Posts Tagged ‘Wealth’

Eight Billionaires As Rich As Half The World, Thanks Obama!

January 16, 2017

What does Obama have to do with it? All the men below are globalocrats: they earn locally, avoid taxes, globally, and thus are used to the outlaw lifestyle. For example Bezos owns Amazon. Not making any “profits”, forever, he destroyed bookstores, worldwide, while being protected by his servants in the White House. Unsatisfied by this global heist and destruction, he bought for himself one of the four “newspapers of report” in the US, the Washington Post, violating antitrust laws more than a century old (he may have a problem after Friday, when Trump becomes president, as he is in The Donald’s crosshairs…) 

Thanks to Obama's Cultivation of The Richest, the Situation Has Got Much Worse Than This Prediction Of 2010

Thanks to Obama’s Cultivation of The Richest, the Situation Has Got Much Worse Than This Prediction Of 2010

Indeed the richest men exploit the mood of tax evasion, beyond tax evasion: that mood has mushroomed into legal evasion in all ways.

Most of the men below cooperate with the governments, to augment their power and influences, sucking on the health care system, or providing the governments with industrial strength spying, or acting as corsairs (say Gates doing business with Monsanto’s GMOs, and pesticides, worldwide), One can say they have captured the governments.

I will have a trick question. One can guess what it is, by scrutinizing the list. Here it is:

The world’s 8 richest people are, in order of net worth:

  1. Bill Gates: America founder of Microsoft (net worth $75 billion)
  2. Amancio Ortega: Spanish founder of Inditex which owns the Zara fashion chain (net worth $67 billion)
  3. Warren Buffett: American CEO and largest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (net worth $60.8 billion)
  4. Carlos Slim Helu: Mexican owner of Grupo Carso (net worth: $50 billion)
  5. Jeff Bezos: American founder, chairman and chief executive of Amazon (net worth: $45.2 billion)
  6. Mark Zuckerberg: American chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Facebook (net worth $44.6 billion)
  7. Larry Ellison: American co-founder and CEO of Oracle  (net worth $43.6 billion)
  8. Michael Bloomberg: American founder, owner and CEO of Bloomberg LP (net worth: $40 billion)

Oxfam’s calculations are based on global wealth distribution data provided by the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Data book 2016

The wealth of the world’s richest people was calculated using Forbes’ billionaires list last published in March 2016.

Remarks: Bill Gates’ wealth has been evaluated higher: 90 billion dollars. On top of that, Gates controls the Gates Foundation. The influence of that Foundation is well beyond 50 billion dollars.

Indeed, and moreover, passed some wealth, the influence of wealth is well beyond its mere size. At least three of the men above, and maybe four, are (extremely well paid) spies for the US government, operating worldwide. (When this was revealed in some of its full glory by E. Snowden, the US establishment went bersek: US high officials’ future salaries depend fully in keeping this sort of police and spook state not just secret, but unimaginable.)

The Facebook guy is under investigation in Germany for not removing death threats, holocaust denial and hate speech within 24 hours, as required by law (that case has been brewing for years). So are some of his multi-bilionaire underlings. They don’t care: evading the spirit of the law is their business model (as it is, for all the others!)

Buffet has long been interested by health care, and he has defended the health care plutocracy of the US, for decades. He is also a main pillar of the so-called “Democrats”. Guess what? He made more than ten billion in health care alone (some of it through HMOs).

Thus, do you notice anything?

Five of the eight richest men in the world are US citizens and were very much, and very loudly anti-Trump in 2016. (2017 will of course be the opposite story: since they couldn’t beat him, they will try to join him.)

Only fools will think that’s a coincidence.

Patrice Ayme’

Economics As Science: Quesnay, Not Smith

July 7, 2016

Where it is revealed that Adam Smith was Quesnay’s Feeble Student…

Faithful Anglo-Saxons love to evoke Adam Smith and Ricardo, who are famous British economists.

Adam Smith is viewed as the first temple of economics, inventor of the free market. And that is the first set of deep mistakes. First, there was never any free market, ever since there are tribes, and they are governed. Even a government of pirates has laws. Which its market obeys.

Second, Adam Smith was actually a student. All right, we all are, but some of us do like Einstein, and get “their” main ideas somewhere else. They are not the ultimate creators. Ultimate creators are the ones worth pondering: their reasons are always deeper and more interesting than that of their parrots.

Adam Smith went to France, and learned from the physiocrats. The most prominent physiocrats were towering personalities. One, Turgot, became France’s Prime Minister (under Louis XVI), another was king Louis XV’s surgeon and “first doctor” (so economy was a love of his, as it was with the philosopher who named and founded economics, Xenophon. Lovers tend to think better than those paid to think correct thoughts).

What was the idea of physiocracy? Well, it’s in the name: the power of nature. Physiocracy views economics as an application of the laws of nature, hence its great reverence to agriculture. 

