Posts Tagged ‘genocide’

Questions About Genocide

November 16, 2014

Periodically, the question of genocide resurfaces. What is genocide? I believe that it is quite a bit like all obscenity. A famous American judge, speaking about the latter, quipped that he knew it, when he saw it.

A problem with genocide is that mass homicidal violence can be perfectly justified. By this I mean that there are cases, in history, where it looks as if it were justified.

The vast coalition which exterminated the Assyrian empire seems to be a case in point. The vigorous way with which Charlemagne annihilated Saxon power in Northern Germany (deporting part of the population in South-West France, among other feats), is another example. The Saxons had stood in the way of civilization for centuries, when not eradicating it outright, after landing in Britannia. Charlemagne’s view was that, after trying everything else, deportation was in order.

A Cherokee Born Long After The Trail Of Tears

A Cherokee Born Long After The Trail Of Tears

A recent example of massive violence to save us from unfathomable evil was the defense against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII.

A number of philosopher have struggled mightily, splitting hair to define genocide. Examples are found in Scientia Salon.

Trying to find a general definition of genocide is best done through examples: by kidnapping their children, did Australia commit genocide against the Natives in the 1960s genocide? According to the United Nations definition, it did. Or was that just a good gesture to give those children a chance?

Was what the USA do to American First Peoples genocide? If so, are there mental structures in the American psyche deriving from that?

Did the invasion of America by Europeans constitute genocide, and, if so, was the genocidal aspect necessary? Otherwise asked, was the genocidal English American invasion model superior to the French “Mission Civilisatrice” in Canada? And if so, in which sense?

Studying particular examples informs the general definition. In mathematics, physics, law, or ethics.

Exterminating the most spectacular aspects of the Aztec civilization was certainly culturocide, and, according to some, all too broad, definitions, would also constitute genocide.

In general stamping out a nasty religion, such as the Punic, Celtic, or Aztec, does not constitute genocide, just well-deserved ethical cleansing. Nobody is crying because we don’t conduct human sacrifices, Celtic, Punic, or Aztec style.

The Roman civilizing principle was that religions requiring human sacrifices ought to be obliterated. Everybody agrees (so why is Abraham, the would-be child killer, so popular?)

However, extermination of 15/16 of the Aztec population, including its leaders and thinkers, certainly constituted genocide (although how it happened was not clear: immunity was partly at fault). After a spectacular trial instigated by rancher cum adventurer and bishop Las Casas, the highest authority in Spain and the Roman Empire, Charles Quint, decided to stop the Conquista.

Revenge and exemplary killing do not constitute genocide: they may be viewed as measures to prevent future genocide, by telling future perpetrators that they could not get away with it.

An example is the 40,000 collaborators executed by France in 1944, and thereafter. Although they all got justice, as deserved, some of this justice was express justice, as deserved.

On the other hand, the behavior of Stalin in Ukraine in the 1930s, or Putin in Chechenia around 2000, seems to fit the definition of genocide. The latter case is an example where a bad man and his collaborators (say the French actor Depardieu) could be put under public disapprobation (Depardieu actually owns property in Chechenia: does that make him an accomplice of genocide, and a violator of the Fourth Geneva Convention?)

And the awkward questions keep on coming: when a nation commits genocide (say Turkey with Armenians) do other nations which conduct business with it become accomplices of said genocide?

The question of the Kurds also surfaces: by cutting Kurdistan into little pieces thrown to the four winds, did colonial powers become accomplice of conditions conducive of genocide against the Kurds?

The genocide of the Jews in World War Two was a mix of the deliberately vicious (Zonderkommandos, as early as June 1941), and deliberate happenstance (famine in 1945). The latter means that one should include in the will to genocide, the will to create such circumstances that cause in turn genocide.

The Nazis knew they were going to go extinct, in 1945. However, consumed by rage, but still full of desire to escape their well-deserved punishment, they remembered the “Trail Of Tears”.

The government of the USA had deported the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, among others, exterminating many in the process. One third of the Cherokees died.

Thus the Nazis decided to force march all concentration camps inmates they did not outright assassinated in a rush. Their hope was that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these embarrassing witnesses and hated subhumans, would died. They did.

Rwanda’s Kagame is a modern example of that: after having shot down the Rwandan and Burundi presidents, or stealing through proxies the wealth of Congo, he deliberately created conditions for the evil spirits of genocide to raise.

A crime should be defined: endeavor conducive to genocide.

We need to refine our analysis not just of facts but mental plays on the fragile condition of the human spirit. This is true not just for genocide, but for war in general.

Patrice Ayme’

Luther: Hitler, Unelected.

January 15, 2014

Martin Luther, a famous religious fanatic, remains of great ideological importance to the established order. A good reason to sink him. Luther is central to the ideology that praises “market” superiority, and “Reformation”. These are actually code words: their true meaning, plutocracy and exploitative reformation into barbarity, no holds barred, is hidden.

A closer look at what Luther was really preaching flows from his 65,000 words treaty, “On the Jews and Their Lies”. As a few quotes below demonstrate, it is full of genocidal threats against Jews (and thus, as Luther’s reasoning makes clear, it is also genocidal against all and any minority, and those who do not believe that he, Luther, is not a friend of “Jesus”, whatever “Jesus” is the name of… apparently another homicidal maniac, see below!).

Thus, contrarily to the legend that Hitler was an accident, out of nowhere, Nazism’s ill-fated, genocidal mood was long in the making.

On The Jews And Their Lies. D.M.Luth.

On The Jews And Their Lies. D.M.Luth.

A question comes to the fore: if Luther behaved in such a vicious manner, why is no one pointing this out? It is very simple: the very viciousness of Protestantism a la Luther or Calvin is still viewed, to this day, as a precious gift by those whose avocation is domestication, extermination, proliferation and relentless hyper exploitation, of whatever they can exploit, from people to planet.

Here a few extracts of Luther’s monstrous mood. I start with a few lengthy quotes, to show Luther’s mood in context:

“I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming… if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast… what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews’ synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God’s name? They will still keep doing it in secret. . . They must be driven from our country.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..

What are we poor preachers to do meanwhile? In the first place, we will believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is truthful when he declares of the Jews who did not accept but crucified him, “You are a brood of vipers and children of the devil [cf. Matt. 12:34]. This is a judgment in which his forerunner John the Baptist concurred…

I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnaping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as we already heard). I am well aware that they deny all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm

Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands — these venomous serpents and devil’s children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. Then let him boast of his mercy, then let him boast that he has strengthened the devil and his brood for further blaspheming our dear Lord and the precious blood with which we Christians are redeemed. Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!

These, just above, were extracts from Part 11 of “On The Jews…” Here is an extract from Part 12:

“if I had power over them, I would assemble their scholars and their leaders and order them, on pain of losing their tongues down to the root, to convince us Christians within eight days of the truth of their assertions.”

Luther had many bloodthirsty and cruel statements about the Jews. In ones of the longest and most striking, Luther says that Jews should be forever tortured rather than just killed, so that their “laments” could be music to the ears of the righteous.  Here is some more:

“If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over, with the words, ‘I baptize thee in the name of Abraham.’”

“They are real liars and bloodhounds who. . . continually perverted and falsified all of Scripture. . .”

“Oh how fond they are of the book of Esther, which is so beautifully attuned to their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous yearning and hope.”

“The sun has never shone on a more bloodthirsty and vengeful people. . .”

“The worse a Jew is, the more arrogant he is, solely because he is a Jew.”

“Be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils. . . Where you see or hear a Jew teaching, remember that you are hearing nothing but a venomous basilisk who poisons and kills people merrily by fasten. . .”

“Whenever you see a genuine Jew, you may with a good conscience cross yourself and bluntly say, ‘There goes a devil incarnate.’”

