financial plutocracy (as it fits into the Quantitative Easing scheme).

Just as Quantum Entanglement entangles the world as one, plutocracy entangles the world with its satanic mood. Meanwhile, a national union government arose in Libya.

What for? Franco-American attack on the Islamist State in Libya. The idea is to have the new Libyan government ask the United Nations for help. Then the West could eliminate the Islamist State in Libya.

Some will say it will make the situation worse. However, sometimes all we can do is mitigate. Come to think of it, life is all about mitigation. Only god knows the ultimate ends, and this is why he does not exist. But we do.

In recent decades, it has dawned on Non Governmental Organizations of the humanitarian type that the preceding is correct. Humanitarianism without enough force of law is a non sequitur. 

Without military force to impose the law, the law of man, ethological law, the work of humanitarian NGOs cannot be done. (Yes, there was this systematic bombing attack against Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders in Afghanistan. But that was no doubt nothing that Obama and company ordered. Both France and the USA, differently from Russia, have tried with greater attention to detail than ever, to limit “collateral damage”.)

Obama evoked these ambiguities in his Peace Award Nobel Lecture. Indeed. Only evil against evil can fight for the greater good. Goodness is the product of careful applications of evil calculus. Absent the application of force by goodness, evil moves in the moral vacuum, unopposed.

Patrice Ayme’

Long Live The Euro: 2) Friedman Ignorant Anti-Euro Rant

December 27, 2015

Is Europe an “optimum currency area”? Milton Friedman believed it was not, and he gave apparently cogent, and now much repeated reasons, why it was not. However one should remember that appearances are deceiving, the most venomous snakes look like pretty leaves. Some people do not know how to add, but they claim they can multiply.

American economist have been lying, they are paid to lie, because their lies in economy give justification to otherwise unjustifiable policies. The policies of the USA have been, overall comfortable: having eliminated the Natives, American and Canadians, like the Australians, enjoy entire continents for themselves, far removed from the rest of the world, and its often crowed, overwhelmed realities.

Whereas France is in a different situation. French major policies have not been comfortable, since 360 CE (when the elite Parisian legions revolted, refused to leave France, and proclaimed the Caesar Julian, Augustus; the central government in Constantinople was not happy, and those in-between, distinctly uncomfortable).

France did not just declare war to the Nazis in the 1930s, when the USA was busy doing profitable business with them. France has been fighting Islamists since 721 CE (before that the Franks’ James Bonds were spying on said Islamists in the Middle East).

The war with the Islamists requires much power and determination. Here is a picture from April 2015, taken at night, with a high resolution radar. The famous Second Foreign Parachute Regiment (2 REP) is dropping at night on the Salvador Pass, in the middle of the Sahara, at the Libya-Niger border. It then engaged Islamists in combat:

Reality Check: Economics Serves War. Combat In More Than Half A Dozen Countries Costs France Beaucoup Euros

Reality Check: Economics Serves War. Combat In More Than Half A Dozen Countries Costs France Beaucoup Euros

[The dots are French soldiers, and equipment, not trees. The area is the most barren desert on Earth.]

Here is Milton Friedman, that supposedly great economist, as we will see a great liar, a little man, a European war lover, in the conclusion of his famous essay supposedly demolishing the Euro. That essay is oft-repeated with glee since, by pseudo-”liberal” luminaries such as Paul Krugman, and, in general, all faithful, one should even say, obsequious, servants of Uncle Sam:

“The European Commission based in Brussels, indeed, spends a small fraction of the total spent by governments in the member countries. They, not the European Union’s bureaucracies, are the important political entities. Moreover, regulation of industrial and employment practices is more extensive than in the United States, and differs far more from country to country than from American state to American state. As a result, wages and prices in Europe are more rigid, and labor less mobile. In those circumstances, flexible exchange rates provide an extremely useful adjustment mechanism.