Mercantilism Is Much Smarter Than This Sorry Abstract Puts it. Physiocracy Insisted That Nature, Not The Sovereign, Should Guide Economics. True, But Naive...

Mercantilism Is Much Smarter Than This Sorry Abstract Puts it. Physiocracy Insisted That Nature, Not The Sovereign, Should Guide Economics. True, But Naive…

As The Economist put it at some point: “If YOU asked twenty well-educated souls to identify a physiocrat, only a couple could help you out. Writers like A.R.J. Turgot, the Marquis de Condorcet and Francois Quesnay are not household names, unlike Adam Smith or David Ricardo. But they are important. According to one late-19th century historian, the physiocrats (who called themselves the “économistes”) created “the first strictly scientific system of economics”.

Adam Smith was half the age of Francois Quesnay when the latter instructed the former (43 versus 72). At the time, intellectuals from Britain and France heavily influenced each other, to the point theater has been written about them. The phrase laissez-faire, coined by fellow physiocrat Vincent de Gournay, came from Quesnay’s writings on China

Some say that physiocracy was a theory of wealth. In this reduced vision of physiocracy, the physiocrats, led by Quesnay, believed that the wealth of nations was derived solely from the value of agriculture. In that parody, Quesnay’s understanding of value-added was rather primitive—he could not see, for example, how manufacturing could create wealth. But that is certainly not true, as Quesnay greatly admired the Chinese universal education system, and its vaunted examinations producing mandarins who ruled the empire (without aristocracy).

Moreover, as Quesnay was France’s top doctor, he could not possibly believe that there was no added value in science and medicine. Quite the opposite. Quesnay, Louis XV’s esteemed friend, was called by the king, “my thinker”. Quite a compliment, as another friend was Voltaire. So that physiocrats believed in agriculture alone is a parody.

Farmers certainly produced wealth. To quote Karl Marx in “Das Kapital”, “the Physiocrats insist that only agricultural labour is productive, since that alone, they say, yields a surplus-value”.

The physiocrats are most commonly known for these most simplistic economic ideas which do not reflect their subtlety. Indeed these parodies are not their most important contribution to economic thought. Rather, it was the physiocrats’ methodological approach to economics that was revolutionary.

Before physiocracy, economics was not viewed as a scientific discipline, but rather a strategic one (this is what is called “mercantilism”). Mercantilist thinkers sometimes assumed that amassing gold, or military power was the best economic strategy… And indeed, it often was. Economic efficiency was irrelevant.

But Quesnay was a scientist (for most of his life, he was a surgeon, trained with the best, who then, at age 50, became an official medical doctor). And Quesnay wanted to apply the scientific principles of medicine to the study of economy. The “Tableau Economique”, which shows in a single page how an entire economy functions, and the abstruse book which contained it, is Quesnay’s most famous contribution.

Quesnay,an immensely respected figure, showed that the economy was something to be respected, analysed and understood—much like a human body. It could not simply be moulded by the will of a monarch (or government, or a bunch of know-nothing aristocrats).

This was a hugely important step forward. The elder Comte de Mirabeau, father to the main leader in the first few months of the Revolution, before an untimely death at age 40, considered Quesnay’s Tableau to be one of the world’s three great discoveries—equalled only by the invention of printing and the discovery of money. As The Economist says:

Familiar notions of contemporary liberal economics, laissez-faire, the invisible hand, etc. derive from Quesnay’s scientific approach. The physiocrats, like many other thinkers of the eighteenth century, believed in “natural order”. They showed that unchanging laws governed all economic processes. Consequently, it is generally thought that the physiocrats were opposed to government intervention: the dead hand of the state would only corrupt the natural evolution of the economy.(but, as Quesnay’s admiration for the Chinese governmental system based on erudition, and for Confucius, and Quesnay’s de facto appartenance to the government shows, that’s another nefarious Anglo-Saxon parody). T. Jacob Viner, a Canadian economist, referred to the physiocrats as one of the “pioneer systematic exponents” of laissez-faire… Alongside with Adam Smith.

But the root of physiocracy was much more general. Adam Smith was the student.

Why is the preceding important? First it destroys the Anglo-Saxon hubris that the Anglo-Saxon culture invented modern economic theory and practice. And that it succeeded because of it (whereas the proper application of gunnery has more to do with it).

In truth, it is quite the opposite. When Louis XIV, the self-flattered “Sun King” took control of the state, he discovered, to his dismay, that France had only twenty (20) major capital ships. England and the Netherlands each had one hundred (100). Each.


Because the Netherlands and England practiced the exact opposite theory to Physiocracy (which would be created in name a century later). The Great Powers, starting with the Imperium Francorum, Francia, and, seven centuries later, Portugal, Spain, etc., practiced Mercantilism, or how to create economic opportunity with big armies and then, big guns. And you know what? Right now the super states of the USA, China and Russia are practicing Mercantilism, while Europe practices Physiocracy. Obama has turned out to be a major practitioner of Mercantilism. Mercantilism has been his main activity. Europeans have not understood this at all.