“In their synagogues and in their prayers they wish us every misfortune. They rob us of our money and goods through their usury, and they play on us every wicked trick they can. . . no one acts thus, except the devil himself, or whomever he possesses, as he has possessed the Jews.”

“They are a heavy burden, a plague, a pestilence, a sheer misfortune for our country.”

“. . . that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country.”

” . . . that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. . .”

“I advise that. . . all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken away from them. . .”

“. . . Eject them forever from the country. . . gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but a little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!”

“I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects. . . act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish.”

Clearly Hitler, although a Catholic, was an honorable Lutheran. Luther calls for genocide. Such a maniac would now be put in jail, and rightly so.

However, not only was Luther-Hitler not put in jail, but he came to be considered a paragon of virtue. This had long-term consequences. They are still with us today.

Where did Luther criminal madness come from? Why was it thought honorable? Of course many of the potentates who supported Luther wanted to feel it was moral to rob the Jews. But how did morality break down that much? After all, when the Roman empire was officially renovated under Charlemagne, Jews were citizens equal in all ways. How did this regression into the Dark Side occur?

Insensibly. It’s a long story. Plutocracy rose to a fevered pitch, starting with the First Crusade in 1100 CE. It promoted the Dark Side ever more, thanks to fanatics like Saint Bernard and his followers (opposed strenuously by the philosopher Abelard, and his own followers). Plutocrats promote mayhem and wealth, it was natural that kings such as those of France and England took to stealing Jews.

Saint Louis hated the Jews and the unbelievers, he wrote that nothing would please him more than plunging a knife in their bellies and move it around to look at their suffering face. However, he deplored that the law (the Lex Salica of the Franks) did not allow him to do so. This Crusader died from the plague in Tunis, and was made into a Saint in 1297 CE.

That propaganda imparted on feeble minds such as Luther’s, the great aura of sainthood to rabid anti-Semitism (Saint Louis being a great killer of both Jews and Muslims).

After 250 years of reverence for Luther’s murderous racial mania, the autocrats of Prussia acted on it. In the Eighteenth Century, the rulers of Prussia implemented massive abuse against, and hyper exploitation of, the Jews. It was helpful that there was a vast Jewish population in Eastern Europe. By spoiling the Jews, the thieves who governed Prussia could pay for an ever bigger, more ferocious Prussian army. Hitler would duplicate that exact same method, two centuries later, just as he would implement all the “sincere advice” of Luther about the Jews.

(Want to know why Prussia disappeared? Ethical failure can only go so far before being irretrievable.)

When the greedy opportunist Napoleon rolled around in the name of the Human Rights Revolution, he was forced to pay more than lip service to it (lest the French part of the army would not follow him anymore; although I abhor Napoleon, I must recognize this).

Thus, the Jews were made into equal citizens in the huge united Germany that the revolutionary dictator created. Jews were also freed in Poland. The Poles were also freed. (So Napoleon had no problem finding hundred of thousands of young Germans and Poles eager to fight in Russia; however, the Grande Armee got decimated by typhus before even fighting the Czar’s forces.)

After Napoleon’s defeat at its hand, a re-born Prussia dominated the German-speaking world. Luther triumphed. Racial abuse was re-installed, over an even larger area.

Abuse of Jews was made into law. This is when Marx’s father lost his job as a physician. Marx’s dad was a Jew. Important professions (such as law and medicine) were forbidden to Jews. Poles were re-enslaved (until they were freed by the Versailles Treaty, 104 years later, to Keynes’ rage!).

Adolf Hitler in all this? Just a continuation, more of the same, carried secretly, thanks to modern technology, to its logical conclusion.

Would there have been Hitler’s murderous holocaust of the Jews, and several other holocausts to accompany that one, for a grand total of maybe 20 million assassinated in “camps” by the Nazis, if not for Luther’s influence? It’s unlikely.

The problem indeed was not just that Luther was a demented psychopathic murderous maniac. The problem is that he has had, and still has, a huge following. The maniac is actually respected.

And the Luther derangement syndrome, as I said, is deeper than just hating the Jews. Or just wanting to exterminate non-Christians (and those who helped them: analyze carefully what Luther wrote above!).

Luther followed the Old Testament, well, religiously. The original Protestants, the Cathars (Catharos, the Pure) were just the opposite. The Cathars considered that the Old Testament, was the work of the Devil.  On the face of it, just reading it with a straight mind, that’s pretty obvious. Three centuries before Luther, seven hundred years before Hitler.

The Old Testament was the Bible, literally, of the Barbarous Years that seized the future USA after 1610, when holocausts became the best business plan ever. That was accompanied by Luther sized racism, applied on a continental scale. Against the Natives, Africans, etc. It blossomed into the most ferocious racial slavery ever instituted.

Don’t ask where holocausts and slavery came from, they came, proximally, from reading the Bible, and nothing but the Bible.

Don’t ask what Luther is for. Just look around, and celebrate the USA. But maybe, just maybe, it’s time to talk about it, and extirpate those toxic roots.

Patrice Aymé

Notes: Luther stayed ever more virulently anti-Jewish until the end of his life.

On Kristallnacht, the Nazi thugs, on order attacked Jews all over Germany (to the disgust of most of not just the German population, but of the Nazi Part members… a poll showed that 65% of Nazis were against racial persecution!).

Moreover, the connection that the Nazi leadership made with Luther was explicit. Martin Sasse, Nazi and bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Thuringia, published a compendium of Martin Luther‘s writings shortly after Kristallnacht. Sasse “applauded the burning of the synagogues” and gloated that: “On 10 November 1938, on Luther’s birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.”

In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer wrote:

It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews. Luther’s advice was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler.

WILL TO VICE.

January 23, 2012

Power Is One Thing, Cruelty Another. Willing Them, Human All The Way. Something Civilization Cannot Ignore Anymore.

***

 Questions: Nietzsche made the “Will To Power” famous. Is it enough to explain the Dark Side? I claim it’s not.

 Indeed, why is there a “Will To Power”? Is it because there is, in human minds, a natural state of tranquility, and power is not a low hanging fruit, but it has to be willed? People have to decide to acquire power, first?

 Why not a “Will To Love”? Then? Does not the fact that there is a need for a Will To Power, but no need for a Will To Love, show that Love is more primordial than Power?

 And is the “Will to Power” enough to explain all the vice found in history, or is there something even more terrible, something the great religions all guessed? Yes, there is! So roll over Nietzsche!

 And I say: What about The Will To Vice? (In French: Volonte’ de Nuire, which is actually better because more encompassing.) Power gives the ability to deploy force, thus to act. Vice is the desire to hurt. And, if there is such a thing as striving to inflict pain, why is vice so alluring?

 We have to dig deep in the psychobiology of the genus Homo to answer these questions.

 The meta-psychology of power and vice are actually born from the most practical considerations, evolutionary speaking: one can see them at work in many a place in the Middle Earth, where the two largest continents, Eurasia and Africa meet. All and any of the combatants fanatics and other occupiers will tell you that they fight for excellent reasons, and they are right. Such is the Will To Vice. Always right. Greed is good, and so is cruelty.

 Power and vice arise for reasons, thus causes, that one can understand, it turns out. They are even deeper than evolution, because they inflected it. Some are exposed below. The need to effective leadership, and to do what is necessary, ultimately rule, and animate those reasons. Understanding this will go a long way to steer civilization correctly. 

  I know people have little time. Those who want to cut to the chase, can avoid the preliminaries on the domination of cruelty in all religions, and the section on how the Will To Power grew in primates from evolutionary pressures. The meat of the essay are the sections HUMAN IS TO BE LOVED and WILL TO CRUELTY. 

*** 

***

WISDOM OF THE AGES HAS INCORPORATED VICE (However Poorly):

 Viciousness is prominent in all the great religions. And not just to condemn it, but to advocate it: after all, if the gods do it, why not us? I am not just alluding to the Aztecs and their industrial cannibalism and the Incas, and their propensity to spill the blood of virgins on top of volcanoes. The Celts, and Carthage, which were most advanced civilizations, also practiced human sacrifices (even the Romans dabbed in them).

