Why This Site Shouldn’t Interest Most Americans

June 26, 2017

Very few Americans don’t believe in a God, or Life Force, Spirits and other Superstition (according to many polls, one of them reproduced below). I of course believe that all those who believe in superstition or divination are victims of a lack of introspection, resulting in a regrettable submission of (their) perception to domination. This the foundation of their political subjugation. It’s also the royal road to subjugation. Thus countries friendly to superstition and the religions attached to it, are typically submissive to mighty plutocracies.

And thus, as we see inequality rising around the world, it can be tracked to the imposition of the American “neoliberal” model, a modern ideology to impose the grossest traditional plutocracy!  

The cult of all things religious has been reinforced top down in the USA since 1954, date of enthronement of “In God We Trust” (which displaced the Republican “E Pluribus Unum”).

For example, Americans are taught to venerate Pastor Martin Luther King. To esteem MLK is honorable, but his cult, at the exclusion of the cult of others, and not learning what exactly happened, arguably even more meritorious, is dubious. After all, President Eisenhower, an ex-general, and Earl Warren, head of the US Supreme Court, did the the heavy lift and courageous combat against segregation in the 1950s.  

***

Forget God and its “Pastors”: Presidents, Generals and Judges are who Order Progress:

Here is Earl Warren:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group…Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
—Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Much clearer than “I have a dream!”. To desegregate schools, Eisenhower sent the army. Conclusion: if you want to fight injustice, clear legal, republican thinking and the army, in other words, force, is what is needed.

This Is Why The French Revolution, Core to the United Nations’ Charter, Happened in France, and Not America!

MLK was made into a living god, a sort of Muslim-like “Messenger”. In truth he was part, and rather at the end, of a much more powerful wave he surfed on. Heroes may be useful, but the cult of the providential man prepares that of the “philanthropist” as plutocrats call themselves. (Just as in the Middle Ages plutocrats modestly called themselves, the “best”.)

Thus, when I criticize Islam, many Americans feel I defend the Bible (which is actually the source of Islam, something i know, but they don’t…)

The entire left of the world, not just the USA, suffers from searching for heroes, rather than clear thinking on the Republic. But this is precisely what the plutocratically owned media and the masters of public opinion, wanted. It’s the result of meta teaching, inculcating impotent forms of thought.

I should speak only to the French agnostics (but they don’t generally read English well enough to understand me, as a French professional philosopher once told me, thus he asked me to translate my thoughts in… French; a full-time job I couldn’t possibly do. Actually, I have no time to write a book. As Socrates implicitly pointed out, thinking per se is a full-time job… Socrates, going overboard, famously called writing “the semblance of truth”; that would make all of math, physics and now biology the “semblance of truth”… Although I do agree for Plato…)

***

Cult Of God, One & Only, Came From the Hydraulic Dictatorship Zone:

Verily, much of the roots civilization we use today appeared in what I call the Middle Earth (earliest writing is from there; although it was completely independently evolved in Mesoamerica). Egyptian civilization appeared 6,000 years ago, and the first city known in Anatolia, a few millennia before that.

However, the Middle East, central to the Middle Earth, suffered desiccation of the land, and then the minds, as it veered into . Thus it is natural that this physically sick region came up with a sick metaphysics. It is also of some import: it’s no coincidence that the Roman empire collapsed when Christianism was imposed to it, and countries such as Syria collapsed when Islamism was imposed to it (in the Seventh Century already!)

Some have noticed an analogy between “Ra” as in the theology of Egypt, AbRAhamism, and BRAhamism. This is not as ludicrous as it sounds. First, Abrahamism clearly arose in Egypt (as the Bible recognizes sneakily). Secondly Brahamanism, which gave rise to Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism itself came from the old Vedic religion, which, in turn, comes from the Middle East. Wikipedia says:

According to Anthony: “Many of the qualities of Indo-Iranian god of might/victory, Verethraghna, were transferred to the adopted god Indra, who became the central deity of the developing Old Indic culture. Indra was the subject of 250 hymns, a quarter of the Rig Veda. He was associated more than any other deity with Soma, a stimulant drug (perhaps derived from Ephedra) probably borrowed from the BMAC religion. His rise to prominence was a peculiar trait of the Old Indic speakers.[27]

The oldest inscriptions in Old Indic, the language of the Rig Veda, are found not in northwestern India and Pakistan, but in northern Syria, the location of the Mitanni kingdom.[40] The Mitanni kings took Old Indic throne names, and Old Indic technical terms were used for horse-riding and chariot-driving.[40] The Old Indic term r’ta, meaning “cosmic order and truth”, the central concept of the Rig Veda, was also employed in the Mitanni kingdom.[40] Old Indic gods, including Indra, were also known in the Mitanni kingdom.[41][42][43]

The preceding illustrates well the concept of the Middle Earth. It also means that 72% of the world’s population derives its metaphysics from Egypt, or thereabout). More or less (the Egyptian empire often encroached deep on the so-called Fertile Crescent, which is anchored in the West by Israel, Lebanon, Syria…

Ultimately, Egypt, soon after a remarkable attempt at monotheism (which promptly spawned Abrahamism), decayed. Why? Some will point at the invasion of the “Peoples of the Sea”, which Egypt, alone among the Great Powers, was able to defeat (at considerable cost).

***

Egypt’s Government Model Was So Obsolete, Its Civilization Became Senile:

However, shortly after, Egypt exhibited a lack of animal spirits and was durably overrun by Libyans, and then Assyrians, Persians…  Tellingly, it’s the very fierce Greeks and their uncouth students, the Macedonians, who freed Egypt.

What happened to Egypt? Long drawn out dictatorship, when the rise of new technology called for start-ups, basically Greece was full of startups. Startup city states…

True, Egypt got invaded by vast empires, modernized versions of itself. When the Persians came around and colonized Egypt, so they did because Achaemenid Persia was a multinational empire, ultramodern in many ways.

However, ultimately the tiny Athenian startup defeated Persia at Marathon, and then insolently landed an army to free Egypt (its mental benefactor) from Persia!

***

Puritanism Does Not The Best Minds Make, Deep Thinking Is Dirty:

Last week I went out with a number of friends of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion, aggravated by reactive vegetarian ethics. I was retrospectively surprised by the lack of animal spirits. How can one have artful, constructive mental intercourse without the blossoming of passion? It certainly can’t happen when all conversations are guarded. After all, that’s why the divinity was imposed: the divinity imposed a subdued mentality, a submissive morality, and, definitively, a lack of inquiry.  

Thus it’s no accident that the French, long at the forefront of the battle of ideas against the obscurity of stupor, are the ones most aware that all past superstition is just that, superstition without foundation, as reckoned by its own definition.

And these are not words without foundation: in the Twelfth century, Pierre Abelard reinvented Classical logic (and went further). In the Fourteenth century, another Parisian, Jean buridan (Johannes Buridanus), went even further with the Cretan Paradox (rendered famous by Kurt Godel). Buridan also invented the hard part of Newton’s laws (three century before Newton). Actually Buridan anticipated not just Newton, but also Riemann’s force theory (used by Einstein and Al. in the Theory of Gravitation aka “General Relativity”!)

Both Abelard and Buridan were involved in colossal struggles, fights to death, with the catholic Church. Buridan had refused to enter the faculty of theology, so that he would not have to take an oath to the god of Abraham. Abelard fought Saint Bernard to death. Saint Bernard was then the most important, and most fanatical Catholic. At the time, it looked as if Saint Bernard sort of won. But history showed he lost. Buridan’s work were outlawed by the church, under the penalty of death, except in far eastern Europe, where they were taught to the young Copernicus.  