Guess who is winning?

Patrice Ayme’

Essence Of The Economic Crisis

April 7, 2015

In 2008, a financial crisis blossomed. It was caused by the rich, those who control the world. Some of the rich lost considerable amounts of money, mostly to other wealthy people and institutions (who had thus become even richer). So doing, the world financial system got destabilized: bankruptcies could propagate.

The most obvious way out was to recover as much money as possible from the rich. Instead, something else was decided, by the powers that be (themselves electorally financed by those who had set-up the system that crashed, and many of them had profited from).

Since 2007, The 1% Have Gone Off The Charts, Leveraging Crisis, Through Obama

Since 2007, The 1% Have Gone Off The Charts, Leveraging Crisis, Through Obama

To resolve optimally the near-destruction of the financial system in 2008, it was decided to make We the People pay. Saving the richest individuals and institutions was objective number one. So little savers saw their saving rates go down to zero. Workers, even productive workers, such as researchers in fundamental science saw financing go down drastically. Projects went unfinanced, researchers had to quit research. This happened in Great Britain, among nearly all other developed countries (Switzerland being an exception).

Thus “Austerity” is just about We The People going starving, in all sorts of ways and dimensions. Meanwhile, the richest people and institutions in the world kept paying no, or very little, taxes.

Google in Britain made billions, and paid very little tax (a “Google Tax” is supposed to come in, the Conservatives grandly declared, a few months before the elections). Hyper wealthy Brits claim to reside overseas, and thus pay very little tax, and it is perfectly legal.

All over we see the same problem. So question: why do not the richest people and institutions, those with the greatest means, who need very little of what they have, be the first to experience austerity?

Distributing their riches would augments economic activity overall.

Conversely, not distributing the riches of the hyper rich diminishes overall economic activity.

The graph above clearly shows that this entirely a political problem. Policies (at least in the USA) were not friendly to the hyper wealthy, after the crash of 1929-1930. During, and after the war, the USA was managed in a way that was, relatively speaking, socialist.

Reagan though surfed a wave of resentment by the wealthy that originated in California with Prop.13 (and Reagan’s election as governor, and Nixon as president, earlier than that).

So here we are. A few hands take all the decisions, and they are most happy, the more they can grab in money and power.

Larry Fink CEO of the fund company Blackrock (managing more than 4 billion dollars in investments) warned companies that they are demolishing societies by redistributing too much wealth to the wealthy, at the expense of everything else.

Carl Icahn, a plutocrat worth 24 billion dollars, hearing of Fink’s critique, agreed, and lashed out at the CEO class: …”What is even more dangerous and concerning is that so many of our companies do not have CEO’s that have the ability to make investments, let alone run the companies they are now charged with…”

It is even criminal: the hyper rich, and the CEO’s class serving it, are actually not just destroying the world’s socio-economy, but threatening the survivability of the biosphere (the CO2 crisis is a case in point: a handful of plutocrats, fully using their enormous powers, have poisoned world public opinion, and decision making; so we are adding 2% of the total content of CO2 in the atmosphere, every year, half going in the ocean. That was entirely avoidable).

Most very wealthy people are not amused by Fink’s and Icahn’s opinion. They would rather deny there is a problem, they will point out that we live in the best possible world, so far.

So did the passengers of the Titanic, enjoying the most luxurious, fastest trip ever, on a perfectly unsinkable ship.

Reality can be a most ominous fate. Even for plutocrats.

Patrice Ayme’

Hope FROM Greece

January 26, 2015

Not Just Hope FOR Greece, But For Us All:

Man is a force which revolts against fate.

The revolt against Nazism was too late. The revolt against the austerity imposed by plutocrats and other lootocrats is none too early. Greece just voted for revolution, after years of exaction by the wealthiest and their obsequious servants. Finally. Hopefully, the rest of the West will follow.


One must crush infamy!” said Voltaire. It has to be done every day, even before breakfast. Infamy, indeed, never stops. Seventy years ago, the Auschwitz extermination camp was liberated. Auschwitz was just one camp out of thousands. It happened to the most literate country: it’s not how you learn, it’s what you learn, which makes a monster, or an angel.

Auschwitz was surrounded by an archipelago of secondary camps and factories where slave labor was exploited (some were managed by Americans, like the famous Prescott Bush, founder of a dynasty). Auschwitz had a much nicer sub-camp, just made for the Red Cross to visit.

Nazis Couldn't Beat The World Champion, Victor Perez, So They Shot Him To Death.

Nazis Couldn’t Beat The World Champion, Victor Perez, So They Shot Him To Death.