 Viciousness is fully obvious in the old Norse religion, or Hinduism, which were prone to burn young women alive on the slightest pretext. The old Babylonian religions made the universe into a giant arena for the fight between light and darkness, truth and lie, Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. Of course in the Abrahamic religion, the genocidal god is so much into his criminogenic and megalomaniac “jealousy”, that he wrote a few books to advertise them proudly. One of the Abrahamic sects even made a torture instrument of death its very symbol, and then called it love (OK, it worked. Charlemagne would point at the crushed Angles and Saxons and Hungarians…)

 Buddhism, although milder at first sight, does not escape the vice of vice. Buddhism is so obsessed by viciousness, that it throws the world out with the bath. Buddhism claims that nihilism (“nirvana”) is better than living in the world, by the world, for the world. Instead, to flee that horror, the world, it promotes detachment from it (but not so much detachment that its priests do not go begging in the streets !)  

 The mildest of the great religions may have been the Egyptian one, and may be that is why it lasted 4,000 years. But it is also why it found itself unable to resist enemies with more ferocious, extraverted gods, starting with the Libyans, the Achaemenids and finally the Christians, thoroughly rabid from god as they were.

 So can one safely say that old wisdom has fully integrated the Dark Side, the set of behaviors and knowledge associated withhell”?

***

TO BE HUMAN IS TO BE LOVED (At Some Point): 

 Maybe one should ask first where the expression “Dark Side“, as incarnated by the tenebrous Lord of the Underground, comes from? OK, it fully belongs to the Greek and Babylonian mythologies. The idea is at least 4,000 year old. But that does not explain what it is.

 In truth, it’s very simple, and that causal relationship reveals the hierarchy of emotions within Homo Sapiens. One speaks of the “Dark Side” because one does not like to look inside at what is lurking down there. A fortiori one does not like to talk about that Dark Side. 

 Why such reluctance? First, man is a social animal, and the social group holds together from love. It’s a bit like the nucleus of an atom held by the strong force. The strong force in human groups is love. It is needed, or there would not be a social group. (At a far distance, love does not reach anymore, thus huge social groups cannot be held by love, except if the state manufactures a form of love which carries far, and that is how nations hold together.)

 Understanding promotes love, whereas hiding one’s true brainwork promotes the opposite, misunderstanding, hence conflict. So what is in full sight is appeasing, whereas the ambush from the dark, just the opposite.

 Another reason to eschew the Dark Side is that, man is anywhere, and always, born out of love. [See the note on the errors of Christianism.]

 How does love come first? Simple. Nearly all and any baby, anywhere, and always, is loved, for quite a long period. Years. The first years, the ones during which one gets imprinted. Without enough love from enough people around the baby, the baby would certainly die. The same holds for young children. 

 Human children brought up by wolves prove the point. Certainly they would have been devoured, had some wolves not been overwhelmed by love (that wolves become more loving at some point during their massively fluctuating hormonal existence is a case in point; even in wolves, love can overwhelm all; human beings do not have such huge hormonal fluctuations and are more permanently loving).

 So love comes first. It is the base layer, emotionally. Vice comes first as a transgression (later it can become a habit, in individuals or a culture in countries, something some Germans try to mask by accusing Hitler of all the vices old style German culture infused him with).

 The Dark Side is thus condemned to be a second order effect. But, in some cases, it is the only ensemble of behaviors and knowledge that will provide with a solution (an obvious reference: the Bible, when the Chosen People comes onto the previous occupants of the Promised Land, and has to eradicate them, to occupy it in turn; this is the scheme reproduced throughout the (ex) British empire, allowing to eradicate indigenes from a godly portion of the Earth, hence the importance of the Bible throughout the Brutish thing).

***

THE WILL TO POWER IS HOW PRIMATES MARRY LOVE WITH COMBAT:

 Nietzsche talked about the “Will to Power”. Why would this be? Why a “Will”? Does one talk about a “Will to Thirst”, a “Will to Hunger”? (OK, a “Will to Sex” exists among those who purchase aphrodisiacs, but that is a recent perversion, with no evolutionary meaning.)

 So is there a “Will to Love”? Most of the time, and more prominently, not at all. When love is there, it is overwhelming. One does NOT need to will it. A normal parent does not will to love her child. The parent just loves. Love is fundamentally an hormonal state. The strongest love is not something one decides to engage in. One can decide to love, true, but this is a secondary, weaker form.

 Nietzsche is correct that searching for power is a conscious decision, something one wills. It’s not as natural as love.

 Wolf packs are led by alpha couples: other animals in the pack are not just subservient, they just don’t get to eat first, and the best parts. They also don’t have sex. They are subservient, otherwise they will be attacked with lethal force.

 However, primates are not wolves. Primates are less on a war footing than wolves. They don’t need to live in a fascist state with absolute rule all the time, as wolves do. In primates, although sex is the object of conflict and impacted by hierarchy, (most of) the whole group reproduces. Thus not only primates do not need to be leaders, but they can perfectly reproduce without brimming with the utmost domineering characteristics. Thus primates do not reproduce domineering characteristics in an overwhelming manner. They also reproduce other sorts of manners.

 In wolves, those who reproduce have been selected, by the struggle for power, to be particularly domineering. So baby wolves tend to have the power drive genetically engineered, because only the dominant ones reproduce. Only domination to death reproduces. Wolves are born as topmost domination machines.

 Baby primates are not genetically pre-selected for so much domination, since non domineering members of the group also genetically contribute. 

 However some primate species need leaders. Why? Because they have evolved to live in primate hell, namely the savannah park, where trees stand among grass, as if they had been planted in a park by a divine gardener (most of Africa was endowed with that landscape, in combination with a web of narrow forest gallery where water and predators lurked). 

 The savannah park was, historically speaking, ten million years ago, no place for primates. Primates evolved in the trees, in the age of dinosaurs, from ancestors we probably have in common with squirrels. In the forest, monkeys have few competent enemies. After primates left the equatorial trees, and their huge juicy fruits (up to 50 kilograms), though, primates became dependent upon sources of fresh water. Moreover, primates were the object of gustative desire of a magnificent panoply of carnivores, from dogs, to many species of hyenas, giant cheetahs, leopards, lions, and saber tooth cats, let alone giant carnivorous baboons, boars, and bears. 

 Primates, to be present in the savannah, had to develop military psychobiology. It was a necessity, not an option. Primate sociobiology evolved into the sociobiology of armies. That is blatant when one observes baboons in the wild, as I had the good fortune to do as a child. Baboons need water once a day, so they have to organize a military expedition to get to the water hole, everyday. Stealth does not work. What works is military organization, and terror in the heart of all and any potential enemy.

 A baboon army on the march is a terrifying spectacle of sound and fury. They shake trees. They bark furiously in unison. Lactating females and their children are inside the formation. In front, demonic big males flashing their eyelids and giant canines, brimming with the threatening insanity of their obvious will to tear into whoever or whatever would dare stand in their way, proceed irresistibly towards their objective. Lion prides rise, and decide to go somewhere else sniff the grass. Leopards disappear in the darkest bushes.

 Armies function because they are the many acting as one: “E Pluribus, Unum“. Forming an army allows to constitute a super beast, with just one mind (that of the leader) and the total mass of the individuals which compose it (total mass matters: in combats between lions and hyenas, the group with the largest total mass generally wins).

 That primate army is endowed with the spirit of the leader. That leader has to be domineering enough to be accepted as the mind of all, and combative enough to look towards combat, when there is no choice. And that leader has to pretend to love combat enough to make the group it leads appear dangerously insane to third parties (thus making way, as needed, the way baboons have to do it, to exist).

