Syria, Garden Of Torturous Delights

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

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’

ISIS Wants 100% Qur’an Enforced

ISIS was very clear that it killed depraved sinners because they were depraved sinners, and “IDOLATERS”. Idolaters of the good life, sitting in cafe’, going to a concert. 20 foreigners were killed, by the way.

But no humanity is alien, when confronted to barbarity.

The mass killings in Paris, unfortunately confirm several of my most disagreeable theories, and did not surprise me at all. What surprised me was that I was more affected than I expected to be. A Rubicon was passed. No least, precisely, because I had seen it all before, I came to realize, considering my own history. I will come back to these more introspective and interesting questions another time.

The French president gave a discourse to the Congress in a special solemn huge room in Versailles reserved solely to this effect. He proposed to change the constitution. I think that, as the FN proposed, all known Jihadists returned from Syria should be locked up right away (in a French super-Guantanamo, but under judicial supervision). There are 1,500 of them. (And another 3,500 who did not go to Syria or Paradise, yet.)

What we have with Salafism, that is, Literal Islam, needs to be exposed. Only from the truth shall the solution springs (and that is to put in jail anyone preaching Salafism, for the same exact reason as one should put immediately in jail anyone preaching Nazism; that does not mean that remedy is sufficient: it’s not).

Pariser Platz, Berlin, November 2015. Franco-Germania At Her Best

An excellent article in the Atlantic Monthly recaps some of facts I expose on Islam over the years.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

[However the part on “Quiet Salafism” is idiotic, as it contradicts the following quotes in the Qur’an, and similar ones, all over. Those are, fundamentally, orders. Orders from “Allah” no less, the creature who more or less controls the universe (he has to share power with “Djinns” and Shaitan, that is Satan, Pluto, Hades, Belzebuth… but He does not like to talk about that (says He in the Qur’an, a grotesquely funny book sometimes). Fundamentally, Islam was devised as a war religion, and was highly successful that way, establishing the world’s largest empire, from the creation of the religion, within ONE GENERATION.

Islam did this because it was the ultimate war religion: die for Allah, go to Paradise (see below).

What ISIS wants is the Literal Qur’an. Here is a little recap on some of the bases of the Qur’an (hey don’t blame me, I did not write it!)

Question: Can a follower of literal Islam (Salafist) avoid hell by killing for Allah?

Fundamental Answer: Muslims spend time in hell for their sins.  After this punishment, some Muslims will then be allowed into paradise. Muhammad made an exception for prophets (ie. himself) and for anyone dying in battle for the cause of Allah’s religion. Those go directly to paradise. So much for the religion of peace. Here is the proof:

Qur’an (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home).  Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.”  Allah prefers the Muslims who fight and die in Holy War.  Non-violent Muslims will not receive the same reward as the Jihadis.

Qur’an (8:15-16) – “O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.  If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!”  Not only does Muhammad lay down the principle that a Muslim can serve time in Hell, but failing to kill unbelievers when directed is a sure way to bring this about.

Qur’an (9:39) – “If ye go not forth He will afflict you with a painful doom…”  It isn’t enough to believe.  Muhammad is telling those who do not want to fight that they will be sent to hell if they do not join the battle.

Qur’an (3:169-170) – “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.”  Martyrs go directly from life to paradise, where they wait for those who must first go through the Day of Judgment.

From the Hadith:

Muslim (20:4678) – It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: “Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], where shall I be if I am killed?” He replied: “In Paradise.“…

Muslim (20:4649) – The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘All the sins of a Shahid (martyr) are forgiven except debt.’

Bukhari (52:46) – I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “…Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid [warrior for Allah] in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”

Abu Dawud (14:2515) – I asked the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): Who are in Paradise? He replied: “Prophets are in Paradise, martyrs are in Paradise.”

Is this clear? Not necessarily: reading comprehension has not been favored in recent decades. What is clear is this: tons of flowers in front of the French embassy in Berlin.

It Took A While To Vanquish The Plutocracy Which Oppressed Germany. But Now The Revolution Has Won For Good

We are governed and led by idiots. Not really their fault: there is need for much more debate those fools are deprived of. The Atlantic Monthly article says what I have long said about Islam and Obama. Let me quote:

“Western officials would probably do best to refrain from weighing in on matters of Islamic theological debate altogether. Barack Obama himself drifted into takfiri waters when he claimed that the Islamic State was “not Islamic”—the irony being that he, as the non-Muslim son of a Muslim, may himself be classified as an apostate, and yet is now practicing takfir against Muslims. Non-Muslims’ practicing takfir elicits chuckles from jihadists (“Like a pig covered in feces giving hygiene advice to others,” one tweeted).

I suspect that most Muslims appreciated Obama’s sentiment: the president was standing with them against both Baghdadi and non-Muslim chauvinists trying to implicate them in crimes. But most Muslims aren’t susceptible to joining jihad. The ones who are susceptible will only have had their suspicions confirmed: the United States lies about religion to serve its purposes.

Within the narrow bounds of its theology, the Islamic State hums with energy, even creativity. Outside those bounds, it could hardly be more arid and silent: a vision of life as obedience, order, and destiny.”

If a Muslim does not believe in the Qur’an, she/he is an apostate. The Qur’an orders to “SLAY”. Surest ticket to paradise.