If one country is affected by negative shocks that call for, say, lower wages relative to other countries, that can be achieved by a change in one price, the exchange rate, rather than by requiring changes in thousands on thousands of separate wage rates, or the emigration of labor. The hardships imposed on France by its “franc fort” policy illustrate the cost of a politically inspired determination not to use the exchange rate to adjust to the impact of German unification. Britain’s economic growth after it abandoned the European Exchange Rate Mechanism a few years ago to refloat the pound illustrates the effectiveness of the exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism.”

This sounds all very smart, but, it’s mostly poorly informed BS. When one knows enough, and when one is in a mood favorable to European Unification, Milton Friedman just sound like a highly paid prostitute. What he sells is lies.

Examples of Friedman ignorance, or deliberate lying:

  1. The member countries are more important, true, but only to some extent.Even France and Germany are tied up by the various European institutions, because the latter are part of the member countries national laws (that’s called the Single European Act). So France, for example, cannot contradict the European Court of Justice, without contradicting the FRENCH Constitution.
  2. Member countries are of three types: great powers (France, Germany, Britain), middle powers (Spain, Italy, Poland; Italy is a middle power because its north is more Franco-German than Sicilian, so it’s de facto divided; Spain has the same problem: Catalonia historically is more French, or Roman, than Spanish). And then small powers. Small powers can stand in the way, but not for long (Greece being the best example).
  3. That “regulation of industrial and employment practices… differs far more from country to country than from American state to American state” is simply, a lie. A lie disguised as a truth. European regulations are extremely similar to each other, and very far from the American ones. The exception is Great Britain, which asked for an exemption, and got it.
  4. Labor is less mobile in Europe, because Europe is made of different nations talking different versions of English.
  5. If one country is affected with negative shocks”: the entire idea of Europe, Friedman, is to have no more “negative shocks”.
  6. When Friedman talks of France, he brays like an ass. The strong Franc policy is an atavism of France. France invented the strong currency thing, like 12 centuries ago. Those who did not believe in it, were boiled in wine. Alive. France applied it in the 1920s and 1930s, when the USA, the UK, Germany, and other critters tried to devaluate themselves to health (some got mad in the process). The strong Franc is a case of Germany coming to think like France, not conversely. (True France devalued in the 1960s, but then Germany wrote off more than half of its debt, with the benediction of its allies, in the 1950s.)
  7. The United Kingdom has been highly successful with its currency policies in the 1990s, and after 2008. However that is, first of all, because enough money was provided to run the economy. Although having a national currency allowed it to do so, currency independence is neither necessary, nor sufficient.
  8. Wages, prices, regulations, national laws are under convergence in Europe. Recently Germany finally imitated France and introduced a high minimum wage. German workers are now for the first time as expensive as French workers.
  9. Friedman ignores ways in which European countries are more similar to each other, than to American states: no death penalty, universal health care, strong privacy laws, labor protection are examples.
  10. The important political entities in the Eurozone are France and Germany. United, they form a superpower, especially when adding their automatic influence zone (Austria, The Benelux, Northern Spain, including Catalonia, Northern Italy, and yes, Switzerland). Since May 8, 1945, France and Germany did not have ONE serious differences, and have pursued a steady program of “ever closer union” (to use the language of the European de facto constitution). The heads of France and Germany sit together at the European Parliament, during important events. I believe, and French and German leaders believed

All right, so Friedman does not know what he is talking about.

Friedman also asserts what is well-known, that the Euro is a political project (what he does not say is that it is a French political project, because he is not anxious to spoil his hidden bias with obvious francophobia). Notice that, if some project is mostly driven by politics, that does not mean that it cannot turn out to be economical. Says Friedman:

“The drive for the Euro has been motivated by politics not economics. The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe.”

Of course a USE, a United States of Europe, would be a formidable rival to the USA, and probably less friendly to the people who paid Friedman for his flood of BS venom. Then Friedman, in his conclusion, slips into psycho-politics, a domain which mixes psychology and politics, for which, considering the long list of erroneous ideas I exposed above, he has no expertise whatsoever. Friedman is like somebody who does not know how to add, and now he wants to multiply:

”I believe that adoption of the Euro would have the opposite effect. It would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues. Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary unity imposed under unfavorable conditions will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.”