During the period 1100 CE to 1700 CE, Christianism caused an unending succession of terror, major wars, crusades, holocausts and massacres throughout Europe, and from there, the world. How come Europe didn’t collapsed as Rome did? First Europe was governed mostly by a plutocracy which was severely related and intermarried. They killed the poor a lot, themselves, much less. And actually that plutocracy was firmly in command, in secular command.

For example a fanatical Catholic such as Saint Louis put his mother, Blanche de Castille, ex-ruling queen, in charge several times as he made war through the Middle East (and letting himself be made a prisoner by the one and only female ruler that Islam ever had, in Egypt!). So he let a woman in charge, but he also had organized a modern justice system, now copied everywhere, including the USA.

Rome collapsed, because emperor Theodosius, around 390 CE unleashed the office of “Inquisitor” he had just created, against the “Heretics” (“those who made a choice”). Inquisitor, heretics: two terms, dripping with blood and terror, bathing in fire, imposed by Roman Catholic emperor Theodosius. By 400 CE, the empire was collapsing so much that the bishops put the Franks in charge of three provinces.

The Franks were Pagans

Hopefully, they still are!

And will stay that way! Maybe Americans could join their forefathers the Franks, and realize that, if they want paradise, they can get it only on Earth. Let me rephrase this a bit: If one wants paradise, one has to work hard, because one can get it only on Earth! It means in particular that on eschews the seductions of the rule of hell (plutocracy), and better start with free universal healthcare, as those who believe it’s their task to create and make a really Good God!

Patrice Ayme’

Two Monks And A Woman

June 24, 2017

All knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge

***

Two monks and a woman” is a well-known “Buddhist” story (although Taoists also view it as theirs). Let me recount one version of the story, and its most common explanation. Then I will add that there is much more to this version of the story than said “explanation”. The usual explanation criticizes the younger monk, whereas I will explain the older one’s motivations. Trust me to twist fairy tales into other dimensions!

Two Monks and a Woman – a Zen Lesson

A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.

Women Caused Lots Of Problems To The Wisdom Of Old

The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.

Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the woman, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his 
journey.

The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened. After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.

Two more hours passed, then three, finally the younger monk could contain himself any longer, and blurted out “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”

The older monk looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”

***

Here is the traditional pious comment on this story:

This Zen story reveals a message about living in the present moment. How often do we carry around past hurts, holding onto resentments when the only person we are really hurting is ourselves? We all go through times in life when other people say things or behave in a way that is hurtful towards us. We can chose to ruminate over past actions or events, but it will ultimately weigh us down and sap our energy. Instead we can choose to let go of what doesn’t serve us anymore and concentrate on the present moment. Until we can find a level of peace and happiness in the present circumstances of our lives, we will never be content, because ‘now’ is all we will ever have.

***

There is much more to this story than just that it feels good to let go of resentment, and thus that eschewing resentment maximizes contentment: The older monk exerts judgment. He goes meta, comes out of the box: the senior monk captures the fundamental meaning of “not touching women”. Clearly crossing a dangerous river does not engage the same neurology and neurohormones as those involved in sex and reproduction. Instead, the older monk realizes that this is all about engaging the mental machinery of survival and care, a completely different mindset, noble and human in the best way.

(The preceding, realizing which neurology is appropriate to a situation at hand, relates to the problem of US healthcare: it conflates fundamentally two opposite mentalities, two neurologies which hate each other, care and greed.)

Thus the older monk sees the higher purpose, and sets himself to accomplish it. As it has only to do with surviving a river, it’s easy to forget, when the river is long gone.

However, the mind of the younger monk focused on the woman being a woman, and what monks are not supposed to do with women, although he wants very much to do it; the junior monk does not focus on the noble observation that the woman is in danger from the river.

***

Don’t Make Fun Of War, It Will Always Win, And Some:  

One can go one step further in the meta-analysis: why should we resent resentment? Resentment is a mental agency. It’s not exactly the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, but it has a somewhat similar inner purpose, providing a motivation to find out what really is going on. As all mental agencies, resentment evolved because it responded to some purpose. Here is a little Taoist story to enlighten us here:

All the people in the world are gathered in one room, and God asks, “Who wants world peace?” Everybody raises their hand except one man. God asks, “Who wants a war?” The one man raises his hand. God points at him and says, “He wins!”

Right, mosquitoes don’t care: lack of enlightenment is only a problem to the enlightened. Mosquitoes don’t resent, either (but even flies know fear, recent stories show!)

The older monk crosses the river with a woman on his back, because he cares. Mosquitoes care only about one thing. The older monk cares about accomplishing a good action, which will make him feel good, enlightened, and light, thereafter. The younger monk cares too, but not the sort of care which is just a gift to the other.

Resentment can be good when it leads us to feel again (that’s what re-sentment means!) what the emotional landscape was, and whether it was handled optimally thereafter. Not just handled optimally by us, but by others, and by the hand of fate. Amusingly, modern neurology is on the side of resentment: most of “feelings” actually originate in re-entrant circuitry. So most perception can be looked at as resentment! (Roll over, Friedrich Nietzsche!)

Homo is a thinking being, or is not. A wise human explains things. A wise cockroach, with its million neurons takes care of number one, itself! Munching over what happened, and why, and whether it could have been different, and better, if it had been different is not necessary idle thinking, because establishing theories is what humans do, and what human culture is made of. If resentment helps, so be it. Just as, if principles obstruct higher principles, they have to make way.

Patrice Ayme’ 

Abuse of Muslim Women Ignored By Western Leadership, and Why

June 22, 2017

The tolerance of inhuman, hard core Islam is symptomatic of the venality of elites and their “elected” servants, who we have to endure, all around the world. That’s not very surprising: the very principle of letting a few thousand people (“elected” or not) decide the fate of the biosphere, and, in particular more than seven billion people, is intrinsically demented and immoral.

Pseudo progressives claim “all religions have to be respected”, but then why not religions ordering human sacrifices? Answer: they do, because hard-core Islam does order human sacrifices of the many types of people the Qur’an orders to kill.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@ayaan) and Asra Q. Nomani (@asranomani), are authors (and in the case of Ayaan, an ex-Member of the Dutch Parliament) who were born into Islam, and got mutilated and abused as a result. The New York Times allowed them to write an “Op-Ed” (a vicious notion, as if the usual editorials of the New York Times had no opinion!))  Ms. Nomani is a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, once a Dutch MP, was hunted out of Europe by murderous Islamists and various lethal fatwas. Authorities there proved unable and unwilling to protect hurt from rabid Islamists. Whereas there are very few Muslim from most fanatical Islamist region in the USA (yet!), where she took refuge, there are orders of magnitude more in Europe.

The New York Times blocked my comment on this excellent editorial (showing its duplicity: it claims that my comments are blocked by editors at the New York Times, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a friend and does not block me in social networks, far from it!). The true reason for the NYT blocking me? Because those posing as “liberals”, who are part of the elite, are more often than not, not “liberal” at all, but simply, venal, corrupt, greedy!

Gender equality is a fundamental human trait. Any ideology ordering otherwise should be unlawful to preach, especially to the youth. Not all variant of Islam are sexist: they are outliers in the “Sufi” tradition, for example in West Africa. However mainstream Islam is deeply sexist, women being literally at best only a fraction of men.

That present day “liberals” refuse to see this means that they are just taking orders from the powers that be (the ones which got them elected to start with). A basic triangular conspiracy exists between oil-producing monarchies, international finance and elected politicians. It was set in stone when president Roosevelt met with Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, king of Saudi Arabia, in 1945.