Many, if not most, of our esteemed intellectuals are, and have long been, complete idiots. I am thinking of individuals such as Edward Said, who professed that anyone not from the “Orient” thinking about the “Orient” was a racist.  Those stupid intellectual leaders have been adulated for their stupidity, their inability to read what they profess to admire..

They don’t just admire the Qur’an, they admire the so-called “Free Market”, in other words, plutocracy, and hide this behind obscure love of all sorts of tribalisms. Anything except the central core of humanity.

This is what we have to get rid of. Salafism will follow down the chute.

Patrice Ayme’.

What to do in Syria

Putin has intervened militarily in Syria to save his fellow dictator, and increase the probability of global war. The plutocratic principle says that evil rules best. The worst dictators embrace it wholeheartedly. But it’s not just that. It’s also how bad Putin’s rule is doing in Russia. This was all highly predictable. The Russian economy is doing terrible, the part of Russian society which dares express itself, has turned into a Putin adoration cult, and the Master cannot let go, he has gone too far, things are too bad, and too fast. All he needs is war. War in Ukraine has become bogged down by Western, and Ukrainian, resistance. Time to relaunch it somewhere else. What should the West do?

Certainly no-fly zones ought to be imposed by the Western democracies on the bloody, mass murdering dictator Assad (and his Putin ally) in areas where non-Islamist rebels dominate. Any helicopter showing up (to drop barrel bombs or not) ought to be shot down. Similarly non-Islamists rebels ought to be supported maximally (weapons, advisers, etc.) The military means exist to do all of this, the sooner, the more moral.

Master Of Heavens, Earth, the West, and the Rest

What does Putin want? War. Ever more of it. As a fascist dictator, he needs war to justify his fascist rule in Russia. That is spooky: it means that Putin will welcome acts of wars between the Western powers and Russia in Syria. However, there is little choice.

Putin is crafty: he is a trained killer, a KGB master mind (he led the KGB), and his hands are very bloody in Chechnya (where he contributed to kill 20% of the population… and the word “contributed” is kind: Putin may well have instigated the second war there). Putin has just built a mosque in Moscow… where there would be 2 million Muslims. Putin does not want a Muslim problem, so he wants to show those he subjugates he fears nothing, and the West considers him, Putin, a great war chief, whose cause is just.

If one does not fight a small evil, it may amplify, and become uncontrollable. Obama refused a small war. Now he may get a very big one. Meanwhile, Putin will keep pushing.

Patrice Ayme’

Let’s Not Do With Putin As We Did With Hitler

Things Are Getting Serious with Vlad the Mad, Kremlin dictator:

Paul Krugman noble and Noble propagandist extraordinaire at the New York Times, was in a Dubai conference, by the elite, for the elite, plutocratizing, in denial naturally, that the world plutocracy has been leading the world to catastrophe, as usual. Kremlin tyrant Putin is pretty much a product of WEF, the World Economic Forum, or is it World Exploitation F*ck-up? And Putin has been revealing, once again, his true nature, evil-power, pluto-cracy, invading and destroying. Wrote Krugman:

“A lot of the conference was actually about geopolitics, and I don’t want to think about the quite grim stuff from that end.”

Yes, let’s not think too much, or too grimly, when things are getting interesting. This is all fun and games! It must be! Fun and game world demonstrate the seriousness of the global elites! In Lima 196 countries decided that Global Warming was a problem, and all and any country had to present a plan to reduce CO2 emissions within 6 months.

Global temperatures seem ready for a significant jump-up, the exact thing I have been saying, for more than a decade, that it would happen someday. Amusingly, at this rate, in ten years, temperature would jump as high as the worst predictions… made meekly by official scientists officially paid, regarding temperatures they feared we would enjoy… a century in the future….

The gigantic Gulf of Maine has already warmed up. It was the stronghold of cod, ever since Europeans, more than 5 centuries ago, started to massively fish there. From Boston to the Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of Maine has become too hot for cods, and they vote with their fins to go somewhere fresher. At the rate we are going, cods may run out of planet within twenty years.

Back to Krugman: “Venezuela-with-nukes (Russia) keeps looking more vulnerable to crisis. Long-term interest rates at almost 13 percent, a plunging currency, and a lot of private-sector institutions with large foreign-currency debts. You might imagine that large foreign exchange reserves would allow the government to bail out those in trouble, but the markets evidently don’t think so. This is starting to look very serious.”

It is called war. War with Putin. War is serious. It’s better done early, on democracy’s own agenda, not according to the plans of the nuclear tyrant. Cratering the price of oil is part of it.

Russia’s central bank, in a bid to prevent the Ruble to turn into ruble, raised its key interest rate Tuesday, Dec. 15 2014, to 17% from 10.5%. The repo rate went up to 18%.

War with Putin, is better than the alternative, namely peace with the dictator. Fortunately, we are not following the script from January 1933 (election of Hitler) to December 1941 (Hitler declares war to the USA). During that terrible period of history, the US had betrayed democracy and its own parents, France and Britain. Now the USA is behaving in a more civilized manner…

***

Hitler Blossomed Because As Assad And Putin, He Had Western Plutocratic Allies:

War with Hitler started in 1933, as far as the French Republic was concerned (and the French economy got seriously affected by the war preparations: enormous fortifications, and being ready to field more than 100 divisions).

However, all of France’s potential allies signed deals, official or not, with Hitler. Poland inaugurated this with a January “Non-Aggression Treaty with Hitler.