 To become a leader, one has to fight, to get to that position which has obvious advantages. This has the interest that not only fighters get selected to lead, and lead into combat, as needed, but the very process of selection develop the leaders into ever more aggressive minds. Evolution found the trick that if the groups were led by individuals more aggressive that the common members of the groups, the groups would battle better, and how to develop a process to increase the combativity of the leaders. 

 So here is the picture: primate groups in the savannah can exist if and only if they are large enough, bound by love. While at the same time, primate groups need to be led by particularly aggressive individuals, capable of leading the group into combat, and making other animals believe that the groups they constitute are the most dangerous thing on earth.

 Thus savannah dwelling primate species have developed, had to develop, a psychobiology which favors the “Will To Power”. Primates are rendered more ferocious by undergoing the power struggle to reach power, and that is obtained only after “willing” it. “Willing it” transmogrifies soft individuals in the loving groups into the hard edge tyrants needed for the victory of the group.

 Some scientists have determined that most of the large animals’ mass, for millions of years, was made of lion sized carnivores (as lions can take down a giraffe and survive on rabits). It’s no more the case now, thanks to the great primate offensive for savannah park supremacy. The war between monkeys and lions has ended with the victory of the monkeys, thanks to the militarized fascism of the latter, as needed.

 By the way, this may be why Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, from his ferocious debate performance: the voting primates perceived in him a greater warrior, the product of a greater Will To Power, promising a harder edge to solve the problems the country confronts, and that too “cool” an attitude of the seducer in chief, with his huge smile, cannot address.

 Let’s recapitulate: love is a necessity, a fundamental imprinting. Ferocious leadership is obtained in a contrived way, through the constructive “Will to Power”.

 But what of the cases when combat is not enough? Say the enemy has been defeated. But now the enemy needs to be eradicated, because there is not enough food to go around, or simply because not eradicating today, means being eradicated tomorrow. Just as chimps do in the valley over there. 

 Genocide of his own species has been, historically and evolutionary speaking, one of the characteristics of the genus Homo. Genocide is what the most domineering hominids have had to do, and did, for millions of years.

 Is the “Will To Power” the answer to impose eradication? No. It is more oriented towards combat. The “Will to Power” wants to overpower, not massacre. The “Will To Power” is about exerting power on others. Will To Power needs the continuation of others to be exerted. And indeed, although baboons kill baboons in power struggles, sometimes (their canines are like small daggers), power struggles among baboons do not result in extermination in the famed chimpanzee-human style.

***

THE WILL TO CRUELTY:

 Thus the interest of the Will To Cruelty. The Will To Cruelty is what motivates the ultimate, all too human activity, genocide.

 Genocide: when man becomes like the legendary god of Abraham, ready to want the worst one can possibly imagine, and turning it into a religion (what is worse than asking a parent to kill his child, out of love for one’s superior, as the Abrahamic god does with Abraham?)

 Omitting the presence of the Will To Cruelty is one of the greatest failures of conventional humanism. It is also a failure of standard economics, and, in particular of the free market fanatics. And a failure of all of those who deify some of their superiors. All human beings have potentially Pluto inside. But those who have the greatest power in their hands have fewer checks left to restrain them, and thus are more inclined to transgress into vice. Thus, admiring leaders is fraught with ethical peril. Leaders, threatened by temptation, ought to be viewed with suspicion.

The only transgression left to those who have most power, the only challenge left, is to cultivate the Will to Cruelty, so they do. It attracts them irresistibly. So they informed their academic servants that it would be best never to evoke the subject.

 Indeed, some of these observations are not really new. Sade was first.

 That grotesque cruelty motivated leaders all too much was de Sade’s main point. They were not keen to hear this, all the more since the People was listening carefully, at least in France. This is why king Louis XVI, and the dictators Robespierre and Napoleon kept Sade in jail for decades. Sade was saying that Robespierre and Napoleon were… sadistic brutes motivated by inflicting pain, they had to be, that is why people like them did what they did… and sadistic brutes they, indeed, were!

 Funny how many busts of Napoleon there are, with rabid Napoleonophiles on their knees lauding that cruel monster, considering most of what he did was to bust the great revolution for human rights, in general, and the republic, in particular, besides ravaging Europe, all the way to Moscow, while destroying his great European army, and killing, among others, millions of Frenchmen… Do they admire the cruelty? The arbitrary assassinations? Keeping Sade in jail?

 Why is genocide so central in the evolution of hominids? Because hominids represented, for millions of years, the ultimate power, and had to use their ultimate power on that ultimate power to keep humanity in check. Only terminal force can master terminal force.

 Left to themselves on (parts of) South Georgia island, reindeer devastated the ecology to the point their population, after booming, having run out of vegetables and lichen to eat, starved, and crashed by up to 90% (in parts).

 But it does not work this way with human beings. Human beings, just like rats, are sociable, and help each other, when their populations are at sustainable densities. Beyond that, the worst enemy of man becomes other men, and there were plenty of thousands of centuries to select for human beings who could get the job of culling of other hominids done. Actually, they self-selected. Not only human beings have an inclination, a will, to cruelty, but they selected themselves this way, because that was most advantageous, evolutionary speaking. So the cruel ones reproduced, and the sweet ones did not. A consequence of this has been the (semi-demented) love for tribalism and nationalism (with major inconveniences such as Nazism, and now neutralized in modern times by team sports).

 The Will To Cruelty, ultimately, protects an optimal version of the planetary ecology. It is timely to remember this, as the greatest attack against the ecology is proceeding ever more. Logically, and evolutionarily speaking, it is only a matter of time before cruelty comes to the rescue of the biosphere.

***

 Patrice Ayme

***

 Note on some fundamental errors of Christianism: Christianism made a big deal of love, as if Christ invented it. Well love is clearly a necessary pre-condition to human life. The fact that Christ had such an unloving relationship with his own father, should not lead us astray about the necessity of that pre-condition.

 Thus Judeo-Christianism was wrong with its theory of original sin! Men are not born bad, quite the opposite: they evolve that way. Such an egregious error can only have been committed deliberately. The manipulators of the Dark Side probably felt that “original sin” made common people feel bad about themselves, thus weakened their resolve. Moreover, if man was born bad, the leading plutocratic miscreants were excused to do whatever nasty stuff they wanted, since they were born that way! 

 Of course Christianism was not chosen by the Latter Days Tyrants of Rome because it was right, but, precisely, because it was wrong.

How Genocide Starts.

January 7, 2012

FROM LUTHER TO HELL:

How can entire countries, or civilizations go so wrong, for so long? Because of vicious ideas that, instead of being condemned and vilified, become adulated and celebrated, sometimes under the respectability of religion. Then the Dark Side itself becomes the object of a cult. Here is an example, how Germany became deviant.

It is often said that Germanic fascism and genocidal proclivities started with Hitler. But this is not true at all.

Genocide was part of a system of thought, Lutheranism, that Prussians were conditioned to respect as the highest religion for more than 400 years (And, in my generosity, I did not go back to the heydays of the Teutonic Knights who fabricated Prussia to start with, because they found the Middle East too hot in more ways than one!)

France and her National Constituent Assembly had made the Declaration of Human Rights the basis of her constitution. It was duly signed by King Louis XVI in August 1789. All men were supposed equal, including equal for tax purposes. That drove the plutocrats into a lethal fury.

Paris in 1792 was officially threatened of the exact same sort of Final Solution deployed at Auschwitz, 150 years later. And the reasons were even flimsier.

OK, maybe not. After all plutocrats will go to great extremities to avoid paying taxes. Yes, some things don’t really change, as long as one has not exerted really great, deep, mental and civilizational efforts, followed by thorough legislation. The great age of Greece, or the glorious centuries of the rise of the Roman republic, were preceded by extensive anti-plutocratic revolutions, all over.

***

LUTHER = HITLER?