The attitude of present day “liberal” leaders relative to Islam is revealing of their general attitude relative to the elites and the mighty: they join them rather than contradict them. Their positions arise from greed for their personal power, rather than principle for humanity.

****

(Part of) Text from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani below:

The so-called “left”, or self-described “liberal” elite, verily, an elite of leeches, has never read Voltaire, or Montaigne. All it read is that Wall Street and Saudi Arabia have all the money. Compare Ayaan’s saying with Voltaire’s own:”One must crush infamy!”

June 22, 2017

… “Senator Harris took her seat in front of us as a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism.

… just moments before the hearing began, a man wearing a Muslim prayer cap had stood up and heckled us, putting Capitol police officers on high alert. We were girding ourselves for tough questions.

But they never came. The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question.

This wasn’t a case of benign neglect. At one point, Senator McCaskill said that she took issue with the theme of the hearing itself. “Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” she said. “We should not focus on religion,” she said, adding that she was “worried” that the hearing, organized by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, would “underline that.” In the end, the only questions asked of us about Islamist ideologies came from Senator Johnson and his Republican colleague, Senator Steve Daines from Montana.

Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.

How to explain this experience? Perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny. But obviously, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that’s far from the case.

No, what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.

Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.

In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise.

Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.

That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam.

There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?

This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.

The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.

Defending universal principles against Islamist ideology, not denying that these conflicts exist, is surely the first step in a fight whose natural leaders in Washington should be women like Kamala Harris and Claire McCaskill — both outspoken advocates for American women.

We believe feminism is for everyone. Our goals — not least the equality of the sexes — are deeply liberal. We know these are values that the Democratic senators at our hearing share. Will they find their voices and join us in opposing Islamist extremism and its war on women?”

According to Aischa, child-bride of Prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an as written by the Third Caliph, Uthman, was extremely sexist. Less sexist version of Muhammad’s message were destroyed under the order of Uthman, who ended assassinated as a result. Aischa fought with an army for her anti-sexist views, but, differently from European women, she was defeated at the famous “Battle of the Camel”.

***

Straight out of Qur’an and Hadith:

To divorce a wife, a Muslim man can just say “Talaq, talaq, talaq” That’s called the instant divorce law. It was controversial even in Muhammad’s times, and Muhammad criticized it. However, according to the Hadith, the Prophet practiced it. Even the New York Times recognizes this instant divorce law is a problem today, all the way to India.

All the more as, according to Hadith, “irrevocable divorce” does not allow for any sort of allowance or remittance.

The Qur’an Surah An-Nisa, 34 defines the relations between husbands and wives. Quran 4:34 reads:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

— Qur’an 4:34, [5]

Some of the relation of Islam with sexism is nearly hilarious. Here is a Hadith showing how much of lala land Islam is: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zam’a: The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.”

However, a bit of discipline is good for the ladies:

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:132 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:73:68

In Sunni Hadith, violent sexism rules, and is reiterated ad nauseam. here is an example: Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. — Sunan Abu Dawood, 11:2142

The unending litany of verbal and “Sharia legal” abuse hurled at women in Islam sacred texts is properly astounding. It goes against human nature so deeply that any civilization submitting to it can only fail.

***

We Already Knew This, But A Slightly Different Angle Is Instructive:

Making women uneducated and submissive make them stupid, and thus, so for their children, and the grown-ups who follow, insuring a vicious circle of less than optimal intelligence and culture. Thus Islam’s sexism is self-reproducing, and self-defeating.

Islam is not just in contradiction with the present (“Western”) civilization, and the United Nations Charter (whose foundation is basically:”All Persons Are Created Equal”). Any preaching otherwise should be outlawed. Islam is also in contradiction with human ethology itself, the core of human strength, as human sexual equality is a genetic given.

But so, of course, is plutocracy. In Islam, plutocracy sees an enemy of its enemy, humanity. So they are friends!

Patrice Ayme’

[The integral version of the text above from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Arsa Nomani was published first in the New York Times under the title:“Kamala Harris, Speak Up. Don’t Be Silent on Women’s Rights.” I spent an hour trying to persuade the New York Times to publish my comment, it replied by interfering with my computer, erasing text. Then the New York Times changed the title to “They Brushed off Kamala Harris, Then She Brushed Us Off.” So, according to the New York Times, the text of the two ladies above is not about women’s rights anymore, but all about ladies “brushing off” each other.

A fight for human rights oppressed by a misogynistic ideology has been replaced, in its title, according to the New York Times, by cat ladies fighting for supremacy. Thus the New York Times manipulate minds, one moody detail at a time… All the comments are also doctored, selected, to present a biased view of what We The People are thinking. British tabloids have used that method for decade, hence Brexit. The New York Times is ever more brazen in its practice of it.]

Why The Anglo-Saxon Rage Against France

June 21, 2017

CROSSROADS OF THOUGHT, OR WHY THE FRENCH ARE SO SMART:

Another day, another explosion of a luggage full of high explosive in a public space, courtesy of Islamist terrorist, Oussama Z., a primitive Moroccan screaming “God is great” in Arabic. He tried to terrorize Brussels’ train station, but law enforcement spotted him before he could organize properly his devilish terror weapons. The fanatical barbarian was promptly shot and killed by officers. The Islamists have good reason to be enraged against France, and anything French-like, such as Belgium, ever since they attacked France in 715 CE… And got whipped. Before they invaded again, in 721 CE, to be whipped again. And again, in 732 CE. Some are gluttons for punishment. Islamist feel that the more punished they get, the closer to God. Which is great, probably because He is a homosexual in denial, who detest women. Different people, different nations, different mentalities.

***

France Alleged To Be “Liberticide”, Latest example of Anti-French rage and Hypocrisy:

Recently various major Anglo-Saxon media, including the crooked New York Times, preventively trashed new proposed anti-terrorist French laws as dictatorial. This is more than hypocritical. Those proposed French laws are nothing of the sort. Whereas US practice is beyond dictatorial, they are more police-state like (8 millions are under “Judicial Supervision” in the US!) 

For example a proposed French law says that the police could ask drivers of vehicles to have those inspected when they want to enter a security perimeter around major events (such as the “Tour de France”). This is a measure against car bombs. However, if the driver refuses an inspection of his or her car, to see if it carries a huge bomb, the driver can leave, no question asked. Try that in the US: you will be shot at, and everybody knows it (so nobody tries!) Everybody in the US knows that when the police gives an order, either you obey, or you get shot.

How “liberticide” is that? According to the crooked New York Times, enormously so (New York Times is crooked because it has banned me during the 2003 Iraq war, and for the last 6 years, although it denies it does, a further lie!)

By the way I have driven cars in the USA which way inspected for car bombs. Turning around was not an option, as I was dealing with the ladies and gentlemen of the US Secret Service, and that was nine years ago already. Major US media didn’t write editorials about it. I also found this to be no problem at all (because my car was not equipped with a car bomb!) I didn’t feel my right to carry a car bomb was trampled underfoot.

***

Conflicts between nations and versions of civilization arise from different mentalities:

These different mentalities do not just arise haphazardly. They often originate for a number of incontrovertible reasons. For example Fernand Braudel found that the desiccation of the Middle East brought increasingly dictatorial regimes, necessary to organize the enormous, increasingly complex hydraulic systems necessary for the survival of civilization. Thus the Pharaoh became “shepherd of his flock” (as official Egyptian propaganda put it, copied by the Bible a millennium later). Not surprisingly, Egypt, long at the forefront of civilization faded away as an engine of mental creation.

