History: First, Thoughts & Moods

August 3, 2014

When historical historians look at history, they tend to look at the antics of history, and their heroic actors. All too much. Although the first historian, Thucydides, analyzing the Peloponnesian war, concluded that it was caused, first of all, by the anxiety that the rise of Athens brought in Sparta.

Athens rose because she was a democracy. Sparta could not rise the same, because she was not constituted that way (ironically, Sparta had created Athenian democracy, by an armed intervention).

Peter The Great was more than two meters tall, he walked very fast, he was hyper active, domineering, he fought the “Old Believers”.

The way Peter looked at it was different: he wanted to replace Russia’s old moods and systems of thoughts with one grafted from Western Europe. To accomplish that, he determined, to his dismay, and sometimes with lots of humor, that no violence was high enough.

4,000 Year Old Celtic Crosses Switzerland

4,000 Year Old Celtic Crosses Switzerland

Semiotics is also endowed with huge mental inertia, and capability to generate mental structures: the appeal of the cross preceded Christianity by millennia, in the West.

Clearly, looking at it objectively, considering the fanatical resistance of the “Old Believers”, Peter had no choice. He was actually extremely patient, waiting years before he struck all out.

Some will whine about how violent it all was. Yet, no Peter, certainly no Russia, as we know it. Peter even contributed to the conquest of the cold regions, by having the “Old Believers” fleeing there.

The big change between the Greco-Romans and the Franks was the Franks’ refusal of going on with haughty, exploitative discrimination. Both the discrimination of the Christians, or, more exactly, the Catholics, against non-believers, and the discrimination against slaves.

When one looks at the complicated history of the Americas after the Europeans landed in force (in contrast to the weak landings of the Vikings, 500 years prior), the greatest explanatory schemes comes from biological and philosophical systems.

In biology, the Europeans were simply immunologically stronger, the Eurasian-African cesspool-petri dish, being the world’s largest.

Philosophically, the exploitative philosophy of the Conquistadores was inexhaustible, until Charles Quint called off the Conquista (precisely to stop the holocaust). They collided head to head with the Portuguese, who, although just one million, were even more hyper, in the same way.

The French, who were next, were much more careful, all too careful… Too careful with their morality, not enough with their persons and that of their allies.

Thus Philippe II sent an armada to annihilate the French colonies of the Carolinas, down to Florida. France was the enemy, being too tolerant of the Protestants (who had founded said colonies). That was highly successful, down to the last baby.

Another example: the French over-civilized the Hurons. Once the Hurons were civilized and grew crops, the Iroquois, still proudly savage, and seeing in the Huron thought system the enemy, swooped in, and killed the Hurons to the last.

Voltaire was a pseudocrat, someone with pseudo power. Voltaire became immensely rich by manipulating the highest powers in France, England, Prussia and Russia. Voltaire, under the guise of the Enlightenment, unconsciously made the work of the Dark Side. How? By advising Louis XV’s and his Pompadour not to die for a “few arpents of snow in Canada.

Indeed the English colonies in the Americas had been founded by the “West Country Men”, top English plutocrats who knew no bounds to their exploitative schemes.

Thus English America was not just founded by some men, and some accidents, but by an extreme exploitative mentality. By advising the French to fold, Voltaire posed as politically correct, Buddhist, wise man of the mountain, Christian saint, whatever despondent philosophy beasts are forced to embrace when they get devoured.

However, all what the boyfriend of Frederic the Great achieved, was to give free reins to the exploitative mentality of the West Country Men, who won the World War of the Seven Year War (1756-1763; known myopically in the USA as the French and Indian Wars))

Hand in hand the French and German presidents stood today, August 3, 2014. They were on the “Man Eating Mountain”. More than half a million French and German soldiers died there, in combat.

The presidents laid the first stone of a memorial monument to World War First, financed by Germany and France.

Why not? The French and German share the same system of thought, Republican, and the same mood, Democracy. No Kaiser in sight. The Kaiser, that is, plutocracy, was the system that ruled Germany a century ago. Cornered by the rise of democratic forces all over, all the way to Siberia, and even inside the Reichstag, Prussian plutocracy gambled that it could win a world war, and all would fall its way.

Now France and Germany are ruled by the same general mood and thoughts.

That’s how to bring peace and harmony. And nothing else ever worked, but for distance. The latter being something we absolutely do not have anymore on this small planet.

Take another example. Viciousness is a human trait. Corruption is maximum, when it cannot even be evoked, or denounced. Yet, that mood has often come to rule.

How does one fight that mood? By yet another mood, a higher one. To avoid this sorry state of affairs, where viciousness, say in the leadership, intellectual or political, cannot even be evoked, the honor of the human spirit has to rise above all. Including offending all too common courtesy. Moods against moods.

History has been, first of all, about moods and systems of thoughts. They compete, they fight, and the best overwhelm the rest. You know, like the West did with the rest.

Need a proof that this happened? Watch the United Nations (whose head just spoke of “criminal” acts by Israel: “This attack, along with other breaches of international law, must be swiftly investigated and those responsible held accountable. It is a moral outrage and a criminal act,” Ban Ki Moon’s office said.).

Some fear the clash of civilizations. They are wrong. Clashes can be good. They can be a form of debate.

History is about civilization clashing, colliding and coalescing anew around better ideas, a bit like stars are formed. We should welcome such clashes as we should any effort that gives us everything we have that is good, our superior mind, the Fifth Element (found in Vedic, Celtic, and Greek mythology).

The best example of a fruitful clash of civilizations, of moods and thoughts, was the clash between Celto-Germans and Greco-Romans. It gave us. It gave us the West, for the rest.

Patrice Ayme’

MULTIVERSE IDIOCY DISSECTED

August 2, 2014

Physicist Sean Carroll, “explaining why the many-worlds approach is not completely insane“, says: “If the particle can be in a superposition of two states, then so can the apparatus.”

This fundamental error, that everything is a superposition of states, is the essence of the idiocy of the Many World and Multiverse error.

Why Mr. Physicist Carroll? Why is it that, for you, if something is a superposition of two possibilities, then so can be something else? Where is the logic in that? There is none whatsoever. Let me show you why. Why that’s illogical.

Maybe, sometimes, because something can be cut in two, say a fish, another fish can be cut in two, or a million fishes can be cut in two, indeed.

The fact that fishes can be cut in two, because one fish can be cut in two, does not imply that everything else can be cut in two.

For example, the fact that one can cut fishes in two does not imply that the sea can be cut in two. Such is the Multiverse error, a very fishy argument.

Quantum Dot: Fuzzy, Not Discrete!

Quantum Dot: Fuzzy, Not Discrete!

Transmission Electron Microscope Image of a single InAsP/InP Quantum dot (left; “In” is for Indium); such dots exhibit discrete electronic energy levels (Right Top), and this allows, upon spatial and spectral filtering, the generation of single photons on demand (Right bottom).

That some process can result ultimately in two states, does not mean that the sea, or anything else, will be a “superposition of two states”.

When we mention “the particle” (whatever that is) and the apparatus (whatever that is) we are talking here about things of completely different natures, obviously.

What’s the difference? Or differences?

Obviously, “the particle” is being measured. And it’s measured by “the apparatus”.

One is “Quantum”, “the particle”. The other is classical, the “apparatus”.

What’s the most basic difference between “Quantum” and “Classical”? “Quantum” is dominated by DISCRETE states. “DISCRETE” here is in the strict mathematical sense (in bijection with a subset of the natural numbers, N).