Torturous, murderous anti-Judaism was fully written down by Luther. Luther was ever more inclined to utter criminal, lethal threats towards the Jews, the more famous he got.

Josel of Rosheim tried to help the Jews of Saxony. He wrote that their plight was “due to that priest whose name was Martin Luther — may his body and soul be bound up in hell!! — who wrote and issued many heretical books in which he said that whoever would help the Jews was doomed to perdition.”

Josel asked the city of Strasbourg to forbid the sale of Luther’s deadly anti-Jewish trash; the city did so after a Lutheran pastor in Hochfelden argued in a sermon that his parishioners should murder Jews.

Jews were the object of Luther hatred in his 65,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (Of the Unknowable Name and the Generations of Christ). It was reprinted five times within his lifetime.

As the (German) philosopher Karl Jaspers wrote regarding Luther’s treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies: “There you already have the whole Nazi program“. Everything is there indeed. And it’s there for all to see. How come does one not talk about it then? Has the Nazi program long been the program? 

According to Martin Luther the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth”… They are full of the “devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine.” The synagogue was a “defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut…”

Luther argued, or one should say, more pertinently, argues, because that system of thought is still alive and influential, the following. “Synagogues and Jewish schools [should] be set on fire, sacred Jewish books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, Jewish homes razed, so that Jews can live in ruins underground, moaning, and Jewish property and money confiscated.” Jews should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these “poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.

Actually Luther preaches the Final Solution “We are at fault in not slaying them.” Hitler was never that loud and explicit. 

In modern France, such a hating creep would be repeatedly condemned to jail, and never see the light of the day. Since 1945, the French republic has rightly decided to punish some forms of hate crimes, and many countries have followed (for example Germany and the USA).

So can one equate Hitler and Luther? Sorry, that would be unfair. Unfair to Hitler. Luther came first. He was the teacher, he was the preacher. Hitler was imprinted on that venom.

And what of all those countless millions who admired Luther and produced his venom, for centuries? They, too came first. They too, advocated Lutheranism, that means, mass murdering anti-Judaism. Some will say:”Oh, no, there is much more to it than that!

Whatever. When one has threatened to have people killed, just because of whom they were born from, what can one do for an encore? Suppose someone goes around preaching, and writing than some categories of children ought to be slayed. And then he claims he wants to take care, and he wants to offer icecream to children, out of love, he says. Is not that even more disturbing? 

Another thing: the top Nazis kept the Final Solution secret enough so that the average German could plausibly argue that he, or she, would never have suspected such a thing. But there was nothing secret about Luther’s writings and sermons.  

Still another thing: mass murdering anti-Judaism was made in the name of Christ, a non-entity (nobody of official governmental record had ever seen his face; so his age varied by at least 7 years and his birth changed to the winter solstice 400 years later: imagine that we did not know when Augustus was born!) Let alone the slight contradiction that Jesus himself, supposing generously that he existed, assuredly existed as a Jew. So why did Luther hate Jews murderously, while loving Jesus to death? The answer is obvious.

In other words, it’s not really about Jews, and Jesus, or god needing some help with the multiverse. It’s all about mass murdering frenzy on the slightest pretext. It’s all about accepting mass murdering frenzy as a great organizing principle. So no wonder the Communists, the Slavs, the Poles, the Gypsies, the French, etc. were next in line. Luther, and his enraged followers, were insane maniacs, and all the worse, as they successfully persuaded themselves that they were the lamb of god. The latter enabling the former.  

In truth they were raiding murdering chimps equipped with the printing press. Thus the mass murdering frenzy had a tribal character. Philosophers such as Kant and Herder only accentuated it. The former with the cult of obedience to his Lord and the associated social order, the latter with the cult of tribal spirit and the closed mind, the exact opposite of Pericles’ Open Society. By then, as France had taken Athens’ torch, the appropriately named Herder hated the appropriately named French, all the more since many German intellectuals looked up to the Closed Society and military order so much.

***

DARK SIDE UNLEASHED: THE GREAT GERMAN REICH, 1871-1945:

The Second Reich was created by Bismarck, in a succession of wars, starting with enormously dangerous Denmark. The wars stroked the nationalist and fascist fiber, which kept on growing until it devoured Bismarck himself in 1890.

Anti-Judaism was rabid by 1880 CE, all over Germany. Nietzsche had to give up on many friends, including Wagner, and his sister. He headed towards France and Bizet. Nietzsche had started as a German nationalist but the encroaching madness of the entire country turned him into a total enemy of the system of thought he saw rising there. He predicted that German hyper nationalism and racial hatred would cause the greatest wars, come the following century. This is all over Nietzsche’s later books, and thus demonstrate that the German catastrophe was thoroughly predictable, for anybody with an open mind.

Now, precisely because Luther, Kant and Herder had taught the closed mind, as a highest virtue, and precisely because those ideologies were now in power, throughout the Prussian university system, the average German was not programmed to understand what Nietzsche was talking about. To the point that the Nazis successfully turned Nietzsche’s message on its head, presenting him as their prophet, when he hated their sort to the greatest extent (something like that also happened to Muhammad’s message, his (ex) child bride Aisha herself had argued forcefully, around 660 CE) .  

Starting in Namibia, the Prussian army committed systematic, deliberate, premeditated and threatened mass murdering atrocities. Goering, the father of Hermann Goering, and other Prussian occupiers of Namibia conducted at least two genocides there.

The French and the British did not do so in the gigantic swathes of Africa they ruled over (although the British engaged in a de facto genocide against the Boers). The genocides in Namibia were official, deliberate, premeditated, and aimed at the complete extermination of the locals.

Prussian war atrocities occurred in World War One. They were not just committed. They were threatened first. So they were deliberate, premeditated, and justified by the mass murdering system of thought reigning over Prussia. The Prussian army declared that, if it was fired on, it would deliberately kill civilians. In Belgium (a neutral country it had just invaded, itself a war crime).

Whereas the British, French and Italian did not commit any atrocities we know of in World war One.

Where does all this come from? As, I said, Luther’s mass murdering frenzy preaching had left a deep imprint on the souls.

***

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FORCE THE WELL ENTRENCHED 2% TO PAY TAX; WORLD WAR:

Once the metaprinciple of mass murdering has been accepted and made into a sacred religion (Lutheranism), one can apply the sacred principle of utter destruction all over.

Starting in August 1789, France had become a Constitutional Monarchy headed by King Louis XVI, who had been for 15 years prior the absolute, legitimate King of France. Thus the French Constitutional Monarchy was fully legitimate (if it pleased the French King and the French Parliaments to change the constitution, it should have been their business, and theirs alone!)

However the plutocrats outside were furious, because the Upper Ones, the top 2% (the Second Estate, the Nobility) was forced to pay taxes, like everybody else. In this new Constitutional Monarchy.

No, I am not making this up.

Never mind that the constitutional king in the Ancient Regime, Louis XVI himself, once again, had tried to make them pay tax, from day one. So not only the plutocrats were furious against the constitutional monarch, but against that monarch’s old program, same old, same old, which he had tried to impose, from day one, 15 years before the revolution of 1789. Of course that is what was going on, but they did not couch it that way in 1792

So the plutocrats and their emperors and kings declared war to France. To the Constitutional Monarchy of France. And how did it do that? By threatening France, the French People, with the modern definition of GENOCIDE. Here it is:

***

[Part Of] THE PROCLAMATION OF THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK, July 1792.

“Their Majesties the emperor [of Austria] and the king of Prussia having entrusted to me the command of the united armies which they have collected on the frontiers of France, I desire to announce to the inhabitants of that kingdom the motives which have determined the policy of the two sovereigns and the purposes which they have in view.