Auschwitz was evacuated ahead of the Red Army. The idea was to duplicate the sort of trek that had proven so useful to exterminate American Natives (Tocqueville witnessed the death march of the Cherokees). A prisoner who marched, with his brother, had been the youngest world boxing champion ever. The French Victor Perez was shot January 22, 1945. The camp commander had organized hundreds of bouts with Perez, and the small Franco-Tunisian defeated many times enormous Nazi specimens.

In Auschwitz itself, more than a million died. But the Nazis preferred to kill people here, and there, it was harder to document. Many died on the Auschwitz evacuation march.

The Nazis had lost the war, but hatred is a force that keeps on going, especially when hope is long gone. Hate is a frenzy which makes its own heaven for twisted minds.

Germany was full of hate: that was communicated from the very Prussian mood, and institutionalized with hate and fascism specialists such as Kant. By 1815, when the French got defeated with their Enlightenment, hate and apartheid against Jews and Slavs was re-established, and the road to Auschwitz re-opened.

The number one lesson of Nazism is that it originated with moods and systems of thought which ruled Germany by 1816.


The Greek nightmare is part of the general nightmare: the wealthiest and most powerful control the money making system. They bet with each other. When some of them fail, they ask taxpayer to make up for their losses.

It’s simple, yet efficient. It’s obscene, yet the way.

This is why, when the budget of Greek science was lowered by 75%, the Troika found it normal. That is why, when the public University of Crete was given a total budget which was just twice its electric bill, the Troika found this normal. The University of Crete is among the top 50 universities in the world by some criterion.

But the Troika meant to punish normal people, and especially brains: after all, that’s where the critiques come from.

Meanwhile, the largest class of Greek plutocrats (sheep line magnates and the Church) went tax free.

Everywhere, it has been the same: world GDP (the sum of all real economic activity) is 60 trillion, financial derivatives trades total 800 trillion. So most of the money in the world is created, so that plutocrats can trade with plutocrats. When some of them lose, as they did in 2008, taxpayers and the general public are supposed to pay. Pay with more austerity.

In truth, the leadership of the West is not just ethically corrupt, but even cognitively corrupt. They don’t understand the monstrosity of the decision and economic system they have created. The way out is to do like the Greeks, and revolt.

And enough to point an accusatory finger at the Euro: it has little to do with what is going on. The Troika would still be there, even if the Euro was not. What is going on is that plutocracy, worldwide controls all the major decision, and its mood is to bring ever more gloom and doom to the little guys. This process will go on, until people revolt, as they just did in Greece. What is needed is for the Greek revolt to propagate.

Krugman’s Ending Greece’s Nightmare explains the situation pretty well (except at the end where is anti-Euro mania resurfaces). Here he is:

“Alexis Tsipras, leader of the left-wing Syriza coalition, is about to become prime minister of Greece. He will be the first European leader elected on an explicit promise to challenge the austerity policies that have prevailed since 2010. And there will, of course, be many people warning him to abandon that promise, to behave “responsibly.”

So how has that responsibility thing worked out so far?”

Well, it was all a gigantic theft: Greece was lent money to reimburse private banks (many not based in Greece). The very principle of the ting was a crime: why would people have to take a loan to reimburse banks that had nothing to do with?

On top of that, the terms of the loans made them NOT reimbursable. (Technical details omitted this time, some are in Krugman). It was like a loan from the Mafia… For the good reason, that it was exactly what it was. Global Plutocracy is just a generalization of the Mafia (and, as they order the USA Army around, watch it!)

Krugman works for the plutocracy too, so he ends his editorial with the usual call to end the Euro (so king Dollar can keep on reigning!)

But the plutocrats have their fingers all over the planet, in all the pies. Even The Economist spoke in its last issue of “America’s New Aristocracy”.

The way out is to tax the wealthiest 93% as Eisenhower did. No exception. The 93% tax ought to be determined not just on income, but on potential income, and on spending. Worldwide. That will turn around the loopholes. The 93% tax ought to kick in at the level of one million a year, or so.

Taxes (and things that act like taxes, but have different names) on the middle class ought to be lowered.

Maybe Syriza and its coalition, elected today, will want to try that in Greece? An advantage is that it would help bring the Euro down where it belongs, somewhere around 80 cents to the Dollar… How? Because the Plutocrats would be terrified, that high taxation will come to destroy their little heaven of hell on Earth, and they will pull their Dark pool money out of Europe frantically…

Hope allows to have a nice life without having worked hard for it. If we want to work hard, at this point, following Syriza, we have to rebel. And let no German come up with Auschwitz related objections. And remember: the Nazis killed around 800,000 Greeks…

Patrice Ayme’


May 31, 2014

In the Roman Republic, for centuries, families’ wealth was absolutely limited. When that limit on wealth became hard to enforce from the type of globalization the imperial Roman Republic organized, the Republic fell to rampaging plutocrats.