Discreteness of light emission is how Planck explained the Blackbody Radiation and resolved the Ultra Violet Catastrophe.(1900 CE)

Discreteness of light reception is how Einstein explained the Photoelectric effect. (1905 CE.)

Discreteness of electronic orbitals is Bohr explained the structure of atoms. (1912 CE.)

Discreteness of non-self-interfering-to-destruction waves is how De Broglie explained all the subjacent discreteness, uncertainty, interference and basic dynamics. (1923.)

Classical mechanics is NOT discrete. We do not understand why. It’s a major mystery.

But the passage from Quantum to Classical has been studied experimentally in simple, particular (namely made of PARTICLES) systems.

Let’s go back to Sean’s statement:

“If the particle can be in a superposition of two states, then so can the apparatus.”

I just said that “Quantum” is characterized, as its name indicates, by discreteness, a superposition of states.

In other words, in Sean’s view the foundation of the Many World Interpretation/Multiverse theory is that Quantum = Classical.

Yet, the very concept of “Science” comes from the ability of scindere, to cut in two, to make distinctions.

By ignoring the most basic distinction, that between Quantum and Classical, the Many Worlds/Multiverse theory reveals itself to not be science.

Yet, it’s even worse than that. The Multiverse error is reminiscent of the blind alley of the Epicycle theory of Ptolemy and company, 2,000 years ago.

Patrice Ayme’

Notes: 1) The error was inaugurated by Everret, a student of Wheeler, 1963 CE. At the time it was viewed as horrendous (probably for the reasons above, but they were left unsaid; the preceding is my reasoning, entirely). Everret was driven out of research physics (although there were lots of jobs at the time).

2) Bohr and his followers had got the ball rolling, by murky attacks against reality itself. It was debatable at the time, as some then-not-discovered particles (say neutrinos) led to apparent violation of energy-momentum conservation.

3) The philosopher Heidegger, maybe inspired by some of the less wise, contemporaneous statements of Bohr and company, insisted that the distinction between “subject” and “object” be eradicated. Unsurprisingly, he soon became a major figure of Nazism, where he was able to apply himself to further lack of distinction.

Camus Mudified

August 1, 2014

I read on an Academic site in the USA that: “Albert Camus supported French colonialism”. That struck me as grotesquely incorrect. An horrendous statement. (And I am not particularly in love with Camus’ work.)

Unsurprisingly, my retort was not published. Amusingly the initial essay was called “Stifling Discourse On the Left”.

Why was I stifled? Because it’s obvious to all “bien-pensants” (well-thinkers) that the stifling French rule in Algeria was a terrible, colonial thing.

Once a citizen of the USA expressed that opinion, that the colonial French deserved what had happened to them in Algeria. He was a geologist, an old friend of my dad. You know, the way friends are made in the USA: fair weather, and not too deep, politically correct in all American ways.

My dad an Algerian born geologist who discovered Algerian oil and gas (while employed by an Algerian oil company). He found the verbal trashing of his homeland inspiring. He retorted: “Certainly, there would have been no civil war in Algeria, if the French had killed all the Natives, the way it was done in the USA”.

The American “friend” was not amused at all. He and his family ceased all and any contact with ours. So much for the great American friendship. His name was Birdstall.

Camus was brought up by his mother in Algeria, where he was born, under extremely modest circumstances. Poorest of the poor. Saved by the Republican educational system (when it still worked). To call Camus’ family background “colonial” is an insult.

The excuse to trash Camus is always the same. After he got the Nobel in literature, a student called on him to take a stance about the civil war in Algeria. Camus retorted, off the cuff, that: ”Si j’ai a choisir entre ma mere et la justice, je choisirai ma mere” (or words to this effect). “If I have to choose between my mother, and justice, I will chose my mother.”

Well, “justice” is a social construct. One may well find oneself in conflict with it. Just ask dozens of millions of Mitteleuropa citizens, in the 1930s and 1940s. Or any country, just before a revolution. Algeria was in a revolution in the 1950s, justice was taking a back seat to motherhood.

It has become common opinion that the good guys were from the Front National de Liberation. The opinion was all the more common as it advantaged the USSR… and the USA.

However, most people living in Algeria did not support the FNL. How do I know this? Among other things, there was a vote! In the early 1960s, more than 60% of the Algerian population voted for the new French Constitution.

That was the first, and last free vote Algerians would get.

As The Economist put it in 2001: ”… given that the French army by the end of the 1950s had more or less won its war in Algeria, why did Algeria nonetheless gain its independence? If Mr Stora is puzzled, Mr Wall is not… French public opinion was sickened; the French intelligentsia was outraged by the practice of torture; and, “just as important”, America could not accept French policy.

Did Charles de Gaulle, summoned back in 1958 to meet France’s constitutional crisis and end the Algerian war, realise all this? Conventional wisdom is that he was France’s far-sighted saviour, accepting almost from the outset that the loss of Algeria was inevitable. Mr Wall, having trailed through both French and American archives, disagrees. De Gaulle’s acceptance of Algerian independence was a belated pragmatism, forced on him by his failure to win over the Americans, first under Eisenhower and then under Kennedy.

…pessimistic implications for the future… the United States was a critical force in pressing France to accept Algerian independence.”

That’s also my opinion. To make matters worse, the average French population was anti-Algerian racist (both against Muslim and Pieds Noirs)… And so was De Gaulle (who made very clear racist statements).

That was not just criminal, but thoroughly idiotic.

Why? Because it made a travesty of reality under the guise of political correctness, when all it was reflected a subjugation to the USA’s White House, and its attached plutocratic Congress.

What was the idiocy?

Most people in Algeria who did not support the FNL. (Nor did they support the French colons, who were a small, distinct class… And they did not support those colons for the same reasons that they did not support the FNL).

Sartre, and many “intellectuals” support of the extremely cruel FNL was an offense against civilization (later pursued with Sartre’s support of hard core “Maoism”).

The FNL advocated publicly terror torture of toddlers. That some elements in the French army used torture on some terrorist suspects is a separate issue. The French army never advocated publicly to torture toddlers.

Do you want to live in a country where the leaders have advocated torturing toddlers? Few would. So, when De Gaulle, on orders from the USA, gave Algeria to the FNL, he was being treacherous and stupid: of course most Algerians wanted to move to France, as being overruled by blood thirsty tyrants had little appeal.

So De Gaulle did his best to prevent that mass exodus. Still, the pressure is still on, and 52 years later, it’s much easier for an Algerian to immigrate to the USA, than to France.

And guess what? The present president of Algeria, Bouteflika, a corpse in a wheelchair, is an ex-general from the original FNL.

So what of Camus? In truth Camus begged to differ with most of the French intelligentsia, which was more into being a well thinking herd, than really thinking, and this is why he got trashed. Still is.

Camus wanted the Algerian Civil War to stop. Camus wanted the Republic to be strong, and motherly. But the Republic is relatively weak, and getting weaker. Those who conquered entire continents (Anglo-Saxons, Russians) are stronger. Their reasons are thus better. If nothing else they sit on all that oil and gaz. Even if the ground explodes cataclysmically, nowadays, with all that warming:

http://mic.com/articles/95232/those-massive-black-holes-discovered-in-sibera-are-even-more-alarming-than-scientists-thought

(Thanks to Alexi Helligar for informing me of this!)

It does not matter. The ground explodes? War is their friend. Let there be war. It’s just a matter of not being on the losing side. A chorus of well-paid intellectuals singing their praises, is most helpful. Yesterday the Bible, today those who recite their well honed version of history.