After arbitrarily violating the rights of the German princes in Alsace and Lorraine, disturbing and overthrowing good order and legitimate government in the interior of the realm, committing against the sacred person of the king and his august family outrages and brutalities which continue to be renewed daily, those who have usurped the reins of government have at last completed their work…

His Majesty the king of Prussia, united with his Imperial Majesty by the bonds of a strict defensive alliance and himself a preponderant member of the Germanic body, would have felt it inexcusable to refuse to march to the help of his ally and fellow-member of the empire. . . .

To these important interests should be added another aim equally important and very close to the hearts of the two sovereigns, – namely, to put an end to the anarchy in the interior of France, to check the attacks upon the throne and the altar, to reestablish the legal power, to restore to the king the security and the liberty of which he is now deprived and to place him in a position to exercise once more the legitimate authority which belongs to him.

Convinced that the sane portion of the French nation abhors the excesses of the faction which dominates it, and that the majority of the people look forward with impatience to the time when they may declare themselves openly against the odious enterprises of their oppressors, his Majesty the emperor and his Majesty the king of Prussia call upon them and invite them to return without delay to the path of reason, justice, order, and peace. In accordance with these views, I, the undersigned, the commander in chief of the two armies, declare:

1. That, drawn into this war by irresistible circumstances, the two allied courts entertain no other aims than the welfare of France, and have no intention of enriching themselves by conquests.

2. That they do not propose to meddle in the internal government of France, and that they merely wish to deliver the king, the queen, and the royal family from their captivity, and procure for his Most Christian Majesty the necessary security to enable him, without danger or hindrance, to make such engagements as he shall see fit, and to work for the welfare of his subjects, according to his pledges.

3. That the allied armies will protect the towns and villages, and the persons and goods of those who shall submit to the king and who shall cooperate in the immediate reestablishment of order and the police power throughout France.

4. That, on the contrary, the members of the National Guard who shall fight against the troops of the two allied courts, and who shall be taken with arms in their hands, shall be treated as enemies and punished as rebels to their king and as disturbers of the public peace. . . .

7. That the inhabitants of the towns and villages who may dare to defend themselves against the troops of their Imperial and Royal Majesties and fire on them, either in the open country or through windows, doors, and openings in their houses, shall be punished immediately according to the most stringent laws of war, and their houses shall be burned or destroyed. . . .

8. The city of Paris and all its inhabitants without distinction shall be required to submit at once and without delay to the king, to place that prince in full and complete liberty, and to assure to him, as well as to the other royal personages, the inviolability and respect which the law of nature and of nations demands of subjects toward sovereigns. . .

Their said Majesties declare, on their word of honor as emperor and king, that if the chateau of the Tuileries is entered by force or attacked, if the least violence be offered to their Majesties the king, queen, and royal family, and if their safety and their liberty be not immediately assured, they will inflict an ever memorable vengeance by delivering over the CITY OF PARIS TO MILITARY EXECUTION and COMPLETE DESTRUCTION, and the rebels guilty of the said outrages to the punishment that they merit. . . .

Given at the headquarters at Coblenz, July 25, 1792.

CHARLES WILLIAM FERDINAND,

Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg.

***

CRIME DOES NOT ALWAYS PAY:

The criminally inclined Brunswick captured the French city of Longwy, August 23 1792, and Verdun, September 2. Marching on Paris, he was cut from behind by general Dumouriez coming from the north, and general Kellermann coming from the east. Brunswick was sorely defeated at Valmy on September 20, in an artillery duel, where French artillery, using new technology, proved superior.

The King was deposed as head of state on September 21. The Austrian born and raised Queen had been sending secret messages to the plutocratic coalition about the deployment of the armies of France (made mostly of veteran professional royal troops…) The First French Republic was proclaimed the next day by the National Convention. Mr. and Mrs. Capet were condemned for high treason. 

***

DEFINE INFAMY, THEN CRUSH IT WITH HIGH TAXES:

Thus one sees that the will to mass murder out of tribal hatred passed from Luther to Brunswick, and from there all the way down to Hitler. Now Luther did not invent criminal anti-Judaism of the gory type. Famously, Saint Louis (IX) had written that nothing would please him more than to twist a knife around the belly of an unbeliever or Jew. But this is precisely the point: the words of Saint Louis, who was himself making a show of many of the principles Luther later adopted, were no doubt very well known to Luther. 

Thus Saint Louis was an earlier apologist of genocide purely to satisfy hatred, the Dark Side. And that system of thought was actually present even earlier in Saint Bernard, and the Roman emperors who invented it in the Later Roman empire. How did the same monstrous system of thought propagate from the Fourth Century to the Twentieth Century? Well, because nobody attacked it with the most substantial arguments. Mass murdering hatred progressed under the cover of Jesus and his pretended religion of love (many workers of Christ worked really for love, and only for love, but that does not include the mythical founder, and certainly not his most powerful advocates!)  

And, of course, much was about plutocracy all along. High time to raise their taxes sky high. If you don’t want the eagle to keep on eating you alive, just don’t wait for Heracles, clip its wings, now! At least that is what Prometheus would not doubt recommend.

Some things don’t really change, unless one exerts really great and thorough mental efforts. But the latter, by themselves, are the only god we need.

***

Patrice Ayme

THE BIBLICAL MIND, OR HOW TO SEIZE A CONTINENT.

April 19, 2008

AMERICANISM, NAZISM, GENOCIDES, BIBLE, SLAVERY, RACISM, BIG TIME LYING, AND HOW THEY ALL RELATE.
***

NAZISM WAS MORE OF AN ACCIDENT, AMERICA IS MORE OF A SYSTEM:

Roger Cohen finds the USA dangerously hypocritical: there is a US museum about the Nazi holocaust of the Jews, “a German crime”, but there is no museum about slavery, an American crime. He adds: “Germans have confronted the monstrous in them… The truth can be brutal, but flight from it even more devastating. America’s heroic narrative of itself is still in flight from race … it’s time for the country to ask itself the hard post-jingoistic questions and allow the memorialization of even its darkest chapters. To demand truth commissions of other nations, while evading them at home, is self-defeating.” (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/16/opinion/edcohen.php).

Civilizations can change, and today’s Germans are lethal enemies of fascism. If time travel were possible, and they could go back to 1938, they would join the French republic to fight Nazism, in the blink of an eye. Fascism in Germany, however abominable and of great consequence (all together, at least 100 million dead), was a moment in history, abhorrent to the deepest roots of German civilization, and pretty much contrived by a few generations of leaders who co-opted each other (unfortunately starting with the often respectable Bismarck, political instigator of a monster he came to regret). The two main flaws of the German error were xenophobism and hubris. The main control mechanism, sitting above the preceding to make them possible, was blind and servile obedience to fascism, allowed by the death of the mind (obedience was deeply adverse to the original German character).

Not so with America. The American system of thought is four centuries old, and was accepted by all Americans for twenty generations (although in increasingly diluted form, its fundamental nature -anti-intellectualism and profits uber Alles- was not changed).

The American thought system is the progenitor of the success of the USA. It soon intrinsically became the twisted expression of a democracy (“We The People… made of rich white males). But, according to the modern moral standards of the Enlightenment, it was not pretty. Efficient, yes, pretty, no. Thus, America is in flight from many its own master generating ideas, for the deepest reasons intrinsic to its very nature. Genocides, the Bible, slavery, racism, formed an intricate network of mind characteristic of, and crucial to, a growing English speaking North America for many centuries. From those evils blossomed out many of the splendid attributes of America. No intrinsic monstrosity, no American splendor (no wonder many careful students of America, such as Tocqueville, ended baffled and ambivalent). Without understanding this, major malfunctions will occur looking forward, and not just for the US. There is a lesson in this, which can be carried all over the world.