Great Britain signed a so-called “Naval Treaty” with Hitler in 1935, with the understanding that Hitler could invade the East as he pleased. The Treaty allowed Hitler to re-arm as much as he pleased, in violation of the Versailles Treaty.

Meanwhile American plutocrats invested massively in the Reich. Texaco provided Hitler with all the oil he needed to transport a fascist army from Africa into Spain, and wage war there. Standard Oil (Exxon) provided secretly the Nazis with synfuel technology (not to be shared with the Anglo-Saxon militaries), IBM was given the monopoly of computing in the Reich, Ford (Hitler’s first sponsor) build thousands of military vehicles, and so on ad nauseam: the Reich had turned into an Eldorado for American plutocrats.

When France (1936) declared her intention to give weapons to the Spanish Republic, she was opposed on the world scene & had to back-off. France could not afford to antagonize the Anglo-Saxons, so the Spanish Republic got no weapon, and was progressively devoured in the next three years by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and their goons.

Spain fell in 1939. Millions more Spaniards would be eliminated by the fascists in the next few years. Great Britain had not supported the French-Czech alliance, and Czechoslovakia had been invaded. Finally the UK understood how serious the situation was, and agreed to support the French-Polish Alliance’s fine print.

Hitler supported German minorities, he said, and gave an ultimatum to Poland. This time France declared her intent to declare war. So Hitler allied himself with Stalin, and invaded Poland. But France, now joined by Britain, which had no army to speak of, declared war. The British Commonwealth soon followed (Canada, Australia, India, etc.)

What did the USA do? The President of the USA, acting on the “Neutrality Act” signed a law making it unlawful for American citizens to support France or Britain, or even set a foot on their ships. Why? France and Britain were viewed as “belligerent”.

Meanwhile, American plutocratic support for Hitler augmented.

***

Hitler Got Lucky In May 1940:

The rest is well known: the Nazis’ 150 divisions got lucky against the 100 French divisions in May 1940, however the French made it so that the small British army escaped at Dunkirk, and that prevented Hitler to establish a bridgehead in Britain.

Less well known is the fact that the top German generals asked Britain and the USA to simply say that they would support France. Then the generals were to get rid of the Nazis to save Germany. Instead, the British and Americans told Hitler that his generals were plotting against him (this happened in 1937-1939).

Lesson of all this?

The Anglo-Saxon support of Hitler was crucial in allowing Hitler to pursue his apocalypse…

And even encouraged it: Hitler made countless discourses about the democracies having no will.

Is Putin Hitler?

Not exactly, but Putin has nukes. And the foundations of their ideologies have a lot in common. Hitler thought that, to develop economically, Germany needed a greater “vital space” (Lebensraum). Putin has made it clear that he had to reconstitute a greater empire, the USSR

If we do not want to renew the mistakes of the 1930s, the lessons are clear:

France, Britain and the USA have to be united, and promote civilization. They are now joined by Germany, and the rest of Western Europe. The traitors of 1939, among them Sweden and Switzerland, are now firmly on the side of (greater) democracy and against blatant dictatorship (with which they had collaborated in 1939).

When the French Republic went to war against the awful troika from hell, Hitler, Stalin and American plutocrats, the odds were long. Right now, the odds are excellent: the GDP of Russia is less much less than that of France. The Russian economy is in free fall.

United We Have To Stand:

The difference with the 1930s is that, this time, the West is united. Hitler would have been killed by his own generals if the USA and Britain had been solidly behind the French Republic in the 1930s (instead the USA and Britain informed dictator-president-Kanzler Hitler that his own generals were plotting against him).

A non-difference with the present plutocracy in the West is that Moscow has the greatest number of billionaires in residence. Putin was encouraged by what plutocracy got away with in the West, and tried to go a bit further… big mistake.

Now the West has to grimly pursue the job.

In the 1930s, the war of democracy against fascism, by proxy, was in Spain. Democracy lost, fascism was encouraged. Now the show by proxy is in Syria. It’s an enormously complicated situation.

But, as I said, the (representative) democracies had to get involved. They all are: Australia is bombing Iraq. Great. All right, the mentally unbalanced supports of Islamism come out, and fire their weapons in Sydney’s harbor. Not surprising… except to those who did not read the Qur’an.

Mayhem comes from two sources: bad guys, and bad situations. They are entangled: bad guys create bad situations, bad situations create bad guys.

The ultimate bad situation is the CO2 crisis. There too the lesson is that the West has to be united (it was not united in the last two decades, as the USA pursued its own selfish CO2 splurging, namely 20 tons per person per year of CO2, more than double the EU’s; fortunately, Kerry went to Lima).

Hitler was encouraged by his Anglo-Saxon plutocrat friends to get ever worse, until the bad situation he had created escaped his control, September 3, 1939, when France and Britain declared war.

Putin had a bad situation, namely the kleptocratic plutocracy he created led Ukraine to break formally away by associating itself with the European Union. He tried to stop that with threats, and then, prisoner of its own rhetoric, and his thirst for oil, by invading Crimea, and annexing it.

It was the first unilateral annexation in Europe since Hitler annexed parts of France in 1940.

It will not stand, it cannot stand.

Let’s not do with Putin as we did with Hitler, appeasing a dictator all the way to an holocaust.

Patrice Ayme’

Liquidate The Liquidator

In an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro a few days ago, Dictator Assad pretended that, “In the beginning, the solution should have been found through a dialogue from which political measures would have been born.”