How come? How come the absolute wealth limit, how come its disappearance led to that of the Republic? And why is this irrelevant today? The latter point should be emphasized right away, to incite readers to read further: the entire planet is now endowed, in this world empire, with the same exact sort of globalization which killed the Roman Republic… And the so-called “populist” movements erupting all over, are fighting against that particular type of globalization.

Why did the Romans limit wealth absolutely?

Wealth is power. Democracy means, literally, “People Power”. If only a few have most of the wealth, a few have most of the power, and the People are left with an insignificant amount of power. This is exactly what Rome’s fate demonstrated. That brings two questions: who is the “People”, what is “Power”?

The Roman Republic’s first answer was that, instead, a poorly defined the “Thing Public”, the “RES PVBLICA” would be the instrument of the “Senate And People of Rome”, the SENATUS POPULUS QUE ROMANUS (“SPQR”).

Tropaeum Alpium: Trophée des Alpes. People Power Built That

Tropaeum Alpium: Trophée des Alpes. People Power Built That

The Senate was reserved to Patricians (the Nobles). “Patricians” came from “father” (Pater), and Senatus from senex (old man; one had to be old enough to become a Senator). Rome started with seven kings, chosen by the Senate, elected by the People. In 509 BCE, after a revolution and war of liberation, the kings were replaced by two elected Consuls. Elected magistrates became automatically  senators.

The Senate gave “consulta” “counsels” (advices, French conseils) to magistrates, including the Consuls.

Around 400 BCE, Rome had increasing problems keeping the Celts in check. Rome ended occupied, and had to pay a ransom to get the Celts out, after being rescued, in the nick of time, by a flock of geese on the Capitol. After this humiliation, the Romans no doubt discovered that the cause came from too much power in too few hands.

In any case, laws were passed to prevent wealth to exponentiate, as wealth tends to do. The Romans had the intelligence to not be too subtle.

The main idea of the Roman (unwritten) constitution was that not one single individual ought to have power beyond some limits of duration and law. Consuls exerted power one month at a time; and the law was supposed to spare no one, as the empress (“Augusta”) Galla Placidia reminded all in the Fifth Century: this was the principle of the “State of Law”.

Limiting power implies the limitation of wealth. Because unlimited wealth is unlimited power.  

SPQR Inscribed At The Bottom; La Turbie, France

SPQR Inscribed At The Bottom; La Turbie, France

Accordingly, after the insolent Celts had been dispatched, the same authorities who had succeeded in this war, passed laws limiting wealth absolutely.

This worked fine, until the Roman Republic won, after decades of harrowing total war, the Second Punic war. It set on fire the entire Mediterranean world: Carthage, a hellish, imaginative, creative plutocracy naturally allied herself to all the other plutocracies she could find (such as the Hellenistic kingdoms). The Republic won, and won a world.

This New World gave a new opportunity for the plutocratic phenomenon to blossom. All the more as many of the best and brightest of Rome had perished on the battlefields. At the Battle of Cannae alone 60 officers of senatorial rank or higher were died in combat, along with 300 Nobles and 80,000 Roman soldiers and allies, when the Roman army got annihilated by Hannibal commanding his smaller Carthaginian  and Celtic army.

The landlords and greedsters had made a lot of money during the years Hannibal roam the countryside, renting to the peasants who had fled to the fortified cities (the walls of Rome were of cyclopean proportions). That profiteering fostered an increasing mood of profit and greed with the systems of thoughts and practices to go with it. Globalization allowed to hide capital, and escape the law.

Notice that the same phenomenon happened when Middle Age and Renaissance Europe globalized, and established colonies worldwide. Colonies tended to escape the law, blossom plutocracy, and all the evil to go with it, such as slavery.

Let’s not just whine: plutocracy can be efficient. Carthage demonstrated this by creating a gigantic empire and trade zone that brought a lot to everybody.

The USA, and Russia are living demonstration that a ferocious extermination of the natives, in conjunction with an apartheid mechanism can be most efficient to create wealth (the Russian Orthodox Church for Russia, racism and racial slavery for the USA, were the instruments of this apartheid).

Roman democrats and progressives noticed that the limit to wealth had been removed: plutocratic power was in their face. They fought to re-establish the law. The plutocrats reacted with their private armies.

Rome sank in civil wars that lasted a century. Plutocracy, that all devouring principle, won. Plutocracy stays in power best, by making the People unemployed, stupid, terrorized, and small minded. Rome slowly sank.

Far sighted Roman generals endowed the Franks with the power to constitute a second foundation. The rest is history.

Nowadays plutocracy is rising again. To block it, the best way is to use the Roman method: cap wealth. Some will sneer that the Franks did not need to cap wealth. However, that’s just because those who sneer don’t know history. The Franks not only capped wealth, but they even extinguished it periodically in nationalizations.

The first one occurred in the 720s. Invading Muslim armies attacked Francia. Charles Martel nationalized all the wealth he could find, and that was the church. With the wealth so acquired, he constituted the largest army since the Battle of Cannae.