***

Why The French Are Like The Franks Who Became Like The Gauls:

It’s a curious thing that the same mentality inhabits France now as it did even before the Romans showed up. The population changed significantly in the meantime from massacres, immigration, emigration, etc. Centuries before the Roman empire, though, the 60 states of France each had their own treasury (and currency). And, in many technologies they were best in the world. Much of the Roman military equipment was purchased in Celtic Spain and Gaul (light metal helmets, swords). Five centuries later, the 37 arsenal of the Roman empire made their own weapons, right. But that was five centuries later, and by then Gallia was arguably the strongest piece of the Roman empire, and with a mind of its own (there was even a “Gallic empire” within the Roman empire, for a while).

France: trade routes from Med to Atlantic, and from Med to North Sea, and from Med to Germany! Melting Pot Max!

So why the same? Precisely because France was the original melting pot, the three main trade routes between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe being there. A crossroad of trade and especially mental trade. The Gauls actually used Hermes, also known as Mercury, as their main imported deity. That was the god of commerce, and communications

***

Why The Clashing Mentalities Between France and the Anglo-Saxons?

England has been in conflict with France since, paradoxically enough, the highly successful invasion and colonization of England by a French army led by the Duke of Normandy. As the latter and his barons took control on the other side of the channel, the new king of England, namely aforesaid Duke, became a vassal of the king of France. The king of Francia was not any king out there. After the de facto secession of the Western Franks from the rest of the “Renovated” Roman empire, the king of France was officially “Roman emperor in his own kingdom”.

This status of vassal went on for centuries. The situation became worse when the “Louve de France”, the She-Wolf of france, daughter of Philippe IV Le Bel of France, became absolute monarch of England. She was succeeded by her son Edward III, grandson of Le Bel, legitimate king of England and France. At that point, the leadership of England could claim that Paris was vassal to London, and the 475 years war (so-called “100 years war”) was on.

Another problem is that the Duke of Normandy had to persuade the English that it was in their best interest to be ruled by him. First, of course, the french outlawed slavery in England, something that the 20% of the population who were slaves, loved. But William had to make We the People stakeholders in their nation: England had been crisscrossed by civil wars and invasions, with all sorts of Angles, and Saxons, and (“Fair”) Viking from Norway, and Dark Vikings from Denmark, for 5 centuries… Thus William of Normandy installed a sort of more direct democracy which was frowned on by the more traditional Franco-Roman plutocracy on the other side of the Channel. That “English” trick was increased in following centuries, for example when other (French) aristocrats tried to be elected king by the (English) Parliament, and hoped to do that, by first increasing the powers of said Parliament.

In any case, as France was much more powerful than England then, with several times the population and riches, and a closer connection to Roman inheritance, the leadership in England could survive only through more devious and militarily efficient means than those used by the French from France.

In the end, England became basically a more efficient version of France, and that included a mentality that the French could see as more pragmatic, less principled, more perfidious and hypocritical.

As French supremacy lasted until 1815, the English had to try much harder until then, with a more underhanded mentality. In 1815, the English monarch renounced his claim to the throne of France (a claim started by Isabelle and her son Edward III, and later reconfirmed in an accord to end the “100 Year War” which Joan of Arc and her operators would violate, relaunching the war for another 375 years).

After that, France was clearly the junior partner in the way of world empire… But not as a land power, where the French military stayed the most powerful in the West, most of the time, until May 1940.

The German empire was the world’s most powerful military in the period 1871-1914. However, in September 1914, it was nearly annihilated by a French counterattack at the First Battle of the Marne, shattering the conspiracy to take control of the world. The reason for french military might can be tracked all the way back to the Third Century, when the Confederation of the Salian Franks was created, and Franks went up Roman rivers in what would become the Viking style, five centuries later. The alliance between Romans and Franks arose from these earlier conflicts, when the Romans, and in particular Caesar Constantine, realized that Frankish military might was best co-opted, rather than fought.

The ascent of the Franks was defined by them militarily defeating all and any enemies who tried to encroach on present day France. The list is nearly never ending, and includes the Huns, the Goths, and the Berber and Arab armies of the three invasions of Francia by the Umayyad Caliphate (715-748 CE), which brought its demise in 750 CE (as the bones of its armies laid in France). The switch from “Franks” to “French” happened in the Twelfth Century, and the first unelected French king was Jean I, an infant who ruled 5 days, before being probably poisoned (by Countess Mahaut of Artois; now a region of pseudo-independent Belgium).

Thus the French are frank and aggressive. On this civilization grew and multiplied. Frank, to know and transmit the truth, which is the core strength of war. Aggressive, to impose the truth. Why so much war? Because France is at core of Europe, where the easiest main three trade routes pass (going across the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Carpathians, the Balkan Mountains or the Caucasus, all East-West ranges, mostly, is best done through… France!)

More details of European topography, showing better that the easiest trade routes indeed go through France… South of Massif Central (the volcanic range in the middle of France), going west, and up the Rhones valley.

The French state is the direct descendant of the Roman state. There is actually no discontinuity whatsoever, militarily, legal or otherwise. The first well-known elected French king, Clovis, was also Roman Consul and Imperator of the Roman army. Clovis succeeded to do what the Roman state couldn’t succeed to do in the preceding 150 years: Clovis crushed and evacuated the Visigoths (Battle of Vouillé, in 507 CE). Thus Francia and Constantinople, all the way to the Tenth and Eleventh Century, viewed themselves as part of the same Romanitas (resulting in common military campaigns, as when the Eastern Roman fleet operated on the French Riviera in the Tenth Century, in cooperation with Frankish armies in the interior, to extricate the Muslims who had been terrorizing Western Europe, in still another invasion; the First Crusade, 150 years later was the reciprocal courtesy…)

The philosophical method William the Conqueror used is exactly the same which Clovis used. And that’s not happenstance. Notice that, in both cases, those methods were quite opposite to the cool massacres, and thorough holocausts enacted by Julius Caesar when he conquered Gallia (Gaul).

However, the gigantic French empire was the object of US greed by 1914, and the envoy of hyper racist US President Wilson (a democrat, ex-president of Princeton University, a famous plutocratic university) conspired, encouraged, abetted and talked the German Kaiser into launching a world war, which he couldn’t win, with the result that, in 1945, the US was in perfect position to grab both the British and French empires, in the guise of decolonization.

This crowned the “American Century”, this worldwide empire, in the glory of which we are all presently basking.

So why the “Anglo-Saxon” anti-French rage?

This anti-French rage is a preventive measure, lest all the preceding be found out.

And should we be Zen-like, satisfied with this cognitive cover-up, organized in great part by the glorious US plutocratic universities? No. Why? Because we are getting through what promises to be maybe the greatest extinction of the biosphere ever since Snowball Earth. The simple US greed mentality is completely insufficient to deal with this crisis. Americans emit 16 tons of CO2 per capita, per year, in no small reason because they are such glorious, sensitive people, having attended their glorious super smart universities of greed, and they need to drive big truck as soon as they are 16 years old. By comparison, the French emit 6 (six) tons of CO2 per capita, per year. Because they are such losers. But, precisely, we need to learn to lose gracefully the battle of mental comfort and venal stupidity, to win the next war.  The ultimate war. The war of biosphere survival. A war against all of yesteryear’s mentalities.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Another Day, Another Islamist Attack: Outlaw The Preaching!