That was a lie: he shot peaceful secular demonstrators demanding an end to his tyrannical hereditary plutocracy, when protests started in 2011 (no other Arabic speaking dictator did this so massively). Then Assad repeated for the Figaro his refrain that 90% of the rebels are Al Qaeda. “The only way to cope with them is to liquidate them,” he said. “Only then will we be able to discuss political measures.”

First kill, then negotiate. Assad feels like Bruce Willis in the “Fifth Element”.

Assad should know: he is a liquidation specialist. “If you and Chirac want me out of Lebanon, I will break Lebanon.” Assad told Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri in 2004, a few months before two metric tons of TNT (seven Tomahawk missile warheads!) blew Hariri and dozens of other people into small bits. Hariri had been Prime Minister a total of ten years, and was the most prominent Lebanese politician. He and French president Chirac were pushing Assad’s occupation army out of Lebanon.

Why aren’t you worried about the Islamist rebels? They seem cruel and demented.

They are cruel and demented. The Assads made them so.

The Assad dynasty is about the worst of the worst. Smiles hiding criminal fury. It single handedly caused the Syrian civil war. Instead of  “liquidating” his countless enemies, an easier alternative, to reach appeasement, is to liquidate him.

As the sedate NYT puts it: “His violent reaction to the uprising led what was once a proudly secular society into a largely sectarian conflict between the majority Sunni Muslims and his small minority of Alawites, an obscure branch of Shiite Islam.

“For him there is nothing to lose,” a Damascus-based analyst said, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He cannot compromise. He has to see this through. He cannot rebuild; he cannot reconcile. He is stuck. He can rule over a pile of rubble — that is the best he can do.”

The New York Times ran the following day a report on the execution of 7 soldiers…

I read it, and send the following comment (the NYT censored nearly all my comments on Syria, something that makes me suspect a lack of neutrality on their part):

I find unbalanced that more than 95% of the NYT “pick” comments are statements using an irrelevant brutality to justify not punishing a crime against humanity by a government.

Now for the naive ones out there who are inspired by the years of infamy of the USA in 1939, 1940, when the USA refused to fight Hitler: the Assad family created that mess, and most of it, deliberately.

Although I strongly condemn Islamism, and wished the laws of war would be respected, in the case of an insurrection, it’s difficult to keep prisoners alive. Guerillas don’t run prisons. Besides, that the executions of those seven soldiers related in the NYT were brutal, and apparently unjustifiable, does not mean they were unjustifiable (the rebels claim those soldiers had committed war crimes, and recorded them in phones). The whole story was related by one of the rebles, who disagreed violently with the execution. 

A rush to judgment is rarely a rush to intelligence. Thinking is harder than sinking.

Notice that when three USA divisions were engaged in the Second Battle of the Marne, in July 1918, they made nearly no prisoners. One of the reason? The American divisions, although victorious, suffered so many casualties, they were taken out of combat after a couple of days. American GIs, confronted to immense ferocity, rose to the occasion, and replied in kind.

Most probably, Syrian rebels are doing just the same, answering massacres by massacres, after decades of massacres.

End of my (probably unpublished) comment to the NYT. 

(The GIs were also inspired by the Senegalese division by their side, which made zero prisoners, as the Senegalese knew full well that the Germans killed them racially like vermin! This sort of racial extermination went on in 1940, under Rommel’s 7th Panzer; however, by 1944, Marshall Rommel had realized that being a war criminal was not a good idea, so he ordered the arrest of the SS das Reich officer responsible of Oradour sur Glane!)

You see nothing good about Assad?

I share his official distaste for the Muslim Brotherhood. He can be amusing. As when he protested that comparing the Islamist dictator Morsi to a donkey was “an insult to the animal“. When he got to power, observers hoped that he would break away from his father’s dictatorship.

Yet, he became worse, as the Hariri assassination shows. Assad came to depend upon the Islamists to justify his own, much older terror. Terror will never end, as long as he is around. If he is not put out of commission, millions will die, and that’s the least of the problems that will arise.

Sec. of State Kerry derided common Americans as “Armchair Isolationists”? Makes you happy?

Kerry mentioned the liner full of German Jews that was turned back from the Americas, and sent back to Hamburg, and they all died. That was polite. I don’t have to be as polite as Kerry.

The USA plutocracy and its pet government, plus their honored homologues in the UK, formed the Deus ex-Machina that enabled Hitler.

You are obsessive. Plutocracy this, plutocracy that. What does plutocracy have to do with it?

Plutocracy is the rule of the Dark Side. That’s exactly what it means. Instead of the reign of Ahura Mazda, it’s the rule of Angra Mainyu. Plutocracy in that sense is more general than Jesus’ condemnation of wealth, it covers all the bad aspects of Satan as found in the New Testament and the Qur’an. Plus more.

Assad is a plutocrat in the worst senses of the term. Sometimes it’s a parody: his spendthrift wife was an investment banker in London. She is much admired there, a sort of Lady Di of Syria, rail thin.

Assad is expert at the dark art of an extremely rich family that killed hundreds of thousands to stay on top of the heap. He released thousands of Salafists to drown his legitimate secular democratic opposition, now he is whining that they are winning. His only future is death.

Assad’s plutocratic connections is why he is so popular in Britain. It’s again the same story with Britain, a semi democratic plutocracy, as in the 1930s, with Hitler and Mussolini: the plutocratic temptation. The men (and occasional women) who invented and financed Hitler were all plutocrats (as my uncle, who was in the know, told me when I was six).