But this time, civilization won.

Patrice Aymé

Plutocracy Supreme

April 3, 2014

Or Is It Supremely Plutocratic?

Abstract: The USA Supreme Court decided plutocrats could buy politicians with as much money as they want, calling this “no right more basic in our democracy”. With democracy like that, who needs plutocracy?


Plutocracy is an exponential phenomenon born from the growth of capital and the power it buys, breeding with the excuses the Dark Side makes for it, the increasing means the Dark Side provides with, finalized by tipping into abject cruelty and madness.

In the USA a lot of the Justice system has to do with politics. Judges and prosecutors are either elected as politicians, or selected by politicians.

Supreme Ginsburg, "Liberal" Champion, Worth: Only $20 Million. Nothing Else!

Supreme Ginsburg, “Liberal” Champion, Worth: Only $20 Million. Nothing Else!

So no wonder that the Supreme Court lifted all restrictions, de facto, on campaign financing by the hyper rich. The servants serve their masters well. And cynicism helps. “Justice” Bryer, the second wealthiest Supreme, pointed out liberally that the restrictions to the wealthy buying politicians previously in place did not work, so one may as well remove them.

“Liberally” Up Yours. It’s rather curious that someone such as Ginsburg, and Bryer, who were only teachers and a judges, their entire lives, could amass such a fortune. (Even plutocratic universities such as Harvard, Columbia and Stanford, where they were, don’t pay their professors that much.) It would certainly raise eyebrows in, say, Europe. How come so rich? No wonder they treasure their fellow have-it-alls.

The more modest the intellectual capability, the more economic it is to believe, rather than trying to think.

There are those who believe the USA is the greatest democracy, blah blah blah. How can they make their belief compatible with the eternal reign of the unelected Lords of the Supreme Court? Let alone the “Supremes” playing plutocratic politics?

We are on the correct trajectory to end up just as the Roman Republic did. The Roman Republic had a law enforcing an absolute limit of wealth on each family. After 150 BCE, Rome became a global power, and the wealthy owned properties overseas, allowing them to turn around these limits.

Republican minded Romans tried to limit the power of the hyper rich. They were destroyed by a succession of assassinations and civil war. Rome became a fascist plutocratic empire, that quickly degenerated from its contradictions (and then spent centuries in a morbid state).


The USA is obviously following a similar trajectory to folly. The practical cancellation of inheritance taxes, the lowest taxes for the rich, and their buying of their servants the politicians, and the massive propaganda to go with them, insure that the implosion down the abyss will go faster than in Rome.

The Justice of the strongest and wealthiest is no doubt the best.

The very definition of democracy “Chief Justice” Roberts uses is silly: “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”… in light of the fact he agrees to let each plutocrat give 3.6 million, to just one candidate, that is, about 72 times the average family income. About 4,000 times what one average family could possibly give. Some can exert 4,000 times the power on the elective process, and a primate is called “Chief Justice”. What democracy is that?

Even among baboons, no baboon exert 4,000 times the elective power. Baboons find the USA much removed from democracy.

Say a skeptical New York Times in “The Court Follows The Money”: “This money can then be funneled to specific campaigns through the use of joint fund-raising committees, effectively nullifying the per-candidate limit. Chief Justice Roberts blithely rejected such a scenario as “speculation,” and he ignored political reality by confining the meaning of corruption to instances of “quid pro quo,” or the direct exchange of money for political favors.

In other words, Chief Justice Roberts is either not very smart, corrupt, or both. It is weird that, in a country often defined by its fans as the “country of freedom” citizens accept to be submitted to the decisions of nine individuals nominated for life, while having obviously so little brain power.

That politicians dominate Justice in the USA has consequences on normal people, such as making them live in implicit terror. That implicit terror, among others things, enabled slavery. So slavery was misunderstood, all along: it has to do with plutocracy, not racism. Racism was a consequence.

The case of the West Memphis Three. Three poor white young boys were accused of Satanism (and this human sacrifice). Damien Echols was condemned to death, and spent 18 years on death row, as an anti-Christian. As he says: “In the USA, the Justice system is founded essentially on politics and money. I would have been dead if other rich and influential people had not been interested by the case.”

Echols and his co-accused spent more than 18 years in jail. When their DNA was finally tested, not only it did not fit, but the DNA of unknown perpetrators was found (Arkansas still consider them culprit, and condemned them to “time served”!). Echols feels that, as he puts it: “instead of talking about “Prosecutors”, “Judges”, “Justices”, as if they were moral persons. But in truth, they are just politicians, who do not hesitate to execute people they know are innocent, just to look like heroes”.

When justice is the abyss, plutocracy is its name.

Patrice Aymé

Sage Of Obama

May 9, 2012


So Say The President Of The USA.


Main Ideas: Obama declared his love, respect, admiration for one of the main authors of the civilizational crisis we are encountering, a plutocrat, Warren Buffet. A case study that absolute power corrupts minds absolutely. Will the French socialists be able to stop the rot?