Dragging Camus in the mud by modifying his beliefs is deeply dishonest. So was the devastation of 1962, when many populations which lived in Algeria before Islam was invented, and Arabic written, 3,000 kilometers away, found themselves in a worse tyranny than they were under Paris’ boot. (Only the Jews could flee in majority; many ended in Israel.)

The future of Algeria? Just wait for the oil and gas to run out. Then the other shoe will drop.

Patrice Ayme’

Multibrain: Republic, Democracy

July 29, 2014

Some brainiacs such as the philosopher Michel Serres (of “France decapitated”), make a big deal that France is a “Republic”, and the USA a “Democracy”. It’s the sort of mock sophisticated distinction that those who want to look intellectual embrace. Serres has taught in plutocratic universities of the USA, he should know better. Or, maybe, he knows better how to serve his masters than yours truly. The distinction is without merit.

First it blows up the differences between France and the USA. In truth, both Republics are much more similar to each other than they are, to any other regime in the world (including the United Kingdom).

Differently from Rome and Athens, the USA and France were born as entangled republics. Both Republics have recent imitators, namely dozens of modern states.

Second, the main difference between “Republic” and “Democracy”, as it happened 25 centuries ago, was just a matter of language and esthetics. The beauty of how the concept sounded in Greek did not translate in Latin (‘Populus-Imperium” has six syllables).

Athens called itself a “demokratia”, because demokratia was a Greek word. Greek spoke Greek, Romans spoke Latin.

Too Big For Debate Killed Respublica

Too Big For Debate Killed Respublica

But democracy was not exclusively a Greek concept. It was as strong, if not stronger, in Rome.

Indeed, the “rule of the People” is how human societies have always worked best (except during war): distributed intelligence, creating the super-brain effect, from the many brains debating. TheMultibrain effect. Whereas, indeed, I do not believe in the “Multiverse”, the human brain, and, even better, any human society, is a multiverse onto itself.

Democracy allows to tap in this multiverse of the multibrain. Democracy is a multiverse. For real.

So the Romans spoke Latin. They had two words for “power” in the sense of “rule”. “Potestas” for lower magistrates, Imperium” for higher magistrates (Consuls, Proconsuls, Praetors; “Censors”, although higher magistrates, did not have the “Imperium”).

It would have been all too long, thus awkward to make a single word with “populus”, “potestas”, and “imperium”. Thus the romans instead used the Thing Public (Res Publica). Later the Demos-Kratos of the Greeks, Latinized into “democracia”, was used.

But that does not mean the Romans did not practice democracy. They did. Real democracy, that is, direct democracy. In practice, there was little difference between direct democracy as practiced in Athens, and that practiced in Rome.

(But for the fact that Athenian democracy lasted two centuries, and the Roman one, around five. Also, even under the Principate founded by Augustus, many Republican functions kept on going, and it was not clear that the Republic had stopped, as the weird transition between Augustus and Tiberius amply demonstrated.)

The various Roman “Magistrates” were masters of diverse functions, and represented those functions. They implemented People Power, they did not displace it. They did not represent people, just functions.

Rome, or at least the Roman Republic, which lasted five centuries, ignored that oxymoron, “Representative Democracy”. SPQR, the Senate and People of Rome, lasted so long, precisely because the Romans refused to be represented in some theater, by professional liars. (For those who don’t know, oxymoron is Greek for “sharply stupid”.)

Athens’ democracy failed, because, as Demosthenes pointed out, the Greek city-states refused to make the tremendous war that was required to get rid of the fascist plutocrats from Macedonia. In the end the war came to them, and Antipater, one of Philippe’s senior generals, took Greece over thanks to enough torture and execution to terrorize the Greeks into submission (130 years later, the Roman Republic freed Greece, and the legions were then withdrawn).

If it was so good, why did Rome quit Direct Democracy?

I have argued that it was because of the rise of plutocracy. That’s entirely correct, but then the question occurs of what allowed this rise.

I have written detailed essays pointing the finger at the Second Punic War, the rise of the war profiteers, the death, or dilution of the really noble Patrician families’ spirit (whose ancestors had conducted the Roman Revolution in the Sixth Century BCE). I also pointed out to the fact that the Roman Republic became, thanks to that war, around 200 BCE, a global power.

All too many rich, powerful families were then able to do what is now called “inversion”. Namely rule from abroad (where Roman Law did not apply). So they escaped confiscating taxation that was meant, precisely, to decapitate the plutocratic effect.

But there was another pernicious effect of the vastness of the Roman Imperium.

Athens had met it already. In the Athenian Assembly (of the People), important decisions needed a high quorum. That meant distant farmers had to travel to Athens for a few days. That was expensive, so the Athenian Republic paid for distant farmers to come to vote.

The situation was much worse in Rome.

The Athenian City-States ruled Attica, which is about 100 kilometers long. The Athenian Imperium extended at some point to the Black Sea (to insure the wehat supply). Moreover, all Athenain dependencies could be quickly reached by boat.

Not so with Rome. Cities such as Numance (Numentia) sat in the middle of Northern Spain, weeks of travel from the sea.

Rome was physically incapable of maintaining communications fast enough to maintain direct democracy (in any case the old democratic set-up in Rome depended of the detailed status of citizens within “tribes”, and would have had to be severely modified just to extend to Italia).

Very slow communications was the deep down root killer of Roman direct democracy.

We don’t have this excuse. Not anymore.

Quite the opposite. Whereas Rome experienced a loss of opportunity as the empire extended, modern technology, the Internet, offers us the ability to do as the Romans did under the Republic: vote all the time, about anything.

We don’t need no stinking representatives. Freedom is a mouse click away.

Patrice Ayme’

DIVING INTO TRUTH

July 27, 2014

What’s truth? Many a philosopher sat at his desk, pondering “truth”. Can experience with a desk bring truth? No. Only action demonstrates truth: truth is what works.

Tilt over like an otter on her back, big gulp of air, lift the fins sky high, and the blue of the sky turns into the deep blue sea, a universe wilder than outer space, yet through which the human mammal can dive masterfully. The blue yonder is pierced by the silver and gold flashes of sunlight violently reflecting on fishes’ scaly skins amidst undulating algae. Who wants to fly? Everybody. Forget artificial wings. Flying is practiced best with fins and goggles.

A school of 200 depths’ yellowish, dinner plates sized denizens groups up, and rotates to intimidate the suspicious predator in their midst. Another fish with red stripes let me approach, simply happy to extend his impressive spiky dorsal fin. A message well received: don’t touch me there, or anywhere.

Trans-Species Cooperative Intelligence At Sea

Trans-Species Cooperative Intelligence At Sea

It has never been so easy to approach so many fishes. Either the fishes of the area are less hunted, or they learned what a spear gun looks like.

Solo deep sea diving is about the most dangerous sport imaginable. Death can happen at any moment by losing consciousness, and falling to the bottom of the sea (there is no buoyancy below 13 meters down or so, even if one started with full lungs, so one sinks).

Losing consciousness? Try to spend 56 minutes out of 60 below water. Solo deep sea diving, being the most dangerous sport, is best to test one’s philosophical ability and control. Indeed, it requires a perfect theory of truth.

A perfect dive is a perfect truth.

A logical system has two elements:

  1. The basic rules of the subjacent logic L. (“The logic”.)
  2. The semantic truth S in the engulfing universe U. (“the semantics”.)

Basically, a) says how to make well-formed propositions, and b) which ones are true.