Without the help, financing and investment of Anglo-Saxon plutocrats, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Franco would not even have fuel to move their tanks.

Stalin and Hitler hated each other!

They came to hate each other. But first they were allies. Even earlier, before Hitler, Stalin had helped Germany re-arm in violation of the Versailles Treaty. German generals trained in the USSR! That’s why they thought they could invade it successfully.

Britain did just the same, starting in the 1920s. There were very nasty exchanges about stealth German re-armement betwen Churchill and the French Republic, as early as 1929 (so pre-Hitler!). Without plutocrats from the USA, Nazism would not have been, and Stalin could not have developed his oil fields (thanks to pillars of the Democratic Party of the USA!).

Stalinism and Nazism were global phenomena inside which Anglo-Saxon plutocracy played a crucial role.

Can you be a bit more specific?

There is room for a 10,000 pages treaty. Not strangely, that treaty does not exist. Harvard forgot to study the subject (that Nazi songs were modified Harvard songs is a hint why!)

Jew hater Henry Ford massively financed Hitler in the early 1920s already. That’s how Hitler was able to constitute a well equipped private 5,000 men army by 1923. JP Morgan’s man was Schacht, the biggest man of the Weimar Reich; Rockefeller financed Nazi eugenics, etc.

Until 1924, Hitler was essentially an American propelled phenomenon. Some of these billionaire plutocrats, such as the Warburgs, were even Jewish. French intelligence at the time tried to expose all this, but it backfired and caused more hostility against France by those in the know in USA business circles. While the masses did not understand that they were manipulated by extremely vicious characters who had hedged themselves so that, whichever way World War Two would turn, they would profit from it.

Why would Jews support Hitler?

Just ask the peaceniks who support Assad. The head torturer Nazi Marshall who conquered Norway for Hitler was a pure Jew (Hitler then made him a “honorary Aryan“). Nearly 200,000 German Jews served in the Wehrmacht.

As Nietzsche insisted, the Will to Power tends to rule minds.

Fritz Thyssen, a top plutocrat, author of “I paid Hitler”, explained all this in great details (including later, the American plutocratic connection, with the USA government doing exactly what the hyper wealthy supporters of defunct Nazism told it to do). Don’t be surprised that Thyssen’s book is out of print, and out of reach of commoners.

Why do you always mix up the 1930s with today’s world politics?

For two main reasons. 1) The descendants of the bad actors of the 1930s and the institutions that supported them are still pretty much in power, and they use still the same highly conspiratorial methods. A method is to create, or support, very bad actors, such as Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco (in that order), and then leverage the mayhem they cause.

For example a casual look at how Egypt used to live like in the 1930s show a huge progression of Salafism Islam since. That can be traced back to the fact Roosevelt and his minions, to arrange ARAMCO and company, made a pact with Ibn Saud that involved the Muslim Brotherhood. As Roosevelt had just given half of Europe to Stalin, at Yalta, that all made sense as a great work of Pluto.

Eight years later, the CIA used Khomeini and his Shiites to throw down the democratically elected Mosaddegh (later assassinated).

2) The fact that some bad actors got away with, and leveraged themselves thanks to, crimes against humanity in the 1930s was noticed by other bad actors, who did the same. That danger is much greater now.  The stakes are much higher.

Why are the BRICS so opposed to enforcing International Law?

Obviously because they intent to break it themselves. Several of them face huge rebellions in their own empires. About half of the PRC’s empire would be in outright rebellion, if not for heavy preemptive terror. India has lost control of a huge territory. Putin used huge brutality in the Caucasus, and is afraid to lose it all. Meanwhile he made the local Christian superstition into a state religion again.

What would you tell Hollande and Obama?

That they should hint to Putin and Xi that they have got it good, controlling giant territories not historically under Russian or Han control. Russian spans eleven time zones. That’s very good.

But Russia does not need to spread its military control in the part that used to be the core of the West, the Eastern Mediterranean. Same observation for Mr. Xi: he can keep on playing on the other side of the Himalayas.

Others, worldwide, ought to be told that it will be human rights, one way, or another. When the UN was formed, the obsession was to avoid war between nations. Now the obsession ought to change into avoiding the sort of decomposition one observed in the 1930s, a mix of fascism, plutocracy and destruction of human rights.

As the movie 2010 had it: “Europa is not yours, don’t attempt a landing there.” If Putin and Xi want a cold war, they will not win it any better than Brezhnev and Mao.

In general, the BRICS became what they are, because of capital flight towards them, from the West. Financial and intellectual capital. Embraer won’t be much, without Airbus’ help and the Western market.

If the BRICS threaten the core of the West, the West can fully reel back its plutocracy. To start with, the West controls at least two-third of the world’s GDP (Euramerica alone controls 55%of world GDP).  

Considering the state of the planet, if order does not come to reign, it will have to be imposed. Auschwitz was secret, so the immoral ones could claim they did not know.

Instead Assad is loud and blatant, making the immoral ones who hide behind peace into obvious co-criminals. Damascus is not a swamp in a deserted part of Poland (as Auschwitz was). Damascus is the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. The rebels Assad gased there, are secular people fighting for survival. Assassinating their children is a crime as great as any crime known to humanity.