The truth? Milton Friedman, the economist does not the history of economics. Let me give him a F. F for “Failed”. The Thaler/Tollar, functioned as a currency in Europe for centuries without any political unification.

The truth? France and Germany are unifying ever more. The last divergence was about Libya: France decided to overthrow the dictator there, and Germany did not help. However in Syria, Germany, and Britain are now helping France. Germany is presently sending troops for occupation and control in Mali, because and while France is getting its shock troops for attacks in Syria and Libya.

The truth? When Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s president, decided to switch to the Euro for international transaction, thus exiting Washington’s orbit, Washington decided to make Iraq an example for those who switch to the Euro. The Washington strategists wanted a murderous mess for those who switch to the Euro, and now they have it, and one must them chuckling at night, far from prying eyes. (People like Paul Krugman absolutely refuse to understand any of the preceding, as it would murder their careers to do so. At the very least.)

The truth? In the 1940s, the Nazis and the French resistance, the Free French and the French Republic agreed that “divisive political issues” and “exacerbated tensions” came from “converting divergent shocks”. To eliminate divergent shocks, eliminate differences. In this respect, the Euro is helping France and Germany achieve an ever closer union. (Notwithstanding the sea of lies American economists swim in.)

And it’s all that matter. American Jews such as Friedman, Krugman, and all these other “mans”, should remember that, when “Francia”, the Renovated Roman empire, Franco-Germania, extended from Barcelona to Berlin and beyond, there was no discrimination against the Jews.

Why? Because the very nature of a sustainable, vast empire, is tolerance. So let a common European currency be, it will be more comfortable to divergences, hence ideas.

Patrice Ayme’

Islam: Lies & War Above Peace

November 17, 2015

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUzNcu0fhJw

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

 Islamophilia Kills

Islamophilia Kills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taqiyya appears in Sura 3:28:

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

[My translation.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

If You Want Peace, Make War

October 31, 2015

A lesson hard to swallow for those who feel peace wins all. Sometimes, all you can do, and all you have to do, is war:

Those who have never bothered to observe reality long pretended that, to have peace, one just needed to roll belly up, and make love. As anybody who has studied the wilderness can tell you, this tends to occur when the carnivores tear the soft belly of the prey, starting generally by the apparently succulent naughty bits. Even Obama seems to have vaguely realized that his entire presidency was a devouring alive of his so-called “hope you can believe”. So he is sending 50 special forces to Syria. Wow.

What needs to be imposed in the Middle East is forceful Western philosophy, the sort which has turned China around, after 26 centuries of Confucianism.

Everyday, at this point, 8,000 war refugees reach the island of Lesbos, just off the Anatolian coast, but part of the European Union. Officially Greece, which has only 11 million citizens, admitted 600,000 war refugees, in a few months. Europeans are officially sending money to help Greece, but it did not arrive yet: notice that, when people are dying, by the thousands, it’s no big deal, but if a state threatens to spend more money than private bankers are willing to lend to it, it is the crime of all crimes, the crime that the world cannot, should not, will not tolerate.

The Black Mamba Is A Fact. Kill From A Great Distance. Or Get Real Smart.

The Black Mamba Is A Fact. Kill From A Great Distance. Or Get Real Smart.

A Black Mamba can bring up a third of its body, and look a man in the eye. And it is a very aggressive, some say furious, snake, feared by all including herds of buffalos. Still prehistoric man learned to live with it very well. Meanwhile, Austria is building a wall. A wall, all along its border with Slovenia. Slovenia is, in more ways than one, basically, historically and geographically speaking, a part of… Austria.

What to do? First, find out which superior philosophy should guide us. Inebriation with the “make love, not war” philosophy leads only to four bullets in the back, as John Lennon dramatically demonstrated. Europe ought not to tolerate gross violations, gross deviations from the norms of… Western civilization. While considering the origins: for example, one cannot order Arabia to behave as civilized, as, say, Israel… Simply because Arabian brains have more work to do to get civilized. In practice, it means that the deliberate destruction of housing and other deliberate

invasive actions of the Israeli government ought not to be tolerated, because they are part of a descent to hell, whereas Saudi Arabia has to ascent from hell. So, being in hell is not enough

information: as in physics, one has to consider momentum and potential (this may sound vague, but it’s not just correct relativity, but correct Quantum Mechanics: De Broglie introduced momentum in 1924, and Bohm & Aharanov noticed in 1956, that potential energy was part of De Broglie’s reasoning, and that this had practical consequences; so this is the case where the strict analogy with physics has practical political consequences!)