The German flight from the truth of what really happened on August 1, 1914, caused a profound revisitation of the same horror in January 1933, in a more obstinate and self righteous version. It was the flight from truth that created Nazism (Hitler was the first to assert this in print). In the case of the USA, the flight from truth is clear and present, it prevents to analyze what went wrong, and thus what’s wrong now. In that sense it is similar to fascist versions of Islam: in the very genesis of a thought system can lay the paralysis it gets afflicted with. The US mental paralysis is a world problem, because the USA was long one of the mental leaders for the world, but now it clings to memory loss and decerebrated childhood, feeding its various denials, such as been addicted to waste, enslaved to the Rich, terrorized by thinking, petrified by change. In the USA, systems of units dating from the Middle Ages are still in use. Only there, and nowhere else. In more ways than one, the USA is stuck in full mental reverse (just as this Taliban it gave birth to). Why? Because the US thought system is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. But breaking it is the best gift one can make to it.

What is a civilization? A system of thought carried by the many minds of a people (typically living in one or more cities, hence the root “civilis”). The US system of thought originated in English colonial America (hence not in 1776, nor in 1789, but in 1606). The US system of thought had two main proximal inputs: England herself, of course, and the London Company. It was a symbiotic mix of heavens and hell, each serving the other. We passed the 400th anniversary of the hidden Constitution of the USA in total silence, but the democratic candidates for the US presidency were embroiled in theology, as befits savages of 1606 CE, not philosophers of 1789 CE.
***

SLAVERY, EXTERMINATION AND RACISM ARE MORE AMERICAN THAN APPLE PIE:

The London Company was an English stock company established by royal charter on April 10, 1606, with the purpose of establishing profitable colonial settlements in North America. The London Company had right of life and death over the entire continent, and the mission to impose Christianity on the natives (Charter of 1609). Things went on according to the master plan. The USA is the country that originated in a conspiracy, and we have its foundational document, black on white.

The Puritans arrived later, in 1620, under the authority of the London Company (and of the military). Their master idea fit perfectly well the London 1609 Charter, they thrived. The Puritans had decided to impose the Bible, on earth (and planned to go back in strength and invade Europe to impose their god!). As soon as established, they exterminated whoever was preventing the full expression of their purity (they exterminated not just Indians, although Indians had just saved them, but also “rough fellows”, independent British settlers further north, who had committed the sin of being too friendly with native women (who could be massacred and enslaved at will, since they were unbelievers; notice the similarity with the hard core Qur’an).

The fundamental principles of both London Co. and Puritans were pretty much according to a racist book full of Shoahs (holocausts), a book they were reading every time they wanted to look deep. That “Mein Kampf” of the invaders made holocausts into a religion, and also the grabbing of lands, etc…. It was easy to transpose the ideas of this book; the Puritans were the Elected people, their enemies who happened to be occupying the promised land, were enemies of their God, and had to be destroyed. Thus murderous, genocidal racism was instated at the top of the mental agenda, and with their God’s stamp of approval. This sort of barbarousness would never have sailed through the Roman Senate, but, armed with the Bible (a book which extolls events that happened more than a millennium before the Roman Senate agonized about destroying Carthage), the English settlers could go where Western Civilization had not gone before: genocide on a Biblical scale.

To start with, modestly enough because the Indians were watching their every move, the London Company had reinvented slavery in a European setting. Jamestown was initially crewed by white slaves (convicts and indentured servants, to be punished and killed in atrocious circumstances at the smallest pretext). (By comparison the French government sent to its colonies only people who had been checked for their highest morality, and they could return any time!) In the English colonies, slavery of the whites was, naturally enough, soon replaced by that of the natives, and, when the colonies could finally afford them, by African slaves (buying them with tobacco revenue, and that is why expensive African slavery was mostly in the South).

The English colonies were without adult supervision (because England was in terrible civil war trouble; when the English king asked the French king to come help with his army, even the war friendly Louis XIV prudently declined). So the most basic standards of civilization could be trampled with alacrity. Perhaps finding that the burning of Indian towns left too many natives roaming the woods, Boston was paying for Indian scalps. The passionate hatred between Indians and English settlers soon got some company from the passionate hatred between enslaved Africans and Whites (some southern states had more slaves than Whites, and only terror made them stable). American racism was an acquired staple of survival. It was married to slavery, creating the particularly monstrous progeny of racially determined slavery (something not tried since 15C BCE India, three millennia earlier!).

None of this, of course was very European: racism was unknown in Europe ever since the Romans had Spanish (1C), African and Arab emperors (3C). Slavery had been unlawful in Western Europe since the Merovingians (7C).

In English America slavery and racism were means to an end: the conquest and possession of an entire continent by greedy Europeans maximizing profits. But it’s no accident that both the Spanish and the French, who both used ethics that were not flying as low, completely failed in North America. Although the temperate coast of North America had been known since the Vikings (who imported timber from it for many centuries), it could not be colonized for military reasons: the natives were too fierce, and they knew that the Europeans had come to steal the land (see Viking and Cartier reports). The English settlers used all the weapons at their disposal, and the war manual that suggested many of them, and the righteous spirit to go with it was the Bible. It’s still true today: Bush attacked Iraq because his “Higher Father” told him to. Long live the Bible and its God! An argument few Americans can resist.

So one should not scoff, and call the European settlers in America naive. That system of thought, which mixed Bible primitivism and European high tech was immensely successful: English Americans became quickly the richest, best fed, and often best educated people on earth (they held that position for three centuries). They were free, and formed into a de facto republic before London and Paris figured out what was going on. Nine generations after inception, excited by French agents, the republic declared its independence (1776). Tocqueville, arriving another four generations after that, declared, not without scathing irony:

“The Spaniards, by unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, did not succeed in EXTERMINATING the Indian race and could not even prevent them from sharing their rights; the United States Americans have attained BOTH these results with wonderful ease, quietly, legally, and philanthropically, without spilling blood and without violating a single one of the great principles of morality in the EYES of the world. It is impossible to DESTROY men with more respect to the laws of humanity” (from “Democracy in America”).
***

DEVASTATING IDEAS LEFT UNCHALLENGED KEEP ON FESTERING; HOW THE AMERICAN GENOCIDE INSPIRED EUROPEAN RACISTS AND EXTERMINATIONISTS:

America invented and justified, by its very success, slavery, extermination and racism. Those (Biblical) ideas fed back to Europe: many Europeans were impressed by their triumph in North America, and longed to duplicate it all over the planet.

Civilization had to fight hard in Europe, to triumph over Europe’s own savagery, and it was natural to extend an even more violent effort overseas. Racism is a natural instinct, a consequence of psychobiological tribalism, when all one sees is white men, and one identifies civilization with them, and civilization is in a world wide fight (against superstitious religion, habits and elites of the past, etc…). Savagery got identified with anybody not white, such as black men. Although such an identification was certainly culturally correct (don’t scream or a 19C Maori will come back, and eat you on my behalf), it was genetically erroneous, sure. But the point is that racism, however erroneous, flourished in Europe, and the conquest of the “New World” was seen as its prophet.

English America and its USA were a great inspiration for many (such as a particular Belgian king who devastated Congo for Ivory, allegedly killing millions). The racist Prussian fascists, such as governor Goering (the father of that WWI war hero, Herman Goering), instituted in Namibia an accelerated program trying to do very fast, around 1900, what the Americans had done in centuries, away from prying eyes. The British themselves used against the (European) Boers methods of concentration camps, deportation and pseudo accidental death (of more than a third of all the Boer women and children) that they had learned from the US Americans.

The Nazis, of course, were the most dedicated students of the genocide of the Indians. They decided to duplicate it in Europe, applying it to all their enemies (starting with the Poles, then the Jews, etc…) They put all these ideas on steroids, missing out completely on the plausible self denying moral subtlety of the American ways (which made them sustainable). As Tocqueville indicated, the Americans had become expert at lying to themselves and keeping appearances civilized. Although of course he came to observe after 220 years of continual holocaust (missing most of it). (US American civilization took three centuries to exterminate the Indians, and, by trying to do the same to all of the advanced Europeans of Eastern Europe in three years, the Nazis were bound not to make friends, even among themselves.)