June 19, 2017

Ah, for a respite from heavy philosophizing such as pondering consciousness and the associated unconscious… We can trust the barbarians to provide us with what they passes for entertainment in the desert, namely, mayhem… (Desert raiding by nomads a la Muhammad, attacking traders and peasants, is even older than civilization…)

A French Islam practitioner attacked the Gendarmerie on the Champ Elysees. The assailant, complete with explosive, assault gun, etc. was badly burned and died at the scene (the Gendarmerie is part of the army, not the police, and is heavily armed).

Literal Islam, as depicted literally in the Qur’an, and, worse, the Hadith, is incompatible with Western civilization. This is not being insulting, unfair or racist to say so. It was explicitly designed that way by Muhammad. Muhammad expressed himself very clearly: he thought the Jews and Christians had failed to enact the Bible literally. He also wrote that the Greeks, Romans and Persians, with their empires, had prevented the Arabs to raid, for a full millennium. With Muhammad’s new religion, this was all going to change: demographics and Jihad would be cranked up. 

Core Of Western Civilization Under Siege. Notre Dame is not just a cathedral built nine centuries ago. It was also where what came to be known as the “UNIVERSITY” was located, for many centuries before that. By law the Cathedral Of Paris had (the best in Europe) secular teaching in Europe, already by the Seventh Century. It was an obligatory mandate, a law imposed ordered onto all religious establishment by Salian (secular) law.  When the old cathedral was demolished and replaced by the present one, the mandate went on.

That Islam is a war machine against Greco-Roman civilization  (and even against the related Persian Sassanid civilization) is the incontrovertible fact, made plain in the sacred texts of Islam. It’s written black on white. Ultimately, there are thus only two outcomes: 1) Literal interpretation and preaching of Literal Islam is outlawed, and the law against preaching murder of most of the population is enforced. Or, 2) Western civilization is destroyed (as Muhammad intended explicitly to do, and that’s why he personally led the first attack against the Roman empire).

This is simple, and it should not be very hard to understand to those with independent thinking capability. Those who have not spent, let’s say one hundred hours reading the full Qur’an and the most significant parts of the Hadith, should not be considered cogent enough to disagree stridently with this (and most Muslims have not read the Qur’an, let alone the Hadith; they only know some deceiving passages which carefully avoid the gist of the message of the Messenger…) The Qur’an for example, orders “a rain of stones” on homosexuals. On this particular subject, the Qur’an quotes Lot, in the Bible’s Old Testament.

And so on. Most people nowadays belong to categories of people which the Qur’an orders to be “thrown in the fire”. The Hadith 41; 685, repeated many times in different variants, says that: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…” Next time you consider Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights, and its influence beyond that, remember this… 

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/thought-crime/

It is possible to construct variant of “Sufi” Islam which are fully compatible with Western civilization (as found historically in Senegal). Those should be encouraged, promoted. But they have been swamped by Literal Islam, deadly enemy of civilization.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/islam-religion-of-fighting-says-caliph/

Preaching hate crimes should be considered to be a grievous crime, especially when targeting children. It does not matter if it is in the name of the Arab God, or the Aztec God Huichilobos. Preaching, or teaching hatred should be punished by very long prison sentences, and expulsion (when possible).

Notice that ordering to kill many categories of people, as the Qur’an orders to, is tantamount to order human sacrifices of most of the population. In the Roman Republic, religions ordering human sacrifices were outlawed into inexistence. So there we have a legal precedent, more than 2,000 years old.

***

This was in answer to an article in the Economist, typical of the cluelessness of journalists :

Why Europe’s Muslims do not chant in unison, as its politicians would like

The messy politics of European Islam

Erasmus, Jun 18th 2017

IN THE realm of European Islam, nothing is going quite to plan. In the perfect scenario of the continent’s mainstream politicians, the law-abiding majority of Muslim citizens would be coming together now in a massive, thundering condemnation of terrorism. That in turn would create a renewed social consensus, paving the way for the defeat of terrorism in its latest, horrible forms, as it has been perpetrated in places like Nice, Brussels, Berlin, Manchester and London.

Reality turns out to be messier…

[Prime Minister] Theresa May threw out a sharp-tongued challenge to British Muslims in the aftermath of the murderous attack that began at London Bridge on June 3rd. The problem, the prime minister declared, is ideological and cultural, rather than simply a challenge for the police and security services. In her words,

There is…far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations`…The whole of our country needs to take on this extremism, and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom.

… [Hundreds of british Imams reacted…] But look closely at the prayer leaders’ declaration, as published by the Muslim Council of Britain, and you will see that they are far from following Mrs May’s hymn-sheet. The first batch of imams to sign the “no funeral” statement added some important qualifications:

The statement should not detract from the seriousness of oppression and persecution occurring around the world, especially to Muslims, whom we remember in our prayers by day and night…It should also not detract from deeply unfortunate statements issuing forth from some quarters, which seek to implicate the entire Muslim community and the religion of Islam, or insinuate that one system of values is ontologically superior to another.

Their message to Mrs May and her government might be paraphrased as something like: “If you want a broad conversation about ideology and culture, even an embarrassing one, let’s have one. But it won’t be the sort of conversation that you want or expect. You want to talk about imams with hardline ideas about gender, sexuality and self-segregation by Muslims, because you think all that is a gateway to terrorism. Well, we want to talk about Muslim grievances, including those over British foreign policy.”

In France, meanwhile, some lines of communication that used, for better or worse, to connect mainstream politics with Muslim community groups seem to have failed. One of the most widely organised Islamic bodies in France had hitherto been called the Union of Islamic Organisations of France (UOIF). It recently vowed to rename itself the “Muslims of France”. It is regarded as being ideologically close to the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, which it denies. During the 2012 presidential poll, it backed François Hollande, the successful Socialist candidate.

This year, Marine Le Pen, a far-right presidential candidate, repeatedly alleged that the UOIF and her centrist rival Emmanuel Macron were somehow linked in a disreputable pact. The charge completely failed to stick, or to prevent his victory, but it did force its targets onto the defensive. The Muslim organisation urged people to go to the polls but made no recommendation; and, in contrast with previous years, secular politicians stayed away from the organisation…

Staying away will not be enough. The essence of the problem has to be addressed. Neither the Bible, nor the Qur’an should rule the Republic. And serious death threats should be treated as such.

Republics are best at eradicating threats. Ah, yes, but the Republic is closer to a plutocracy in all too many ways, nowadays, and that’s the crux of the matter… The media are held by plutocrats and the meta teaching of plutocrats is how, not to think (so one won’t bother them). Then they can be like Amazon, telling you everything you need, and even feeding you (Amazon just bought “Whole Foods” for 14 billion dollars).

To make it easier on plutocracy, some in the French government announced that it was OK for Google not to pay tax. And I actually talked to a high level Intel engineer at a party in Atherton, California, 48 hours ago, and he told me, and others, that he didn’t see why large companies should pay tax. He added he didn’t believe in conspiracy theories… My answer discombobulated him, deeply, and he physically left the party. I guess I am a party pooper…

Patrice Ayme’

SUBCONSCIOUS (Theory Thereof!)

June 18, 2017

SUBCONSCIOUSNESS AS HIGHER DIMENSIONAL SPACES OF INCARNATED POTENTIALITIES:

I suggest the following: thesubconscious“, “unconscious”, or “preconscious” (“Vorbewusste”, Freud)  is, partly, the set of all weak synaptic (“Hebbian”) activity (in other words, all weak neural networks; yet, not only!). Thus, I propose that much of the so-called “subconscious” does not differ in nature from normal neuronal activity. The subconscious is not that… subconscious. A difference between conscious and subconscious is in intensity, the facility, of the neuronal pathways, not their nature.