Human beings do not have all the same interests. Yet, notwithstanding the unreal elucubrations of the animal rights fanatics, the rights of a Nazi, the rights of a serial killer, the rights of

Palestinian backstabber, or the rights of financial manipulators, are not the same of that of a Syrian infant landing on Lesbos. The latter are worth dying for, whereas the former are worth killing like venomous snakes.

Killing venomous snakes? Is not that uncalled for, unphilosophical, plain nasty, and unwise? A few years back, some individuals suggested that death by venomous snakes was a major problem. Generalized laughter followed, at the highest level of those supposedly in charge of world health care. Venomous snakes have interests, and therefore rights, the animal fanatics would point out, let them be. Assuredly, fighting snakes sounded biblical, and could not possibly be correct, or as noble as fighting Ebola. However those who are anchored in reality persisted.

As a child, I remember seeing many venomous snakes, and I feared them intensely. Having one in my bed was a recurring nightmare. True, there were some in the thatched roof in Ivory Coast. I also played with deadly Yellow Scorpion in the desert (“coucou be’!”), before parental intervention, and another time a scorpion stung my mom in bed. One most enlightening encounter was with a Black Mamba in Senegal (contrarily to comments on the Internet, the Black Mamba is Senegal, probably the first met by Europeans, is not olive grey, but black; it’s not just its mouth). The snake fled, much faster than I could run, or even see, it was mostly a blur. A long black blur, an incredibly long black blur, like several bull whips long, whipping all over the place, yet so fast, going where it willed.

Well, consulting reality would help: venomous snakes kill hundreds of thousand of people, every year. One of the reason? Colonial institutes such as the Pasteur Institute have found too onerous to maintain enough reserves of antiserum at the ready. You want to live, you envenomated savages? Go back to colonialism. (Somebody will have to pay for it, though.)

In other news, Netanyahu corrected his lie on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem giving the idea of the extermination of Jews. He actually said word for word what was already said on this site:

Mr. Netanyahu, was criticized by historians (some of them Israeli) for erroneous causality, had already said he never intended to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Holocaust by blaming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, but his new statement went further.

“The decision to move from a policy of deporting Jews to the Final Solution was made by the Nazis and was not dependent on outside influence,” Mr. Netanyahu posted on Facebook, in Hebrew and English. “The Nazis saw in the Mufti a collaborator, but they did not need him to decide on the systematic destruction of European Jewry, which began in June 1941…Contrary to the impression that was created, I did not mean to claim that in his conversation with Hitler in November 1941 the Mufti convinced him to adopt the Final Solution. The Nazis decided on that by themselves.”

It’s always simpler to tell the truth rather than to tell lies.

The basic story of June 1941 was related here many times: as Operation Barbarossa, the attempted destruction of the USSR, launched to the East, the 150 German army divisions were followed by 3,000 elite men from the “Zonderkommandos” (Special Commandos). The latter were older and generally of a high educational level (such as lawyers). They were also dedicated Nazis whose one and only task was to kill all and any Jews they would encounter.

Many Jews had been already killed by the vengeful Natives: when the area was invaded by the USSR, many Jews were put in charge of the occupying Bolshevik administration, earning them the hatred of the locals, beyond their basic antisemitism.

Hatred is a basic human mode of thinking. To suppress it, one cannot simply piously deplore and condemn it, one has to kill what causes it. In the case of the Middle East, Salafism, the way of the old ones (that’s literally what “Salafism” means) was the way of war.