When the Second Cuban division invaded Congo in May 1978, the French did not ask the UN for authorization. France dropped paratroops, the 2e Régiment étranger de parachutistes over Kolwezi, and that was it. Cuba and France are in good terms now, precisely because France just said no, when it was time to say no.

Why do you say the West may have jurisdiction over Syria?

It’s a long story, and I should write a specific essay about it. However, in light of the G20 meeting, let me give a quick synopsis of the argument:

Syria was never really a nation, until it became a Roman province and reached its apogee under Rome. It was illegally seized in 636 CE by the Islamist invaders, using horendous methods. Looking that far back in the past may sound ridiculous, but the unlawful demolition of Israel by the Romans after the Second Judean war (explicitly recognized as illegal by emperor Julian around 360 CE) is the legal basis for the existence of Israel, as far as I am concerned.

France is the successor state of Rome. The Imperium Francorum is actually the fifth state of Rome, after the Monarchy, the five centuries long Republic, the Principate (starting with Augustus), and the Dominate (starting with Diocletian, around 300 CE).

Europe was officially a “Renovated Roman Empire” by 800 CE. Thus the states Francia spawned, not just France, and Germany, but Italy, Spain, Britain, actually all of Europe and its entire diaspora, are all successor states of Rome. That can be seen by looking at the Capitol in Washington and the (Roman!) law, all over.

After the First Crusade, Roman power was back in the Middle East, including in much of the green part of Syria. Legally, I do not see why it could be seen as having ever left. Call it the long arm of secular law.

That the successors states of Rome have jurisdiction over Syria is easier to explain than the presence of the Chinese or the Russian states over giant expanses they never controlled before (although Chinese armies were in Central Asia in 750 CE, after the Franks had destroyed the Damascus Caliphate). Something Putin and Xi should be made aware of: they behave as if they can mess up the historical core of the West. So why should no the West mess up with their empires?

Before and during World War Two, imperial fascist Japan generals conducted more than 2,000 gas attacks inside China. This was ignored by the world for years. But, as it turned out, not safely ignored. The act, and ignoring it, was a sign of collapsing ethics, worldwide.

There is No Hope but Hope. And Human Rights prophecize it.

***

Patrice Ayme

Secular Egypt, Civilized Egypt

OUTLAW MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

The public, live, worldwide, could see Muslim Brotherhood fanatics shooting at security forces from the gigantic, beautiful minaret of the Al Fatah Mosque in Cairo. Policemen returned fire. So it was, all over.

Colossal hypocrisy blossomed among the West’s political leaders: suddenly here they were, siding with Al Qaeda, whining about the security coup in Egypt. The leader of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Doctor Al Zawahiri became their spokesman. Was then Al Qaeda just a way to get big budgets for otherwise indefensible activities?

Do our vertiginously hypocritical chiefs ignore that Secularism is the secret of the West? Secularism means: living in one’s own age. This enables the rule of the following values, symbolized in one neat coat of arms:

Ruling the West: Ferocity, Justice, Republic, Unity, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Notice the oak for strength, and the olive, for peace. The Republican Roman Fasces, represent the power of justice, to cut infamy in two; the law as the ultimate ruler, made strong by the unity of the People, bound around the idea of justice; fundamentally the entangled letters “RF”, superficially “Respublica Francia” (in Latin) fundamentally mean “Free Republic”, republic and freedom entangled, something for the People Republic of China to meditate. This coat of arms ought to be that of the world, including Egypt!

Do our double-faced, plutophile Western propagandists, suddenly in love with Al Qaeda, want us to forget that all the countries of the West were founded by the military? Generally the military was fighting plutocrats covered by a sacred religion. Why can’t  the same courtesy be extended to Egypt?

It’s sick to see the emissary (emirssary?) of Qatar, an extreme, hereditary plutocracy, a financial support of the Muslim Brotherhood, go around Europe seduce plutophile servants of the established order (for which Qatar is a core value), who then stand by his side (as just happened with the West German foreign minister: should not Germany be cured from siding with racist plutocrats, already?).

No part of the West ever lived free under an Islamist regime: the fundamental reason is the extreme violence within much of the Qur’an.

Moreover, Salafist Islam implements a racist distinction between believers and non believers (the later being punished all the time). The multicentennial reign of Islamists, from Portugal to Rumania, was a quasi-continuous subjugation, oppression, demolition, ruination and depredation. The pleasures public slavery and impalement provided with were not to Western taste, which had evolved.

Salafist Islam is the Islam of the Ancients (that’s what Salafist means). Contrarily to bien pensant repute, it’s an extremely violent ideology, read direct from the Qur’an. Therein a crucial difference with Christianism.

After Greco-Roman philosophers complained that the Old Testament (basic to Islam) was full of atrocious lessons in barbarity, the “Founding Fathers of the Church” (Saint Jerome and company), around 400CE, admitted that the Bible was metaphorical, and not to be taken literally.

Twice something related happened in Islam: around 850 CE the Caliph in Baghdad, declared unlawful future (re)interpretations of Islam’s sacred texts. More interestingly, Saladin and his successors, in Egypt around 1200 CE, outright outlawed the literal interpretation of Islam, and they cracked down with a ferocity that I would welcome in Egypt today. (If Nazism is unlawful, why not Salafism? They are not similar by accident: Hitler had more than a passing familiarity with Islam, and sang its praises on many occasions; Hitler loved all that Biblical stuff, especially the holocausts.)