L contains axioms, so does the semantics. Where is “TRUTH” in all this? It’s both in L and S.

Truth = L Union S

The main axis of thinking ever since civilization has prospered has been to reduce S and augment L. Why? Because S embodies factual truth, it can be enormous.

For example in animism, S is enormous: every tree, forest, spring, animal, and even cloud shape is endowed with a soul of its own. Modern science has reduced this to zero (inasmuch as it impacts their behavior).

In Elementary Particle Physics, S is disturbingly large: the so called “Standard Model is full of free parameters and mysterious symmetries (sometimes on, sometimes off, for no known reasons).

For a while in physics, it looked as if S was reducing to a few principles (such as the conservation of energy). But then the on-going main interpretation of Quantum Physics blew up the Logic to hell. Semantics became everything.

How? By claiming that even what seemed impossible has a non-zero probability of occurring. In today’s Quantum Physics, camels go through needles, it’s just a matter of time.

Nietzsche tried to reduce S, the Semantics, to the Will To Power.

That’s, of course, stupid.

The Will To Power mostly rises in social animals. Such animals defend themselves as one, mind, the mind of the leader, so determining the “best” leader (namely the meanest) is of the essence.

A better reduction of meaningful motivation in human beings, and, more generally, animals is the much more general Will To Survival. All the power most animals have, is to insure their survival.

All these fishes I was gliding by, had a theory of mine, a theory of my mind, more exactly. You could see it in their eyes, how they wobbled, and fixated, until, reassured, they went back to considering other tasks, They had deduced, from their experience (S above) and the logic L of the situation (my non-threatening behavior), that their survival was not compromised.

What dominates species out there, in the jungle or the sea, is survival. The Will To Survival. Survival is determined by what is true.

Human beings are truth machines. And so are all brainy animals.

Fishes are very brainy.

Those doubting this should see a grouper inciting a moray eel (muraena) to hunt. The grouper is good at catching fishes in the open, moray eels are supreme in cracks and holes. The grouper goes to the muraena, whose head full of large sharp teeth observes him. Then he shakes his head right and left, in a gesture simulating the motions both eels and groupers make when swimming.

It may require several attempts, but then they go hunt together, the eels below the rocks, the grouper above. Suddenly, in flash of activity, many fishes meet their demise. Both fishes are five times more efficient when hunting together.

If a fish escapes from a grouper and hides into a crack, the grouper often goes to the closest moray eel he can find. Then he entices the eel to go fishing. Then the grouper repeats the head shaking dance, more slowly, where the fish went to hide. Then the eel dives into the hole. (Groupers, who are known to be very clever fishes, also cooperate with other fishes.)

Grouper and eel eat, because they have discovered a few basic truths.

Truth is what works.

Notice that the nature of the work Moray Eels and Groupers can do is limited. Thus, so is the notion of truth they can reach. Octopuses are very intelligent, they can unscrew bottles. However they live only a few years, and have no means of cultural transmission. The drama of the Octopus is that every single individual has to reinvent everything.

Advanced life has made intelligence ubiquitous, but finding truth has been highly constrained by the nature of the work species can do. The genus Homo, though, could work in the forests, in the savannah, in the trees, on the cliffs, across streams, and even arms of the sea, or under water. Even before it became super-brainy. And that’s why it became super-brainy.

Our ape like ancestors developed vast notions of truth, because they could do all sorts of work. In turn that created an ecological niche, the superiority niche, which made intelligence a greater advantage. (Until the recent reign of vegetarians, the politically correct, and other gallant promoters of weakness and retardation at the cost of brutal logical efficiency… Or simply the crutches of advancing technology: the present Homo seems to have significantly smaller brains than late model Neanderthals.)

How does that fit the [Truth = Logic + Semantic] equation above? It’s simple: Semantics is true, when it works, and Well Formed Formulas in logic are also what works. As science progresses, Semantic Truth’s empire shrinks, while that of Logic expands. How? Ever more logic shows how, and why, the Semantic Truth is actually the work of logic.

From the physics perspective, “action”, “work” and “truth” are all the same, as the Principle of Least Action ties them up together: the truth of the trajectory, the truth of the evolution of a process, is what minimizes “work” (of/in the physical action). Wherever we look, we see it:

Truth is what works.

Patrice Ayme’

Note 1: Science Is What Works, INSTINCT IS FAST LEARNING, and TRUTH AS ENERGY contain elements of the preceding, while developing further other perspectives.

Note 2:  So what is the difference between humans and animals? The greater capability in humans to do all works, so construct all truths, including the work, and truth, of cultural transmission.

Obama: Un-American Corporations

July 25, 2014

Bait, Switch, Bait, Oops: Obama Discovers His Sponsors Are Scofflaws.

After baiting us, Obama could have done a lot when he became president. He did not. Instead he switched to the will of those mentoring and monitoring him. As early as 2007 Obama was surrounded by plutocrats, and had been told to keep his real friends away… by said plutocrats (some of whom already mentored Bill Clinton that way).

It was all the easier to do, as Obama, just like Clinton, did not know much, beyond his hunger for domination, and how to navigate by pleasing everybody. If the only people who know much around you are plutocrats, plutophiles and their servants, that’s all your universe is. Just like the world the Cathars depicted, it’s dominated by the Devil, and its name is the Good Lord.

In the first three months of his rule, Obama could have done much. Such control of government (Congress, Senate, Presidency) is rare.

Although it’s true that the banks needed trillions to keep going, Obama could have financed them with the Treasury, instead of TARP and Quantitative Easing, and thus acquire control of them (as Reagan and Bush Senior, two eminent Marxists did, in an earlier, similar crisis). But of course, when one is a child with his toys, with senior plutocrats in attendance, baby-sitting, it’s a ridiculous perspective.

Even a series B actor like Reagan knew more. Now the Marmot-In-Chief, realizing the hour is late, has woken up.

President Obama called for Congress to end a tax loophole that allows big corporations to designate a foreign country as their official address, avoiding American taxes while maintaining their presence in the United States. (Individuals trying this without using anonymous companies go to jail, or risk destitution. Plutocrats, though, just set-up perfectly legal companies off-shore.)

Same said companies also avoid big taxes from other big countries (Germany, France, UK, etc.), and accept them from tax havens (Ireland, Luxembourg, British Virgin Islands, etc.) So it’s not just the USA that is at fault.

The president indulged in unusually harsh language to describe companies using the relocation practice, known as “inversion”. Obama claimed they were renouncing their American citizenship by “cherry-picking” the nation’s laws at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.

“These companies are cherry-picking the rules, and it damages the country’s finances,” he said. “It adds to the deficit. It sticks you with the tab to make up for what they are stashing offshore… I don’t care if it’s legal — it’s wrong…You shouldn’t get to call yourself an American company only when you want a handout from the American taxpayers,”. The audience booed the companies.

Mr. Obama called on Congress to close the loophole, as he poses for what White House officials call a “new economic patriotism”. The president is pressing that argument as elections approach in the fall.

Republicans refused to consider the president’s tax proposals. And the question is… why did Obama not impose all this on day one, in 2009? When he had control.

Because he never intended it to pass. Or maybe he did not want to be shot.

Now that he is sure that it won’t pass, he is trying to pose as a great progressive.

History will see through these games.

Yet, it’s good Obama talk about this. By ignoring such subjects, We the People has been an accomplice to its own demise.