Abstract: Plutocracy is defined meekly as having to do with the rule of wealth.

When the Greeks and Romans talked about “Ploutokratia“, they meant much more than just wealth ruling, but the rule by the invisible (Hades) god of the underworld (brother to Zeus = Deus). Shadow Banking, that is, invisible banking, Hades banking, here we come!

The rule of Pluto is therefore the rule of evil, not just the rule of wealth.

The fundamental civilizational crisis we are confronting is rooted in plutocracy. Plutocracy has not just grabbed all the capital, all the power. It has captured the minds, making them corrupt, stupid, and degenerate.

Obama’s love statement in “Time” (April 2012) about an ultra wealthy tycoon he calls the “Sage Of Omaha” is a case in point. Here is the president of the USA telling us that from great wealth flows great wisdom.

Never mind that five minutes of Internet search show that Buffet, in truth, owns the rating agencies, and Goldman Sachs, and use them to rat on countries, entangle them in elaborate conspiracies and corruptocracies and force them to pay enormous interest rates as they go bankrupt, and millions starve, while thousands kill themselves, out of despair.

This Buffet, according to the president of the USA, is the epitome of what is now meant by morality: a winning formula for the integrity of empire.

Nowadays, it’s clear that Obama’s sycophants have been turned, by Obama’s own acts, into Buffet’s sycophants. A fact, not an opinion. So it was that in the 1930s. Then, some called themselves “nationalists” and “socialists”, and many on the left, supported them. Just because of the way they called themselves (and the lie was deliberate, as Hitler explained in excruciating details). Another fact, not an opinion.

It’s high time for Europeans to see the actions of people such as Buffet for what they are: acts of war. We have seen that circus already in the 1930s: great wealth pushing its little pawns (Mussolini, Hitler, etc.)… and reaping massive profits later. It would be better if Americans saw it too.




Times Magazine came up with a special issue on the 100 most influential people in the world. Most of them are Americans, sell stuff, and are very rich. Among them, Warren Buffet. The president of the USA came out of presidential reserve to write an ode to him. Here it is:

“Warren Buffett


By Barack Obama

Wednesday, Apr. 18, 012

In the spring of 1942, an 11-year-old boy from Omaha made his first big investment, putting nearly his entire fortune — about $120 — into three shares of Cities Service Preferred. By June, the stock had dropped sharply, devastating his holdings.

But it’s fair to say that things got a little better for Warren Buffett after that. His shares recovered, he sold them for a small profit, and he has spent the seven decades since in a relentless search for value. Warren has seen countless financial fads come and go. Through them all, he’s sought companies with real promise and invested with integrity.

Clearly, it’s a winning formula. Today Warren is not just one of the world’s richest men but also one of the most admired and respected. He has devoted the vast majority of his wealth to those around the world who are suffering, or sick, or in need of help. And he uses his stature as a leader to press others of great means to do the same.

The Sage of Omaha has handed down plenty of lessons over the years. Today, at 81, he reminds us that life is not just about the value you seek. It’s about the values you stand for.

Obama is the President of the United States.”

[I underlined sections of Obama’s declaration that I deconstruct below]



A few Europeans of center-right persuasion commented on the preceding passage:”One can feel a sick admiration for wealth“, “Hallucinating“, “Wow, that one is pretty corrupt“… One wonders what Americans would, ought, to think of it. Generally the analysis on the left, Krugman style, is:”Romney is the devil, therefore Obama has got to be god, or, at least, good.”

I will deconstruct some of the points made by Obama above:

1) “it’s fair to say that things got a little better”. Those sort of hypocritical formulations are loved in the USA. Why hypocritical? Well, Buffet made more than 50 billion dollars. So to say “fair to say things got a little bit better“, is well below (hypo) a correct critique. It’s neither fair, nor remotely approximate to truth. If that is what Obama calls “fair“, one cringes to imagine what Obama calls “unfair”. It’s rather idiotic to be that much below a fair critique, or, then, it depicts the expectation that one expects to talk to idiots.

A formulation such as this is a lie. In truth, things got ENORMOUSLY better for Buffet. Such an hypocrisy is viewed as basic intellectual politeness in the USA: it teaches to make lying honorable.

One could apply such hypocrisy to the Holocaust of the Indians:”It’s fair to say things got a little out of hand for the natives.”


2) “relentless search for value”: What is “value” in Obama’s mind? Is it what other call financial wealth?

Buffet owns the major credit agencies (supposedly in competition with each other, especially now that they have the same owner). Then he also owns government bonds those agencies rate. Relentless indeed. When the scene of the crime is set, and the poison served, what are the knights standing outside supposed to do? Wait for mayhem? Show me how Buffet did not make profits from the debasement of entire countries. Why? Because he stands accused in the court of history. Why somebody like that is not in jail shows that the law is of little value.