(If you ask where I got this inspiration from, my own brain is a full lab at night, and not just at night; for example hard mountain running causes divided consciousness, but it also shuts down part of the brain, while opening others: thinking about the Foundations of Quantum Physics or Economics, or History, while running, or indulging in another passionate activity, gives completely different insights, contexts, and moods than when cuddling with one’s computer, precisely because parts of the brain shut down, including inhibitory regions… Introspection stays the main engine of philosophy, after all these years; see De La Mettrie’s fever, and his “machine man“, below)

The conscious would be where neuronal connections are strong, well-known. The subconscious would be WHERE connections are weak, and known only occasionally, during sleep, say. Thus the subconscious would be made, in part, of neuronal circuitry which got activated from UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, thus sparsely, rarely, occasionally, and thus established WEAK connections.

In Its Simplest Form, A Subconscious Connection Is Just A Little Used Neuronal Connection. There are more tentative engrams, and some just potential.

Where Are Consciousness & Subconsciousness Located? Configuration Spaces, Just As Quantum Spaces! 

Amusingly, yet deeply, some may ask where is this “WHERE“, I am talking about where the subconscious would be, in my opinion, somehow, somewhat located. They may sneer: ‘isn’t it all in the brain anyway? how can the conscious be in the same 3 dimensional space as consciousness?

So where is this “WHERE“? This “WHERE” is a mathematical space! Hey, why did you think Riemann invented high dimensional geometry for? Interestingly, tellingly, and somewhat connected, the same exact objection has been made when the likes of yours truly have claimed that “Quantum Waves Are Real“: some physicists haughtily sneered back that Quantum Waves couldn’t possibly be real, because they would have to be not just objects in three-dimensional space, like the average tsunami, but in so-called “configuration space“. No, seriously, guys, with Quantum Fields in zillions of dimensions superposed on top of each other, and an omnipresent non-zero “Higgs” field interacting with all other quantum fields, to give them mass, and an all too real as far as the LHC in Geneva has it?… Well, as far as I am concerned, configuration space is space, just like three-dimensional space, is space, it’s real… I am not a mathematician for no good reason!

***

Why Sentient Animals Sleep: So That They Can Think Creatively!

This little theory of part of the subconscious as weak neuronal connections explains in part why animals sleep. Indeed, how were those weak connections which end up constituting most of the subconscious  activated? How come they are not activated in normal, conscious life? Sleep! A trick to do so is by shutting down parts of the brain, and thus forcing connectivity in other parts and pathways. How to shut down part of the brain? With sleep or heavy exercise, or passion, including abject fear and mad hunger, tourism, etc…Shutting down part of the brain, including inhibitory circuitry and organs, forces the Will to Connect to use unusual pathways. If those make sense, they get pre-established, and should some real world situations INPUT resemble what was encountered previously in the inner brain, those networks, that means those logics, those solutions, will get activated…

The usual advantages of sleep are considered to be housecleaning and reviewing, and reinforcing the neurological pathways experienced during the day. What I am saying here is that sleep forces unusual neuronal activity, thus the imagination. It’s an essential way of obtaining creative intelligence.

***

Homme Machine, the Machine Man With A Twist: 

Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709-1751), a physician born in Saint Malo, France, made observations on himself, during a feverish illness, referring to the action of quickened blood circulation upon thought, which led him to the conclusion that mental processes were to be accounted for as the effects of organic changes in the brain and nervous system. De la Mettrie argued that the organization of humans was done to provide the best use of complex matter as possible (this may have influenced Lamarck, and is as modern as possible: Quantum Field Theory find local minima of Lagrangians which depict energy; in a way a form of generalized economics…)

Julien Offray de la Mettrie, l’ Homme Machine! Obviously a Modern Psychology Animated Julien, But He Lived Only 42 Years (Same as his contemporary, Émilie Du Châtelet, discoverer of energy, infrared, etc.)

Most reasonable  Austrian-British philosopher cum physicist Karl Popper discussed de la Mettrie’s claim that man is a machine in relation to evolution and quantum physics:

“Yet the doctrine that man is a machine was argued most forcefully in 1751, long before the theory of evolution became generally accepted, by de La Mettrie; and the theory of evolution gave the problem an even sharper edge, by suggesting there may be no clear distinction between living matter and dead matter. And, in spite of the victory of the new quantum theory, and the conversion of so many physicists to indeterminism de La Mettrie’s doctrine that man is a machine has perhaps more defenders than before among physicists, biologists and philosophers; especially in the form of the thesis that man is a computer.”

From my point of view, this is not surprising. Indeterminism does not contradict the machine man. Far from it: it makes it possible. Indeterminism, the fuzziness of waves, smooths out and enriches everything, including in the brain: mechanics now does not mean wheels with teeth activating each other, but nonlinear waves crashing and interfering, a greater wealth of logic.

So, in my view, there is programmation, to generate pre-established connections but it’s self-generated, and those connections become self evolved… That’s a situation quite similar to what happens in biological evolution of the phenotype itself… And it’s related; namely lots of “instincts” are just evolved neurocircuitry. Evolved during one’s lifetime, even in a bee’s brain…

***

The Subconscious Is Not Reduced to Alternative Neuronal Networks: Influential Geometries and Topologies Are Crucial Too:

Are potential Hebbian networks all there could be to the unconscious? No. Some of the unconscious is of an even weaker nature. In that case the full neuronal connections were not made yet, but pathways still potentially exist, from the physical proximity of elements of potential paths…

The unconscious is the domain of possibilities and potentialities. The unconscious is a theoretician of the possible, the imaginable… So neuronal, glial, logical, emotional neighborhoods topologically close can well lead to unexpected, never experienced before connections. Those potentialities are also part of the unconscious. So the unconscious is not just (mini or pre-) Hebbian, about weak electric connections, but also about more subtle topologies (in the mathematical sense!). In particular emotional topologies. Thus the subconscious goes from weak Hebbian connections (what dreams are greatly made of) to topological conspiracies.

Take an example: why plutocrats love art so much; they will tell you that they have a sense of beauty, and I will tell you they have a sense of tax evasion; the plutocrats’ subconscious about art is that it enables tax evasion, by creating an untaxable, untaxed currency and store of value; but of course nothing a plutocrat in good standing will want to have pointed out in the plutocratically owned media. Nor anything that a plutocrat who wants to think highly about himself, or herself, would like to see pointed out, anywhere.

***

Consciously Connecting With Socrates’ Daemon, Monism, and the like:

Historically, the subconscious was defined as the part of consciousness that is not currently in focal awareness. The mechanisms I evoked above explain how that work. “Consciousness” is, first of all, an efficient administrator, not forgetting that the brain consumes up to an astounding 43% of the energy that a human uses. Thus “focal awareness” will favor networks with strong synapses bringing action readily. You can’t hesitate when those saber tooth lions come around, lest you want to become dinner. Hesitation, inaction, will surely kill you. Errors may be survivable (and the source of instruction).

The word “subconscious” is an anglicized version of the French subconscient as coined by the psychologist Pierre Janet (1859-1947), who argued that underneath the layers of deliberative, and critical thought functions of the conscious mind lay a powerful awareness that he called the subconscious mind. In my vision that awareness which lays waiting is an enormous construction zone of potential logics. (Logics in the widest meaning of the term, not just mathematical, or neuronal logic, but also emotional logics and even what viciously spiteful “philosophers” tend to call “pseudologia fantastica“; once Professor John Searle qualified me that way, to give him an excuse to censor me; now Searle is the object of various prosecutions…)

That continual attempted construction of all sorts of new logics, that is, of new circuitry, and new geometry (dendrites!) and topology, of course, uses an enormous amount of energy, as construction sites tend to. This is what the brain does most of the time (and, as most of this activity is not spurred by “focal awareness”, most of the time, this explains why neuroscience does not know (yet) what the brain is spending so much energy doing, most of the time).