Patrice Ayme’

Obama, Neo-Con

July 24, 2014

About this title: Obama enabled maximally prominent Neo-Cons to represent and govern the USA. When I asked Silicon Valley cognoscenti what it meant for a supposedly “democratic” presidency to nominate maximally prominent neofascists, I was told: “They represent the HIDDEN government of the USA.”

For years it was incorrect to point out that emperor Obama had no clothes, that all he had was playing with his brown skin. That observation was called racist. Yet, it has been made recently, loud and clear, by leftists of renown: president Obama has been incompetent, and a sell-out. As Thomas Frank puts it in Salon:

“Right-wing obstruction could have been fought: An ineffective and gutless presidency’s legacy is failure.

Yes, we know, the crazy House. But we were promised hope and change on big issues. We got no vision and less action.”

Change? Skin Color

Change? Skin Color

Within days of Obama’s accession to power, banks were given public money without any counterparts. This was an outrageous theft of public money. I advocated it was “Time for RICO“. I may as well have told the mafia to summon the police.

Just as Reagan-Bush 25 years ago, and Sweden later, after 2007, the UK and Germany nationalized giant banks such as Northern Rock, RBS, Hypo Real Estate, when they had to give them hundreds of billions to save them. Instead in the USA, the banks were given trillions, without so much as a change of management; the fact the banks were given money was hidden by the simple device of TARP, then giving plenty more to banks through Quantitative Easing, to reimburse TARP…

To the great applause of conscientious, politically correct “liberals”, such as drummer boy Krugman.

This has world consequences: it made American financiers rule the world, more than ever; GE, saved by Obama’s $60 billion, just bought a French giant competitor, Alsthom. This is the Faustian deal of the USA: its plutocrats may rule the USA, but they also rule the world, and that increasing empire profits average Americans.

The dying Roman Republic went through a similar Faustian bargain with its increasing militarization: the resulting empire profited the Populus Romanus, while killing the Republic. The most insidious corruption corrupts the souls.

Real Change: Beggar In Chief

Real Change: Beggar In Chief

[Profitable presidency: Obama spent at least 400 day raising billions from the richest plutocrats.]

Then, unbelievably, Obama kept on saying he could not do a thing without Republican’s approval (never mind that he had 60% of the votes in the Senate, and a strong majority in Congress). It was, Obama explained disingenuously, a new way of doing politics by consensus. The savages opposing him rejected it, Obama’s fanatics informed us, thus making him a failure.

In truth, Obama had such strong control of all the government and the legislative, he could easily have imposed “Medicare For All“.

I have said all of this in the past, but, from another pen, my point of view comes out stronger. Thomas Frank again:

“America should have changed but didn’t… [how] to explain an age when every aspect of societal breakdown was out in the open and the old platitudes could no longer paper it over—when the meritocracy was clearly corrupt, when the financial system had devolved into organized thievery, when everyone knew that the politicians were bought and the worst criminals went unprosecuted and the middle class was in a state of collapse and the newspaper pundits were like street performers… for an audience that had lost its taste for mime and seriousness both. It was a time when every thinking person could see that the reigning ideology had failed, that an epoch had ended, that the shitty consensus ideas of the 1980s had finally caved in—and when an unlikely champion arose from the mean streets of Chicago to keep the whole thing propped up nevertheless.”

As early as 2009, it dawned on me that Obama was neither incompetent nor a sellout. I said so on some leftist sites, and was promptly thrown out, as a “troll” and a “Neo-Con”. Obama was a Neo-Conservative from the start and was chosen for that, by the higher-ups of the “democratic” party: they gave him a keynote speech, and their top master operative.

Obama practiced Dick Morris and Bill Clinton’s theory of triangulation — basically the democrats do the republicans’ work for them: democrats deregulated, balanced the budget, and unleashed the financial markets of the USA, while allowing huge corporations to pay no taxes. Clinton declared that the “era of big government is over.” Big banks, small government.

All of this covered by noises to the contrary while the notorious weasel, Dick Morris, chuckled. Weasels are somewhat below apes in the evolution of evolution. Not to worry, French judges never heard of Dick Morris, and he is white, in any case.

Nearly all American leftists, including myself, did not see early enough that Obama was a Neo-Con with Martin Luther King’s mien. We got manipulated by his speeches and rhetoric. His King-style voice rhythms sucked all back to the nostalgia of the progressive 1960s.

We were blinded by political correctness. I recovered quickly, in the first few weeks of Obama’s administration: it was clear Obama was all in rhetoric, and no action.

Obama claimed he could not do a thing, because the “Republicans” blocked him. In truth, fifth generation plutocrats such as Max Baucus, a major democratic senator, were the excuse Obama evoked, in democratic circles, to say he could not a thing. (That Max Baucus lather authored “Obamacare”, is pretty telling.)

I wrote, on this site, about the commonality between Obama’s behavior and that of the “boys” who used to serve white masters in Kenya. Some in my family wrote to me I had trampled on their hearts, and had no common decency. I replied my decency was uncommon. (No doubt it made their stays at Camp David less comfy, so they have hated me ever since.)

Obama is a far more competent Neo-Con than Bush Jr., or even Reagan, ever were. Those had opponents. Obama got collaborators, all over. No banana peel shaking for him. No need for French judges.

The two Bushes generated a backlash and really could only rule in secret, or though devious means. Obama instead pushed the agenda of Wall Street Banks, USA corporations, and the CIA/NSA much further than Bush ever dreamed of, by going public about it while carefully misrepresenting the truth.

For example, Obama officially clashed with Netanyahu. However, below that surface of enmity, extensive cooperation developed, say on anti-missile systems (the fact I like those systems is irrelevant). Such systems were crucial to allow Israel to not negotiate with the Palestinians.

Clinton was the best president the republicans ever had. Under him Franklin D. Roosevelt’s revolutionary reforms of finance and banks were completely undone; Rubin, that is Goldman Sachs and their followers were solidly in command. Clinton, while officially at war with Newt Gingrich, was actually doing the work the Republicans could never have done, had Bush Senior still been president.

As the Republicans got all they wanted, the debate switched further to the right. When the democrats acquired control of Congress in 2006, they went right. Pelosi and company accepted to give all the money banks and shadow banks wanted in 2008. Without any counterparts. Obama became the best president the Neo-Cons could dream of.

Obama once convoked all the top bankers to the White House. He announced, triumphal, that the Obama team was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks”. He delivered. Thanks to political correctness, nobody important dared say that the emperor had no clothes. That, would, indeed, have deemed to be racist. Still is. But not for long.

The picture that will stick with Obama is the one I observed six years ago: a black boy, serving the white masters. and not for brains: under Obama, the share of scientific publications by the USA has collapsed. Why? Under Obama, plutocratization has jumped (as I said, because of the treatment of finance). So it has in academia. But money has deleterious effects on research (if nothing else, it creates the wrong mood and obsession).

Obama ran his first campaign as “change you can believe in”. Yes, none at all. Obama, at best consolidated Bush’s Neo-Con rule. At worst he is still the engulfing lie that appearance is all what reality is about.

Patrice Ayme’

War Can Be Good. Never So Political Correctness.

July 21, 2014

War can be many things. Kepler declared, his 30 year “war on Mars”. He won: Mars followed an ellipse, not a circle.

That war can be many things, some of them good, was understood by Jesus, and Muhammad. The Qur’an advocates “Jihad”, a war-like effort. Some situations, they said, are best dealt with the sword (for the record I do not approve of using the sword against “unbelievers” as Jesus and Muhammad advocated; instead I propose to smother them with ideas).

Real war can be, not just justified, but the only solution. In particular, war against those who want war for no good reason is always justified. Turning the other cheek won’t help.