It was even, as Islam surged in its defeat of the Persian and Roman armies, and its conquest of Syria and its repression of the rebellion in Egypt, the way of total war by extermination of all fighting age men. No, I am not pulling a Netanyahu and getting all confused. Assad and his Alawites, and many other sects, tribes or nations in the Middle East are equally persuaded that, if they don’t exterminate their enemies, they will be exterminated.

This will go on, as long as no more advanced philosophy is imposed there. Meanwhile, to survive in style, Europe needs to embrace a more sustainable philosophy, and that demands imposing order on itself and its neighborhood, by force. Reality is a Black Mamba: it can be lived with, but only given proper precautions.

But that would require correct philosophical leadership, and all the philosophical leadership we have, in these despicable times of ours, is that “markets”, that is, the richest and most obscure, ought to rule. Said markets have no market for Syrian infants, so they don’t care.

During Barbarossa, in five months, five million soldiers died (4 million of them Soviet). Barbarossa failed, because Fall rains and their mud, plus the worst freeze from General Winter in 50 years, arrived before the Nazis could encircle Moscow. Crucial in that non-achievement was that Barbarossa was delayed by 5 weeks (from May 15, 1941, to June 22, 1941). Moreover many elite Nazi units were decimated, wounded and exhausted because of action in Greece and Crete where Greeks and the British gave them a very hard time. A lot of equipment got also used up in that Hellenistic campaign, and not available for Barbarossa anymore, including lots of planes and paratroops (most of them killed in Crete). That’s why the Nazis could only get to see the Kremlin’s golden domes in the distance.

So you want to stop horrendous war? Use more war, in a judicious, and timely manner. Some will sneer, because they do not know history, and they are in no hurry to correct that, as they view history as so immoral, it should not be contemplated, let alone meditated upon (only really nasty people such as me do this, ought of sheer malignancy, or so they feel, before going to play trick or treat with their children…)

Yet war has its logic, and morality flows from it. The crime of the Jews, when Hitler rose, is that they cooperated with Hitler instead of fighting him to death (not just Republican candidate Carson said this, to some extend, but Hannah Arendt, long ago; in any case the historical record is clear).

What happened more precisely, in the case of that delaying attack on Greece, is that Mussolini, the Italian fascist leader, had invaded with his elite armies, the Albanese and Greek regions. The Greek army counterattacked, and walloped the Italian fascists. It was an extremely humiliating defeat. Mussolini had already suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the French, the previous spring. Now with the Greeks? Also there was a strategic problem: could not the British counterattack, through Greece, in the soft belly of the Great Reich, all the way to the vital Rumanian oil fields? So Hitler decided he had to intervene in the Balkans.Thus he attacked Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete. The Greeks resisted fiercely. The Royal Navy ruled the seas. Barbarossa got delayed by a crucial 5 weeks.

Now what would the peaceniks have advised the Greeks to do? Rise the white flag, offer roses to the fascists, have sex with them, give them all properties, dignity, freedom, hope. The Jews were forced into that. And still, they ended exterminated.

The peaceniks wanted the Greeks, and the French, to surrender. Such is their burning desire.  (Most of the people holding this sort of opinion are white, and probably closet racists who wanted Nazi Germany to win). Then Barbarossa would have happened on schedule, and the USSR be defeated. So, instead of having just exterminated most European Jews, the Nazis could have exterminated much more, and all Slavs, etc.

Instead the Greeks fought, as the French had done, ten months earlier. By the time Barbarossa started, the Nazi army was much weakened from what it had been, a year earlier, having lost more than 100,000 of its best elements. (Plus thousands of planes, and better pilots.)

When confronted to French fortifications on the other side of the Meuse, Nazi engineers charged with explosive backpacks, a non-sustainable technique providing with little inspiration; from their point of view, they were going to die, one way, or another, as they were stuck between the river and French guns, so it’s not like, in their minds, at least, they were really the suicide bombers they, in reality, were.

You want peace with killers? Then be ready to die, with all those, and all what you love, and respect. Yet, don’t expect those who are more worthy to follow you.

Reality has no morality. We have morality to adapt to reality. Those whose morality can’t adapt to reality have no future.

Patrice Ayme’