Literal interpretations of Islam reappeared in the Eighteenth Century in the wilds of Arabia, when a fanatic called Wahhab presented the ancestors of the present Saudis with a coy plot to come to power: pretend to serve the true god. So here we are: we see the enlightened leaders of the European Union calling for the return of Wahhab, side by side with Qatar and Al Qaeda.

Plutocrats of the world, Unite! How touching!

The reason why Muslims spend much time killing other Muslims, is that disagreements naturally arise about who is, or who is not, a genuine believer (the distinction is left unclear in the very short Qur’an). While the call to kill, or, at least, to abuse non-believers is unambiguous. Hence the circus in Syria. There, too, secularism is the only way out not involving a holocaust.

Why do the leaders of the West want Islam to rule Egypt? Because it was so great when Christianism ruled?

Christianism’s rule in the West, 16 centuries ago, brought a sudden apocalypse (not by accident: Christianist imbeciles had read in their sacred texts that the apocalypse was supposed to bring back Jesus!… So they did their best to bring an apocalypse, by taking countless bad decisions).

Christianism brought the end of any semblance of republic, the reign of superstition, decerebration, crusades, the Inquisition, Sharia, religious wars, the institutionalization of racism (against intellectuals, secularists, Jews, Pagans and countless exterminated minorities). All non believers were exterminated (except the Jews, because Jesus had been one; with uncharacteristic Christian generosity, the extermination of the Jews was contemplated, and half carried out).

Christianist rule has a name: the Dark Ages.

How did the West get out of the apocalypse? Through military force. The military is intrinsically fascist, because that’s best for fighting. However, the best performing military, to achieve higher performance, also needs to be up to date in its weapons and thinking. In one word: secular.

The Franks became the shock troops of the Roman empire, because they were highly multicultural (living in present day Netherlands, between sea and land, Germania, Gallia and Roma), and ended up with the best weapons (the Celts had the best metallurgy, and equipped the Roman army since its inception!)

As the Franks helped Constantine conquer the empire, they knew how Constantine’s Christian sausage had been made. They refused to join, as the threat to secularism (on which, as I just said, the Franks’ supremacy rested) was clear to them.

Similarly, the Egyptian military is an excellent position to know how the Muslim sausage has been made (and the double faced role the Euro-Americans are playing with the Islam game).

After trying several times over 150 years, the Franks finally took control of the (North Western) Roman empire and subjugated apocalyptic Christianism.

Christianism devastation went on elsewhere, for another 150 years. That led to a systematic destruction of reason, wisdom and knowledge. Roman intellectuals, and their books fled to Persia, followed by a terrible war between the Oriental Roman empire and Persia. Constantinople had to agree to be nicer to its own intellectuals, at some point. But won the war.

Muhammad pointed out to his Arab followers that the time had come to attack the Romans and the Persians. The Arabs were hungry, ferocious, and, at the time, their women followed them in battle, preventing them to flee (!) and finishing wounded enemies. (Then the Arab army got lucky, twice, but that’s another story.)

So it’s fanatical Christianism and the resulting mental degeneracy it entailed, that enabled the sudden take-over by Arab raiders known as “Muslims”, of most of the Roman empire, and all of Persia.

Tellingly, the one place where the Arab armies would be annihilated three times in a row was the place where fanatic Christianism had long been turned into a force for (secular) education. The Franks had completely defeated the viciousness of the Pope Gregory the Great (usually celebrated as “great” in conventional historiography). The Gregory the Villainous threatened to burn alive bishops who allowed “grammar” to be taught (that meant secular knowledge). But the bishop of Dignes (south east France), so threatened, was protected by the Frankish army. Gregory had no army (the Roman emperor Charlemagne created the Vatican state, more than two centuries later).

So Christianism made the bed of Islamism. Better: the Copts, that is, the Egyptians, did not believe in the Trinity (because of a 4C bishop of Alexandria, Arianus, had a problem with a triple god who was nevertheless one; he had refused the subtle balance between Jesus, Zeus, and the Logos). That’s why the Muslims do not, because the relative of Muhammad who told him what he saw in the desert (some Archangel), was a professional Christian Copt monk.

The idea of superstition is to find an idea that stands above the world. That may be appropriate sometimes, to save a civilization. However, civilization exists to create ideas, and so any civilization resting on a superstition comes quickly into contradiction with itself. No doubt the Romans came to that conclusion, and, well before the end of the Republic, had embraced all religions. As long as they did not call for human sacrifices (those where completely eradicated), or as long as they behaved (after a major scandal, the Egyptian cult of Isis was outlawed for a while). Thus:

Sustainable civilization means secularization. If a civilization is not secular, it is, or becomes obsolete.

Putin ought to meditate this, as he gave Christian Orthodoxy with a Russian sauce a quasi state religion status; Peter the Great viewed Orthodoxy as the major problem of Russia, and took shattering measures to break its grip (an inside joke, as Peter broke himself the limbs of some religious fanatics on the wheel, just to have the pleasure to hear them plead for their lives).

To deny secularization to some countries, because of their Oriental origins, as many political leaders in the West just did, is sheer racism.

Secular Salic Law. Civilization Without Secularization A Degeneration.

[This is a tiny part of the Salic Law; it had 65 chapters to start with, and underwent constant changes and augmentation; by 600 CE the law made all inhabitants of the enormous empire a Frank, without consideration of origins or religions; a Jewish Syrian selling camels in Paris (!) could have Frankish children.]