There is a big difference between the unobserved brain, trying to establish new logics, and the brain in a social, and in particular, in a war mode. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as enabled some progress in envisioning how complex the brain is. The brain evolved as a social interface, not just as an efficient advanced calculus mathematician in charge of trajectories. As Wired UK put it in “Why does the brain uses so much energy?“: “Scans showed the inferior parietal cortex (IPC), an area that helps us control the amount of energy we use, became deactivated when people felt they were being observed. The IPC works with the posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS) to form what researchers called the “action-observation network” (AON). This area of the brain helps people infer what others are thinking based on facial expressions, body language and gaze.

In any case we are now able to figure out what that “daimon (demon)” who advised Socrates was made of: logical potentialities writ into various material connections and entanglements.

In Plato’s Symposium, the philosophical priestess Diotima teaches Socrates that love is not a deity, but rather a “great daemon”. She explains that “everything daemonic is between divine and mortal” and describes daemons as “interpreting and transporting human things to the gods and divine things to men; entreaties and sacrifices from below, and ordinances and requitals from above…” In Plato’s Apology of Socrates, Socrates claimed to have a daimonion (literally, a “divine something”) that frequently warned him… The Platonic Socrates, however, never refers to the daimonion as a daimōn; it was always referred to as an impersonal “something” or “sign”. Thus Socrates seems to indicate that the true nature of the human soul is pertaining to self-consciousness.

Regarding the various charges brought against Socrates in 399 CE, Plato surmised that “Socrates does wrong because he does not believe in the gods in whom the city believes, but introduces other daemonic beings…” Well those daemonic beings were all potentialities in his head.

Notice that the preceding turns around the problem of the traditional opposition made in philosophy between “monism“(the mind is material) and dualism (body and soul dichotomy). This is true, even without evoking quantum physics, because, even without slipping the ephemeral and ubiquitous Hilbert Spaces of quantum physics in the debate, the argument above implies that the brain geometrodynamics, and topological dynamics are extremely high dimensional objects, always fluctuating (quite a bit in the mood of Quantum Field Theory, and probably, ultimately, for the same underlying reason…)

Also notice that the overall mood of the explanation above is that logical and emotional potentialities are embodied in the brain, and that the brain’s main activity is to further them ever more through imaginable twists and turns (in several manners, including, but not limited to weak Hebbian connections). This is very similar to the potentialities which arise in quantum physics experiments. I believe that’s not coincidence, and that it corresponds to even tighter identification deep down inside, namely that consciousness, which has a lot of characteristics in common with the quantum, originates there; the machine man is quantum mechanical. Or Sub Quantum Real (SQPR!) more exactly.

“Gnosis”, the knowledge of spiritual mysteries, was, for millennia, mostly in the eye of the beholder. Science is now excavating some, spearheaded by the philosophical method. For the longest time, the likes of Joan of Arc, Muhammad, Jesus, Socrates, claimed to have heard voices in their heads, or get otherwise in contact with entities not pertaining to their own consciousness. Maybe, but now we have explanation we can all understand. We also understand why we should take the subconscious seriously: it’s a sort of pre-explanation of whatever may unfold later. It’s both clairvoyance, and exploratory explanatory genius of whichever logics fit best the reality out there

Run-of-the-mill knowledge should also be considered on the ground of synaptic capability. Thus “gnosis”, knowledge, and beliefs, should be evaluate according to the strength of synaptic connections, integrating Hebb theory…. Thus I am saying that knowledge is more or less known, belief more or less held, on the ground of how neurology works… Electronic circuits, the way we have electronics now either work, or they don’t (electronics is not yet quantum, and, presently, more akin to make water circulate in canal networks). Neurological networks works more or less. So do knowledge and beliefs then. When those networks work very well, consciousness. When they are barely there, subconsciousness…

Patrice Ayme’

Olber’s Paradox Solved, Yesterday, Now & Tomorrow

June 15, 2017

The oldest cosmological paradox considers the fact that the night sky should not appear dark in an infinite, ageless Universe. It should glow with the brightness of a stellar surface, because, if we look far enough, we would see some star.

Possible explanations have been considered to get rid of the problem. Here are the most obvious:

  1. There’s too much dust to see distant stars. (This was Heinrich Olbers’ attempted explanation, in 1826. If true, it showed the universe was young! Olbers had several predecessors, including Kepler and Jean-Philippe de Chéseaux in the 1720s… But a German name beats a French one, in the matter of Anglo-Saxon fame….)
  2. The Universe has only a finite number of stars.
  3. The distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there could be an infinity of stars, but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is subtended by them.
  4. The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity.
  5. The Universe is young. Distant light hasn’t even reached us yet.

Galaxies Galore! Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014. Other Hubble Pictures Within our own Milky Way giant galaxy, show nearly solid wall of stars, that is, the Olber’s effect!

The first attempted explanation is wrong, because dust will heat up too. If it didn’t heat up, that means the universe is young. (So Olbers could have predicted that! Or a finite universe!)

The premise of the second explanation may technically be correct. But that means that the universe is finite. The third explanation may be partially correct, because matter is very far from being uniformly distributed in the universe. We just don’t know how severe the lumping is: there are Great Walls (of galaxies!), Great Attractors (of galaxies!), Great Blobs (of quasars!), etc. If the stars are distributed in a lumpy way, then there could be large patches of empty space (which there is, because they have been seen!), so the sky could appear dark except in those directions.

Look far enough, you will hit a galaxy! At least if light does not somehow age…

The final two possibilities are presently viewed as correct by common cosmologists, and a cause of what’s observed. Some computational arguments suggest that the finite age of the Universe is the larger effect. We live inside a spherical shell of “Observable Universe” which has a diameter equal to the (“Cartan’s comoving”) distance covered by the expanding  universe during the lifetime of said Universe. That’s 95 billion light-years, according to the most esteemed conventional computation. Objects which were far enough to start with,  are too far away for their light ever to reach us.

The resolution of Olber’s paradox is found in the combined observation that 1) the speed of light is finite and 2) the Universe has a finite age, i.e. we only see the light from parts of the Universe which at some point in time where less than 15 billion light years away. Everywhere far away, say the conventionalists, we should see the fiery light of the Big Bang, and we do, they add: this is the 3 degree Kelvin background cosmic radiation. Initially it was hyper hot, but the light got stretched in the last 13.8 billion years, by the expansion of the universe, so now it appears very cold… (Except that I have a different explanation for it!)

And now for a word from our sponsor:

***

Subquantum Cosmology’s Olber’s Paradox Resolution:

How does my own SubQuantum Patrice Reality (SQPR) theory fits in all this? Very well. In my theory, the universe also expands (that’s called “Dark Energy”, and it’s a direct experimental fact). But the universe expands slowly (that’s how I resolve the problems “cosmological inflation” is supposed to resolve, but doesn’t!).

As the universe slowly expands, every single photon wave gets stretched, as in the usual Big Bang Lemaitre metric. However now that effect is not enough to solve Olbers paradox (the expansion being too slow). So another effect comes into play: light ages, from the Sub Quantum Reality (SQPR). The average photon coming from far away is so spread-out, when it hits an object, somewhere, that part of said photon is too far to coalesce with the rest, thus gets disconnected from the main singularization, and is left, in the average, as a 3 Kelvin remnant.