3) “invested with integrity”: Surely, somebody who rigs the sovereign borrowing markets worldwide, driving governments to cut basic services, to the point millions are driven to destitution and thousands suicide themselves, is not honest. So Obama either makes a deliberate effort to misconstrue reality, or alludes to “integrity” in its two other meanings. As the dictionary has it:

b) “integrity”: the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

c) a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship’s hull.

So is Buffet a crucial ingredient in the integrity of the American ship of state, a keeper of empire?


4) Clearly, it’s a winning formula. “Winning” and “formula” take a new meaning. It’s not science, it’s not lofty, it’s all about making lots of dough.


5) one of the most admired and respected [men in the world]. If what I say above is true, and it’s public knowledge, then the people who admire and respect Buffet, are accomplices into turning the world into a buffet at which they splurge. Hitler was all too long one of the most admired and respected men in the world. Actually he made the cover of Time as “Man of Year“.

Now, OK, great godfathers in the Mafia, were admired and respected. Therein their strength. The admiration and respect Germans had for Hitler, allowed the Nazis to instill discipline in Germany with just 7,000  Gestapo officers (by contrast, a fifth as large East Germany, obviously less admired and respected, had 160,000 Stasi officers in charge of disciplining the masses). Hitlerland was all about admiration and respect for Hitler: respect and admiration made Hitlerland possible.   


6) {Warren Buffet] has devoted the vast majority of his wealth to those around the world who are suffering, or sick, or in need of help.

That’s an outright lie. As I said above, Buffet, as we speak, starve millions.

Buffet though said he would give a lot of his fortune to the Gates Foundation, an instrument of domination for for-profit companies such as Monsanto. Just like the wife of Gates is big in the Gates Foundation, one can expect the descendants of Buffet to be big too. Maybe they can employ some Obamas too. Hey, it’s all tax free, but the power and prerogative, let alone the luxury, are real.

And the integrity of empire is thus invested with maximum hypocrisy, and a winning formula.


7) “The Sage of Omaha”: With a  sage like that, who needs Satan?


8) life is not just about the value you seek. It’s about the values you stand for.

As explained earlier in Obama’s ode to Buffet, in Obama’s mind, “value” means wealth. The other values Buffet stands for are conspiracy, hypocrisy, and infamy.

It’s not just about owning the largest private jet service in the world with his friend Gates (see Foundation, above). It’s not just about owning rating agencies and selling short or going long to increase one’s value. it’s not just about owning Goldman Sachs. What is more infamous than piling up power, so as to have the president of the USA eating in one’s hand, like a vulgar pigeon, for the entire world to see? The lack of decency is deliberate: once the American People has been debased enough, it will accept even more trampling by wealth and power.



Voltaire ordered to “Crush Infamy!” (“Ecrasez l’infame!“). Crushing infamy is not a choice, nor a fad. It’s a matter of basic cleaning of civilization when pollutants like Buffet, and their brainless sycophants pile up. Otherwise the arteries of civilization will clog, and it will have a heart attack.

Before crushing infamy, we have to point at what it is. The cult of Buffet is, in my opinion, a thoroughly despicable mastermind of the humiliation and submission of civilization. Let it be despised.

Hopefully, let the French socialists will understand that when they talk to their American interlocutors, there are just talking to servants who want first and foremost to fill up their pockets by brown nosing their masters.

As president elect Hollande, said, month ago:”I will reveal who is my opponent, my true adversary. He has no name, no face; he belongs to no party; he will never declare his candidacy. He will not be elected, yet he governs. My enemy is the world of finance. Before our eyes, in the past 20 years, finance has taken over the economy, society, and even our lives. It is now possible, in a split second, to move astronomical amounts of money, threatening the very fabric of states.

“What was once merely an influence has become an empire. And, far from being diminished, it has been strengthened further by the crisis spawned on Sep. 15, 2008. Confronted by the force of finance, the pious promises of regulation, the incantations of ‘never again’ have come to nothing… Everything has been downgraded.

[Those ideas will be familiar to my readers!]

Everything has been degraded, including the presidency of the USA, now little more than a Public Relation firm for the very owner of many companies whose conspiracy is roiling the world into a Greater Depression.

People like Mr. Buffet, as his ancestors of the 1920s and 1930s  are driving the world towards dictatorship and terror. They, and their practices, were not viewed for what they were. The road to war.


Patrice Ayme


Note on wealth as hell: The idea is generally attributed to Jesus, but it was borrowed from the Greeks, who had it in writing six centuries earlier. Pluto replaced Hades in the Greek and Latin world. Ploutos, “πλούτος“, means “wealth”, but there are other Greek words for it. (Satan, from the Greek Satanas, just meant adversarial.)

At the time, a succession of Draconian, anti-plutocratic revolutions roiled Sparta, and then Athens. Draco led one of them. The Classical Greek age followed.