The West was not founded by Islamists, or Christianists, or other deluded Superstitionists. The West was founded by Secularists, firmly grounded in reason. The West was founded by the Salian Franks. Those “Salted” Dutch ruled through the secular Pactus Legis Salicae (Pact of the Salic Law).

The main difference between Salian Law and republican Roman Law was the replacement of many death penalties cases by more humanitarian fines.

Greater humanism was the main difference between old Greco-Roman civilization and the “RENOVATED” version the Franks imposed, and celebrated.

Aristotle had contemptuously pontificated that civilization needed slaves, so that people like him could sit on their haunches and think of higher things.

The Franks contradicted Aristotle: let there be machines, beasts and bioengineering to serve us.

The Far East (China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia) also practiced bioengineering: new varieties of rice were developed, that produced twice a year; around 1000 CE. This is one of the reason why the population of the Far East exploded. Another, of course is that the Far East was secular: Confucianism, Taoism, and (original) Buddhism have a very low superstition index. Thus the Far East developed a lot of science and technology on its own, and that advanced civilization. The Middle Kingdom and its neighbors thrived for the same exact reasons as the West.

In the end, the West dominated more because, starting with the Franks, and the abolition of slavery, it was less oriented towards using people as machines or animals. But it was a close call, as the Christianists and Islamists nearly annihilated civilization (Western books were saved mostly through Zoroastrians, and the regard most Caliphs of the 8C and 9C had for… Greek culture… there again following another twist in the Qur’an…).

Written in Latin, the Salian Law was purely secular.

Just by imposing secular law, the Franks, more than 15 centuries ago, got rid of aggressive Christianism. The Franks literally founded the West with precautionary Christianophobia. It was high time. True, the Franks claimed to be “Catholics”, but the Catholicism they imposed had nothing to do with the religious terror that brought Rome to its knees.

Even before the Qur’an had been written down, the Imperium Francorum sent spies to find out who these Islamists were. A case of precautionary Islamophobia, right from the start. The Franks long viewed Islam as a form of particularly aggressive militarized Christianism. They were familiar with the problem: hordes of black dressed monks, especially in Egypt, had laid civilization to waste, three centuries before.

France has been at war with invasive, aggressive Islamists ever since. 60 generations of hostility.

Why can’t Egyptian security forces be given the same liberty?

Or do Western leaders whine because time is up on their ravenous instrumentalization of Islamization, their counterfactual, perfidiously manipulative, identification of Islamization with civilization? Are they afraid that their oil supply is threatened, or that they will have to start treating Arab speaking people not just as Muslims, but as full human beings?

An organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood, operating inside the French or American republics as it did in Egypt  would be outlawed overnight, and lethal force would be used. So why not the same in Egypt?

When Western leaders talk as if the Muslim Brotherhood was holy, a case of human rights, they are just hypocritical, lethally vicious and racist. The Muslim Brotherhood ought to be outlawed in Egypt as it would be in the American or French Republic.

It is easy to understand why corrupt leaders in the West would want Egypt to stay under the oppression of an ideology invented in the desert by analphabets, 14 centuries ago: this way, 85 millions Egyptians, and 35 millions of inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula, where the oil comes from, and much money, would stay subjugated, ruled by their pseudo-god fearing masters.

But for those who really care about the well-being of Egyptians, there is no doubt that getting rid of 1650 years of delirious, somewhat satanic variants of the religion of Abraham, will help. Abraham? The despicable character who wanted to please a satanic boss (known as “god”) to the point of killing his innocent child.

Where, in the entire history of humankind, can we find something as condemnable as a foundation of elevation? Notice it’s the boss himself who stopped the servile crazed psychopath would-be child killer’s hand. So bosses are the fount of humanism! Especially after they order to kill children?

It certainly makes sense that the despicable Barroso, head of the European Commission, another living incarnation of Star Wars’ Jabba the Hut, who does not mind 50% unemployment rates in part of the European Union, according to his plutocratic god, would threaten Egypt (with cutting aid to starving people). The barbarian Baroso embraces the Muslim Brotherhood, as a new trick to make the youth suffer more afield.

The ancient Republican Romans knew what to do with a thought system that had turned wanting to kill children into a religion: annihilate it.  They face it with Carthage. No doubt that, if Carthage had not sacrificed children, it would not have been annihilated by Rome.

The inhuman pulsion to kill children inherent to Abrahamism was probably copied from Carthage and Moloch. Abrahamism was adopted by Rome, later, but, by then the Republic was in pieces (in a telling detail, Constantine, the self described “13th apostle”, inventor of Christianism, killed his adult son and nephew; he also steamed his wife).

To rejoin the forefront of civilization, it long occupied, Egypt needs to become secular. Those who, from their heavenly secular fortresses, think otherwise are just Twentieth First Century racists. Let them join Al Qaeda. Sorry, they already have.

Polls show more than 80% of Egyptians support the security crack-down against the Islamists. “Moderate” Islamists have no more than 15% support. Faced with the determination of the 500,000 strong Egyptian military, the plutophile cowards who lead the West will no doubt back-off.

The fact remains, in that fatidic week, when Egypt plunged in a remedial civil war, our money loving Western leaders showed their face, and that was the face of Al Qaeda. I do not doubt that they are going to put some new mask on, and change the subject real quick. Yet, it was a very revealing moment.

***

Patrice Ayme