Another meta feeling that was comforted by the keeping of appearances, was that English America, come hell and high water, was always right: nothing succeeds like success. It was fundamental to assert this loud and clear, because this loud crowing was part of the cover-up (another was to play real dumb and inarticulate). This lack of doubt about America has become a central American mental tradition. It explains why the role of the USA in helping fascist regimes (and, first of all Hitler’s) was never put front and center. Unsurprisingly, so has it been for the role of the USA in pushing Judeo-Christo-Muslim fanaticism (before S. Hussein put God on the Iraqi flag, the USA chose as motto “In God we trust” in 1954. This religious slogan unconstitutionally replaced the US Founders’ “E Pluribus Unum”; it’s unconstitutional to bring a god in because, so doing, Congress made an “establishment of a religion”, and that is explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution. But nothing succeeds as well as enormity, as Hitler pointed out (in this apparent competition of enormities, Hitler earlier put “Gott mit Uns” all over his SS)).
***

ANTI INTELLECTUALISM AS THE ULTIMATE COVER UP:

A characteristic of the American thought system is its anti-intellectualism. Pushed around, Americans tend to evoke their “faith” in “god”, rarely their supreme intelligence and sensibility. The Bible overlords it all, in some ways more than ever (some American Founding Fathers wrote some very strong anti-Christian stuff, and got elected, whereas saying the same nowadays would be death to any politician). At the same time, of course, in part to prevent the rule of absolute idiocy, which would be counter-productive to the overall mission, the USA has the best universities in the world (if “best” is carefully evaluated in the realms of easier thoughts, and the readily publishable; don’t expect the first genuinely American Abelard, Buridan, Voltaire, Gauss, Nietzsche or Einstein any time soon…).

Europeans remember the old Nazi proverb that “whenever I hear the word Kultur, I pull out my Browning” (Browning being an American brand of revolvers American capitalists smuggled to the Nazis in vast amounts). Culture was what ultimately stopped Nazism (the German army coup against Hitler of 1944 was launched as a matter of cultural principle by its upright instigators). France opposed Nazism at every turn, from January 1933 on, mostly for higher cultural reasons (just as the USA cooperated with Nazism against France by common hatred against those who detested genocides, racism, slavery, and the Biblical god).

The American thought system, increasingly laden with contradictions, encouraged by its devotion to the Bible, has avoided to think. Thinking is intrinsically creative, and may turn to dust the old American mummy of obsolete habits, if it ever touched it. In any case, the verdict of the American elite, when asked why they got into Iraq, admit that it was by “lack of intelligence”. No kidding. OK, that’s what they say, but not exactly what they mean, but that’s just because they did not think about it yet.

It’s encouraging that candidate Obama has been trying to think aloud in public, but the screams of the Beotians have been loud (thinking is traditionally viewed as “elite”, the plutocratic elite insists, in its successful strategy to confuse the American people). It’s discouraging to remember that, in the fight between anti-intellectual theocracy and the so called “Golden Age of Islam”, the theocrats won, and destroyed civilization (as they very nearly did in the Roman empire between 300CE and 550 CE).
***

THE TENACITY OF CIVILIZATION NEEDS TO DEAL WITH THE FINAL AMERICAN IDEA:

After a crafty hesitation of four centuries, full bore European civilization threatens to finally land in North America (if it had landed earlier, the USA would have been more Indian than Mexico). The opportunistic causes of the English American monstrosity have faded; the continent was conquered, the beast should be digesting its prey, instead of getting all agitated. The Biblical political philosophy of holocausts, racism, slavery, and theft of the land, having fulfilled its role, should be safely disposed of, instead of trying to recycle it in Iraq or Afghanistan (with Halliburton playing the role of the London Company). But old habits die hard. Although they worked well against the Neolithic ones, Biblical methods will not work in the cradle of civilization, however numbed out it was rendered by that other war manual, the Qur’an (the Qur’an derives from the Bible, and was used in a similar fashion).

Moreover there are more pressing issues. The greenhouse disaster is upon us, and some old American ideas, such as the unrestrained exploitation of the land, long successful in a continent voided of its native population, have to be detected, exposed and thrown out before they attempt to germinate all over the planet, in the fury of the overcrowded rats.

In the 19C, most of the system of thought supporting slavery was destroyed. In the 20C, racism and extermination came into direct conflict with democracy, and democracy won, and the system of thought of racism ended fatally damaged (in no small reason because especially France (but also Britain and America) used colored troops in combat to munch through the white master race: many extremely fierce “French” divisions were mostly African; for thirty one years, Senegalese and Germans were not in the habit of making a single prisoner: the lethal hatred was mutual, a good ground for future respect).

So now what is left among US bad mental habits, that still set it aside from its parental European thought system? Is there a head to this nagging obsolescence? One idea is left above all, and it’s at the genesis of it all. It shows up in basic principle of the US health “care” system.

As we said above, the London Company itself was founded for profits, Biblical extermination was its tool, and the ultimate master idea of its foundation was that BIG PROFIT IS THE END THAT JUSTIFY ALL AND ANY MEANS (an example of the application of this idea is in US health care, where death of American humans is OK, as long as the profits roll in! Death of profits would be major, death of humans a way to prevent that). Slavery, extermination, racism, Bible and war crimes, and systemic lying and dissembling were just instruments of that master idea, in total violation of 20 centuries of explicit Western civilization (religion, aka the Bible, allowed and instigated that violation, and that is why it became the sacred American text par excellence). The progenitor idea of all master ideas has survived so far, and reached a new level of achievement by sending the US Army to the Middle East to protect the oil, as the paramount mission of America. And by having the richest Americans taxed at the lowest rate (15%!).

The overall American idea that BIG PROFIT IS THE END THAT JUSTIFY ALL AND ANY MEANS has to see its prominence destroyed. It was appropriate to the invasion and destruction of the old North America. But now is a new World, all over the planet, and we don’t want it destroyed. Throughout old civilizations, capitalism was always against the excesses of plutocracy, ever since there were cattle herders, and there was a wealth tax (and yes, a “death” tax!).
***

A NEW SURVIVAL SKILL. THE DECONSTRUCTION OF DANGEROUSLY OBSOLETE THOUGHT SYSTEMS:

The time for holocausting some obsolete thought systems, before they holocaust us, has definitively arrived. We may as well start with this new approach to thinking within the USA rather than with Afghanistan (or China!). After all, the US Americans want to pretend that they can think, that they are an elite of a crowd.

It’s time to clear the mental tables, not just for the sake of the USA, but because now, whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, we are one world, one spaceship, and the air is getting foul, and the waters are rising, and the food stores are running low, and the third class passengers are rioting, and the oceans are getting empty of all, but poisons… It’s the road to hell, and no Bible can paper it over. Only hard core truth can come to the rescue, and appreciation for it is not found in many of the parts of American thinking that made the USA such a success. Therein the conundrum for the pusillanimous, and the challenge for the wise: how to save America while changing its soul.
***

Conclusion: PASSION IS NEEDED FOR DECONSTRUCTION.

Having being the author of a Biblical revisitation of an atrocious past transposed in modern times for seizing an entire continent, a form of civilizational devolution that directly preceded, encouraged and inspired such extravagances as Nazism, the least US American civilization could do now would be to acknowledge the enormous errors and terror of its old ways with many museums allowing people to recognize the full horrors of racism, slavery and genocides that made the USA what it is now. It is not a question of begging forgiveness on ones’ knees. After all, contemporaries did not commit these crimes. But the trains of thoughts and emotions that allowed these crimes are still in great part still around (as the mayhem in Iraq demonstrates for the whole planet to see). Becoming passionate about condemning these crimes will energize the vigilance against the cognitive, logical and emotional patterns that gave rise to them.
***

Patrice Ayme

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
http://www.patriceayme.com/index.html


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 348 other followers