War Is The Essence Of Plutocracy

War Is The Essence Of Plutocracy

Dean Mitchell: “I have to disagree. The history of war shows us that there is always a vested interest in war that has nothing at all to do with justice. Justified war seems like madness to me.”

Nathan Daniel Curry: “…To turn the other cheek requires a very deep metaphysics to make any sense. The problem is why war repeats. The reason is our societal models. Patriarchy does not work. Only a triune society can intuit the complexity of human nature and hear the sense of lack that breed the myopia that leads to helpless people lashing out in cruel and pitiful ways. The truth is they are not helpless. It is the ego that preaches that doctrine.”

Hearing this argument, Florent Boyer smiled: “What about the Amazons?” Indeed, the Amazons! They really existed. Women princess warriors buried with weapons. So much for the patriarchy thing.

My Arrows Pierce Sexist Males

My Arrows Pierce Sexist Males

[470 BCE Greek vase representing an Amazon. Notice the pants, the skirt, the shield, and the arrows' quiver.]

And so forth. With all due respect, all the objections above remind me of someone protesting a thunderstorm by pointing out that it damages leaves, except that smart insects can crawl and hangs below the other side. All true, indeed, but irrelevant to a family whose roof is been taken apart by a tornado.

Stopping war is not about calling Hitler “my friend”, and sending him love letters as the Mahatma Gandhi did. Stopping war is done by launching efficient systems of thoughts and mood.

The Franks shadowed the retreating Huns after helping to get them out of Orleans. A few weeks later, with the standard Roman legions headed by Aetius, and the Visigoths, the Franks crushed the Huns. 375 years later, or so, the Franks penetrated the three concentric rings that defended the Avars in Hungary, and destroyed them.

The Mongols of Genghis Khan, who descended directly from the Huns and Avars, remembered all this. So, after reaching the Adriatic in present day Croatia in the Thirteenth Century, they reminded each other that their weapons had proven of little use against the Franks (who had invented tactics the Mongols adopted). It was decided to stop the Mongol advance, and stay in the steppe.

That’s how one stops war. Through terror. Through past shock, future awe.

This master idea, that “Justified war seems like madness to us” was held by Central European Jews when confronted to Hitler. They clang to it with the intelligence of barnacles lashed by waves.

As I have observed, seconded by Hannah Arendt, that those “Jewish Councils” collaborators of Adolf Hitler. This deliberate, willing collaboration only incited the Nazis to go further. Instead, the Jewish Councils ought to have screamed bloody murder, and screamed for help from the French Republic. That would have made it easier for the French to declare war unilaterally on Hitler, without waiting for British agreement.

Those who believe there are no justifiable war, are not just mad, they are, with all due respect, the sort of people who enabled Adolf Hitler. And the like. And there are really a lot of Hitler-like leaders out there.

As I explained in the Will To Extermination, man is all about exterminating man. Complaining about war, is complaining about man. Instead of begging not to take part in war, ask what war is worth fighting, and which one to avoid.

In this light, Nathan’s eternal return of a state of war, sounds like the eternal return of man. That war repeats is not a problem. The problem is that the problems that made war the only solution, keep on repeating. Fortunately, change is in the wings. When the ocean starts rising 10 centimeters a year, and a billion people catch the fancy that they are not fishes, and would rather live somewhere else, while energy supplies get constricted, the military is going to be busy. The false debate of whether war is just in the mind, will vanish.

Especially as countries that have purchased pieces of other countries, try to impose their sovereignty.

Dean Mitchell: “I understand that position, Patrice, but the problem with Hitler was wholly contrived. Sniff out the danger when it is obviously there instead of encouraging it and there is no need for millions to die.

War is never an “only solution” except as a profiteering racket. Men go to war to act as pawns of the puppet masters.”

Patrice Ayme: Sniff out danger? Whatever, Dean, whatever. It did not happen like that. Hitler was not a the monster out of the depths, who surfaced like Godzilla, taking over the world. Quite the opposite. Hitler was the master tool of a massive conspiracy that involved Soviets, American, English, and even German overlords.

To this day, that conspiracy has not been “sniffed”. Mention it to the average Joe, and the reaction will be hostile: the notion disrupts the established order of thought.

The Devil is in the details, camping on one’s own good will, and self-admiration, is not a solution.

War is a solution, but it is rarely tried first.

The best example is France, from 1919 to 1939. France knew that the Germanoid superiority monsters, having got away with their demented crimes in World War ONE, would try again. The help of the British aristocracy (Lord Russel, Keynes are some of these famous double agents, on the intellectual side), and American plutocrats completely blocked the French Republic (Hitler got colossal financing from Henry Ford as early as 1920; while the entire government of the USA expropriated Germany before redistributing the proceeds to some of the most evil men in the USA… who found German henchmen to serve them, such as Schacht).

The French republic tried to stop Hitler and his fascist mentors for 20 years. Finally, on September 1, 1939, France gave Hitler with a 48 hours ultimatum to get out of Poland. On September 3, around 11 am, Great Britain and then France, declared war to Germany.

Yes, the Nazis were right, they did not want that world war (not yet! They were not ready). Yes, France started it. But it was a matter of survival.

Dean Mitchell: “Remove Hitler and the likelihood was that there would have been no war.”

Patrice Ayme: Once again, France tried her best. But France had in her way London, Wall Street, and even mighty German-American Jewish (!) plutocrats as the Warburgs. Yes, the Warburgs collaborated with Hitler, not, as the “Jewish Councils”, with the rat-like wishful desire of survival, but out of sheer greed for money and power.

The French secret services tried to break the Warburgs as early as 1934, while the French government tried to persuade Washington D.C. to stop the USA’s plutocrats support of Hitler. All that did was to make Washington hate Paris.

Dowd, historian at the University of Chicago and then USA ambassador in Berlin agreed 100% with the French. His best friend was Francois-Poncet, the French ambassador. Both used to amble the close by Tiergarten, the Berlin zoo, to escape Nazi eavesdropping, while fearing assassination.

Furious that Dowd could NOT get along the Nazi government, and his dire warning about those thugs, Roosevelt removed Dowd in 1937, and replace him by a pro-Nazi: Roosevelt was into helping his plutocratic class. In London Roosevelt put the outrageously pro-Nazi Kennedy as ambassador. And so on.

Hitler annexed 3 countries, invaded a fourth. Finally, Britain found its spine. At that point, France could only attack. What did the USA (plutocrats) do? Provide crucial military support to Hitler.

All of this has been occulted in official history.

But, yes, there are just wars, even if they killed 70 million, 4% of humanity. The Secession War, according to the latest, best estimates killed 3% of the USA. That, too, was a just war.

Bismarck said: ”Real philanthropy consists all too often into knowing to shed blood”. Bismarck, who was a great man in many ways, launched a lot of wars, and an empire, all quite successful, from his point of view, and yet bound to cause catastrophe because all too many Germans ended up confusing war and philanthropy. (Just as the present USA confuse plutocracy and philanthropy.)

So there is clearly a risk to overdo it. War can be an eternal return of the same, just worst: after two millennia of intense military activity, France has not recovered, by a long shot, the borders that Gallia (“Gaul”) had when the Romans started to invade it (Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Northern Italy… The natural borders, in other words, used to be in it, when the Romans were made to pay ransom to the Celts).

But then, again, when the Prussians attacked in August 1914, they committed war crimes and atrocities on a deliberate, industrial basis, as ordered from above, as soon as the first few days of the conflict. Surrendering to them, at that point was surrendering to barbarity (that was naturally the notion advocated by Lord Russell, a highest British noble, and thus a relative, spiritually speaking, of the Prussian aristocrats; the Kaiser was a descendant of Queen Victoria).

So it’s not just that “war is a continuation of politics by other means” (Carl Von Clausewitz’s Vom Kriege (On War) published posthumously in 1832). It’s not just that Bismarck’s more radical expression was correct. Let me go all the way, all the evolutionary way:

War is the continuation of life by the means of death, it’s what humans do. Forgetting this, is forgetting not just what humanity does, but what humanity is.

As I explained before, the unique position of humans as the apex creature for millions of years, has made it so. War is how man is regulated. Just as there is the law of the jungle, there is the law of man, and its name is war.

To ignore this, and switch to the “politically correct” mode, where wishful thinking is the absolute good, facetiously brings, even more war. The Nazis said so much about themselves that they were and wanted to be, “immer correct” (always correct), that they forgot the big picture.

That sea, now rising by nearly two centimeters a year in Bangladesh, means war. Those who ignore it, are collaborating with the coming war, the greatest humanity will have ever brought.

And those who want to mitigate the coming disturbance, need to be armed with the correct theory of war, instead of just making war to reality, armed with comfortably numb illusions.

Patrice Ayme’

Note On Amazons: Advanced technology, namely the bow and the horse, made women into as capable warriors as men. Women ride better than men, and they can be just as precise, if not more so. Some empires that brought the Amazon phenomenon were distinguished by multi-decadal war expeditions by their men folk (up to a documented 28 years in one case), so the women had to do everything, including procreating with alien warriors.

Slavery: Black, White, Plutocratic

July 19, 2014

A French woman was condemned to nine months in jail, for insinuating that Taubira, a politician, was from the same family as a hairy relative of an apparently less intellectual nature. In France, when one insults the leaders, one goes to jail. That’s the law. A recent law, too, that did not exist four centuries ago.

And yet, as Galileo whispered, after been condemned for claiming that the Earth rotated: “she rotates”. But, in present day France, judges judge reality, they did not learn from their Papal forebears. Want some more reality? Here is the famous painting “Convoi De Femmes Captives

Africa: Steel, Slaves & Guns Before Europeans Came

Africa: Steel, Slaves & Guns Before Europeans Came

“Homo” and “Pan” (Chimpanzee) are of the same “family”, in the scientific sense. Both are “Hominidae”. French judges are blinded by the “politically correct”, rather than by science.

Because of the prominence of politically correct thought, rather than factually correct thought, the French unemployment rate is about twice what it is in Germany, Great Britain, and the USA. I probably just gravely insulted the “ministres”, and should be put in jail.

Dominique Deux, an esteemed commenter on this site said that:

“Calling Ms Le Pen an ape would be well beyond good taste, but nobody ever used that excuse to enslave her forebears. Calling Ms Taubira an ape is being an accessory after the fact to a monstrous crime. Jokes and insults have a rap sheet, and that one has a very heavy rap sheet. Hence the need to strike – hard.”

There are two issues here: a) The theory that alleged descendants ought to be punished for crimes alleged ancestors may have committed, centuries ago.

b) The facts of slavery: who committed the crime, and why, etc..

I will treat only the second issue here, as I treat many issues: with relentless truth, throwing away all caution to the wolves of commonality.

Ms Le Pen has probably slaves among her forebears. Does that give her a right to strike –hard?

Indeed, before the Franks under Queen Bathilde, an ex-slave, outlawed the slave trade within the Imperium Francorum (Empire of the Franks) in 655 CE, slavery was ubiquitous. Some of the largest slave owners were bishops.

Africans were enslaved for three reasons:

a) The occupying Muslims taught the Portuguese plutocrats that slavery worked harmoniously.

b) The king of Portugal asked the Pope for the right to reciprocate. (Portugal had never been part of the Imperium Francorum.)

c) The Pope wrote a “Bull” to that effect.

However, with all other “races” and the rest of Europe, slavery stayed unlawful. It was tolerated in the colonies, because the reach of the law there was tenuous (initially; then traditions were created).

That re-introduction of slavery has nothing to do with the facts Africans were deemed to be apes. The proximal cause of the reintroduction of slavery was the usual suspect, Christianity. Claiming that slavery arose from the theory of evolution is an argument that even the opponents of Lamarck and Darwin did not use.

That men and apes are basically the same is obvious to all, but French judges. Carthaginians captured what they called “hairy women”, with a strong fighting disposition, south of Mount Cameron. From their descriptions, it’s clear those were female gorillas. That identification to “women” was a stroke of genius, as we know now that gorillas are indeed hominids. Just like Taubira.

From: “Hominidae: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans:

Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch. Here we follow a classification reflecting those relationships. Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae. Thus constituted, the Hominidae includes 4 genera and 5 species. Its nonhuman members are restricted to equatorial Africa, Sumatra and Borneo. Hominid fossils date to the Miocene and are known from Africa and Asia.”

Some view Taubira as a victim because she has a brownish skin. Does that mean it’s politically correct to view all the brownish ones as slaves?

Who transported the Black slaves? Some Arabs and Europeans traders working on behalf of white, or whitish plutocrats. Where did they purchase their slaves? In Black Africa. Who captured the slaves? Black Africans, or Peuls, or raiding Moroccans or Arabs.

But mostly Black Africans. A dozen black African empire thrived on the slave trade. It’s black power, black plutocratic power, which enabled the slave trade. By, say, 1800 CE, except for the extreme tip of South Africa, and Zanzibar (Arabs) Black Africa was, still, completely unconquered.

Why? European military force could not make a dent on Africa. Africans had steel, and they made arrowheads, and even firearms with it. Besides, Europeans died like flies from African diseases.

Purchasing blacks from blacks, does not make the whites using slaves any less criminal. But it spreads further the question of criminality. It stops making slavery a disease confined to one particular race.

Stopping the Black African slave trade and related human rights abuses was actually used as reason for the European conquest of Africa in the second half of the Nineteenth Century.

How was that achieved? In Senegal, 5,000 Tirailleurs Senegalais were led by ten French officers. Yet, in 1900, a third of the population of Senegambia was still enslaved. The French administration brought that down to zero soon (yet, it’s climbing back up because of Quranic schools recently).

So let’s not cry too much about the black person, tortured by the white demons. It’s demeaning to all, including reality.

Let’s stay weary, instead, of those with demonic practice. And a first demonic practice, is to pose as a victim, and use this to engage in physical violence. Especially when, like Taubira, one is, instead, an overlord, as a profession (Taubira enacted the famous Taubira law in 2001). Someone so divine that, should you brandish a banana when she comes around, you go to jail. Big time. And, yes, putting people in jail is physically violent.

All societies had slavery, in the past. It was better than mass execution. Both were necessary, from ecological balance. Complain to god, or thank technology, for the (momentary?) improvement. But don’t accuse today’s people, of crimes they did not commit, because of the color of the skin of their ancestors. Amen.

Patrice Ayme’

Don’t Monkey Around French Tyrants

July 17, 2014

Philosophy is nothing if not explicit. Plato represents Socrates in various debates with various characters. Politics is practical philosophy. And what is the fundamental philosophy of the genus Homo? Curiosity, associated with imperial inquisitiveness, and abrasive intelligence.

In turn the later have brought human supremacy, and a subsequent optimization of the pursuit of happiness (imposed by the USA Constitution, aping Aristotle).

The superiority of the present civilization is a direct consequence from the preceding, this imperial spirituality, and it rests on free speech (First Amendment of the USA Constitution).

No free speech means that tyranny is free to rule. It is pretty clear that the so called “representative democracy” is a form of tyranny. So it would make sense that free speech would be curtailed by tyrants, as doing so will encourage tyranny.

HONNI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE:

Don't Ape Me. Publish This In France, Go To Jail

Don’t Ape Me. Publish This In France, Go To Jail

[Logically challenged French judges, seeing this, apparently deduced that Taubira used to be the ape on the left, and condemn this inner revelation, as somebody's else racism; the logic of fools knows no bounds.]

In France, “justice” condemns sexual mutilation of girls… if one of the politically correct color,  (Contrarily to Britain, where it is tolerated as “multiculturalism). Yet the punishments have been light. Not so for calling attention to Taubira’s “family” (in the scientific sense, see below).

Some will say I exaggerate, and calling Hollande Le Grotesque and his ilk “tyrants” show an inordinate lack of measure unbecoming a philosopher. However, I know history. In France the tyrant Napoleon is front and center: he has his special resting place below the magnificent gold dome of the Invalides (erected by the Tyrant Louis XIV). I recommend to extract him, and throw the debris down the Rhine, the rough center of his exactions.

Napoleon and Louis XIV were disasters for Europe, killing millions, making million more fleeing for their lives, all the way to Capetown and the New Paltz (New York state). But don’t tell that to the average French practicing their idolatry.

On December 27, 1594, Jean Chastel attacked the king Henri IV, wounding his lip. Chastel, 19 year old, of good bourgeois birth, was drawn and quartered within two days. However, a few month later, Jean Boucher, Cure’ de Saint Benoit, doctor at the Sorbonne, and rector of the University of Paris, published an “Apologie” of the would-be assassin, where he commanded his act, and invited another attempt on the king’s life.

Freedom of speech in France was thus greater, in some ways, back in the Sixteenth Century. And the tyrants, less tyrannical. A really paradoxical observation.

In a country such as France, right now, a few guys without much intelligence, but all the levers of power, are taking a succession of idiotic decisions, and they do this by behaving as if they were great princesses and princes of the Middle Ages, endowed with an aura of sanctity. The truth? Well, it’s in their genes. Apes (or more exactly Hominids, see below) are just glorified baboons.

The Eighteenth Century biologist Buffon thought baboons were too obscene to describe faithfully.

Such is the inheritance, not to say the truth, that French politicians  want to hide the most.

A woman was condemned to nine months in jail in France for the preceding picture and attending commentary.

The woman is an extreme right blonde bimbo, not really my cup of tea: at least once, an extreme right commando tried to kill me, with an Improvised Explosive Device, so I cannot be accused of having a right wing bias! But that’s beside my point, which is free speech, and even more so, free thought.

If someone says something idiotic, it ought to be condemned verbally (and I have advocated Truth as the fourth branch of government). But only tyrants send people to jail for suggestions of a non criminal nature. I fail to see what is criminal about suggesting that an ape such as me, is, actually, an ape. Now, of course, hard core Islamists and Catholics, Calvin, or Saint Louis, would believe that’s a crime. Apparently French judges also go ape about the concept.

One thing about the picture above, that will escape no doubt escape idiots, at first sight. This is a juxtaposition of pictures. One shows a young gorilla at 18 months. The other picture shows the French “Guard Of The Seals”, the Justice Minister (equivalent to Holder), a woman called Taubira, native of French Guyanna.

Let’s cut the crap: she is basically the one who decides to send people to jail, or not, as in Russia.

The seal she guards is apparently most importantly is that of imbecility. She could not hide a large monkey grin after the verdict was announced.

And what was the deed that was punished? The fact that French judges, and the French government decided to build a logic between the two pictures. They actually made an implication, deducing that the picture on the left was supposed to represent Taubira at 18 months.

In other words, those fools are the ones who admitted publicly that, when they see an 18 month old gorilla, they think about Taubira, now. In other words, they are admitting publicly that they are themselves racist scums, and biologically confused. So they send somebody else to jail, in their frustration.

We know what happened to free speech in Putin’s Russia: if women gather in a cathedral to sing a prayer to the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Putin, they are condemned to jail (for racist insults against the church, basically).

What’s the problem with Putin? The West. Putin is aping what he sees being done in the West.

Or is it the other way around? Systems of thought are obdurate, and have a life of their own. What we see above is that the ferocity of the states is augmenting: USA goons are spying all over, and lurk within your computers. Mr. Xi will send you to jail if you invoke certain events that never happened in a certain place. Now France is showing clear signs of losing its mind.

Complete with censoring comedians (without any judicial decisions). The problem there is that the censoring Prime Minister is then supposed to steer the country just so… After demonstrating he is an obviously tyrannical little fool.

Systems of thought have a life of their own, for the worst, but also for the best.

After the Barbarians fought Rome for a millennium, they sort of won. And what did they do? They aped Rome. The principle of the Republic had won them over.

The Barbarians (Ostrogoths in Italia, Burgonds and Wisigoths in Gallia, etc.) reactivated much of the Republican ideals after say 500 CE, as the “Christian Republic” (from historical ignorance, and bias, the idea of Christian Republic is often attributed to Calvin, Locke, Rousseau; in truth it was partly enacted by the time of the Church Founding Fathers, by 400 CE… And led to a mess, because the political correctness that characterized Christianism, by groveling to the strong, was incapable of effective governance).

Systems of ideas have to be cultivated, educated, and, sometimes, destroyed.

Representative democracy has to be destroyed as an ideal.

Think Taubira. Who is Taubira? A primate. An ape actually. An ape dictating to seventy million people.

Yes, learn this, French judges: you are primates, not creatures of Allah. Or maybe you are creatures of Allah, but that’s a concept that exist only in your minds, and the books you read; it has no factual support. We apes, evolving smartly, over the last ten million years, pulled away from chimpanzees, not by denying what we were, apes, but by embracing it, understanding it and thinking about what it implied.

Denial may work when one has terminal cancer. But, otherwise, it’s hopeless. Maybe French authorities have cancer? A cancer of the mind?

If Taubira can’t stand that judges deduce it has been implied that she maybe just a primate, she should see the appropriate shrink. (Apparently the entire political class in France, we are told, approves of the judges’ Putin like diktat: so maybe they should all see shrinks? And reject Allah? Or then migrate to Turkey, by the feet of the Islamist Erdogan?)

Spiting people because of their origins is condemnable. Spiting condemnable ideas, though, is the essence of morality. Spiting science, such as the scientific discovery that the genus Homo is a type of ape, is extremely condemnable. So I condemn French “judges” for emulating Galileo’s judges.
Amusingly, I have been somewhat in error above. Political correctness has gained scientific semantics. So, instead of calling everybody “ape” from chimpanzees and gorillas to man, now everybody is called “Hominidae” (Hominids). Here it is:

Chimpanzee: Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Subfamily: Homininae, Tribe: Panini, Genus: Pan.

Here is Taubira, a “man”. Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Tribe: Hominini, Subtribe: Hominina, Genus: Homo.

Meanwhile the French People would be well advised to search for a new form of government more appropriate to the modern world, and the increasing democracy we all dearly need.

One does not have to look very far for inspiration: the Confoederatio Helvetica next door, an independent, and central part of the Franks’ Francia, is enjoying a much more direct form of democracy.

High time for Revolution.

Patrice Ayme’


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 328 other followers