***

Notice that Olbers and his predecessors could have deduced much from the simple fact that the sky was not all like the surface of the sun. Olbers said: that’s because there is dust. But ultimately dust would turn as yellow and hot as the sun too. It didn’t, either because the density of stars was not constant… Or then the universe was only 6,000 years old, or so (;-)).
This being said, dust should not be ignored. Recently, it was proclaimed a proof of cosmological inflation had been found, and eminent cosmologists such as inflationistas like Guth were already attributing to themselves the Nobel Prize, but it was only an effect due to galactic dust.

Conclusion: a simple observation can very well contain revolutionary science, when, and if, logically processed. But one needs courage to do this. An obvious candidate is the collapse of the “wave packet” in Quantum Physics. Attempts to ignore, or deny that collapse, have brought the “Many Worlds” Derangement Syndrome affecting physics (and not just physics, thanks to mood transmission…)

Patrice Ayme’

Consciousness Divided

June 13, 2017

The Ancient Greeks recommended to examine life. Actually, Homo is an examiner. The examiner. Homo finds out about the world, thus becomes powerful. Part of the world, what we see the world through, is ourselves, though. So examining the world means examining ourselves.

(Famously, to establish Quantum Mechanics, Niels Bohr and his “Copenhagen School”, pondered what it was, for human beings to experiment.)

I mountain run. Alone. A good occasion to study how the human mind works. And I found something I feel is interesting about the problem of consciousness: it’s much more divided, multiple and hierarchized, than is generally assumed.

Mountain running is one of the great dangerous sports out there, and the one most eminently human. Human superiority over other beasts, which is undeniable, was founded upon mountain running. Why running? Because only Homo can run in full heat all day long, catching up with dogs (who have a poor cooling system) and even horses (capable of more perspiration than dogs, but still not as good as humans). This helped make humans the ultimate predators.

Why calling running out there in the wilderness mountain running? Because wilderness running, except on a beach, is always on very broken-up ground. There were no roads, for the last 100 million years, when our forebears learned to run. But plenty of holes dug by ground squirrels, even on the prairie, in which to break one’s leg.

The first challenge in running mountainous terrain, is that the ground is full of rocks, roots, and loose terrain (by definition). This has all to be processed well and faster than any supercomputer can. Failure will be ignominious, potentially lethal. I remember that trail I ran on many times where, once, in a three weeks span, two women fell off it, and died.

Fly Over Country: When the Rattler Is Across the Trail, And They Tend To Be Across Trails, One Second Away, You Take-Off, And Fly Over, Or You Die! A full bite from the rattler below, Crotalus Oreganus, from the genus Viperidae, will make you unconscious in 15 seconds.

In the last month I hit two branches from above (one from a poisonous vine). In another incident, I slipped on a loose slope, accidentally catching a root with my right hand while falling, breaking two bones, tearing three tendons with bone attached, etc. The soles of my shoes had become too smooth. This was the result of a fraction of a second of deficient logic (I had to observe the root, which I didn’t, and anticipate what would happen if I slipped, which I vaguely anticipated, and caught the root). The surgeon said I will never fully recover, and it will take ten weeks anyway.

Death can occur in other ways: lightning (which I experienced too close many times) and wasps and their kinds. Two years ago, I was stung more than 40 times in a swarm attack, from a non-identified nest. I ran out… Having decided that was the best strategy (supposedly running is not advised with snakebite).

Yeah, I still mountain run (but more carefully, considering the state of my multiply fractured right hand, although I nearly impaled myself with a perfidious sharp brown redwood branch lying on the brown sequoia redwood forest floor! You put your foot on such a branch, it sticks up, you die…).

The first problem with mountain running is to have a brain which can process the unfolding ground fast enough to know where to land one’s feet, and affect overall balance. On the sort of stupid track common sport activist favor, any step is similar to the one before: one could run blind. However, on a mountain trail, every step is different and tricky, and there will be several such hazardous steps per second. Tripping on a sharp rock and crashing head first on another will kill  the runner.

A related problem is the deeply existential question of snakes. If you are ten miles out in a forest with 100 meters tall trees, deep in a twisting canyon, out of phone range and you encounter a viper, you will have to think quickly. Rattlesnakes can be huge: up to seven feet long! (I saw one once around that sort of length across a trail; since it refused to move, I interpreted that as aggression, I threw him two stones, two hits, and it fled to the side, threatening from the bushes rattling away… I do not attack vipers which get away, but will punish aggressive behavior!) Actually, if you are moving at three meters per second, when coming upon a rattler across the trail, you will have to take off, faster than a pelican, and hope to fly over the startled reptile before it can know where to strike (I did this once; arriving a four meters per second on a twisting single track, with impossible terrain right and left, I found a large rattlesnake in the middle of the trail, and jumped over it; by the way, baby rattlers are also lethal).

When I run, part of my brain is on a constant snake watch. However, a root, or a branch can well look like a snake, and, at sustained speeds up to 20 feet per second (6 m/s), as when descending, something interesting happens. When the snake watch system identifies a plausible snake, it immediately gives avoidance orders to the neuron motor system, the balance system, and the neurohormonal system. Consciousness itself, gets informed from the sudden modification of trajectory, and some neurohormonal effects having to do with activating attention circuitry which are even faster than a massive adrenalin shock (which itself takes about one second). At that point, consciousness knows a snake alert is underway, and dread prevails. Before consciousness gets aware of anything at all, there is actually a suppression effect. Probably because all central nervous system power has to be mobilized, consciousness first shuts down, as all ongoing processes get instantaneously stopped.

Then the visual system turns on to the max to identify the threat and find where the head could be. Consciousness follows to find out whether that’s more probably a root or a snake.

I have observed this effect thousands of times, having found myself avoiding potential snakes thousands of times. (My latest close call with a rattler was three feet, three weeks ago, it was going away while rattling in thick grass, didn’t see it; I walk heavy through grass to alert the beasts.)

This clearly shows that consciousness role is that of a supervisor. The time I had to jump over that snake, I detected it 5 meters away, a second away. Consciousness had no time to get involved, but higher level processing determined instantaneously that there was no possibility of braking, and the only hope was to jump above an animal which can strike so fast, high-speed photography is needed to catch the action. Then I had to land on the other side. By the time full consciousness returned, the danger was passed.   

***

Consciousness Divided:

Some will sneer: what did you prove? That there are parts of the brain reacting automatically? That there are reflexes, instinct? A reptilian brain, as the saying has it? An unconscious mind?

All those terms are time-honored, yet vague. And they don’t fit what is really perceived: actually, the point is that there is consciousness involved, a sort of ultrafast consciousness, not deliberative consciousness, but consciousness nevertheless.

A proof is this: if one stops concentrating on the trail, one crashes very quickly. Actually higher level decisions about where to go have to be taken all the time: imagine running in a boulder field from metric ton block to metric ton block. You will have to decide continuously where to land next, and how, while anticipating a few moves after that. 

Let me repeat slowly: It’s more “divided consciousness” than “unconscious mind”. It only LOOKS “unconscious” because most of it is not recorded in short-term memory.

As I said, the proof is that one needs to stay concentrated while running. That’s crucial. So actually the frontal cortex elaborating strategies is not on vacation. If not building up strategies for the next two seconds, one crashes, and pretty fast, and pretty bad. Potentially lethally…

Thus, although part of the mind can wander, there is definitively extreme consciousness of the terrain as it unfolds. Why? High level strategies have to be investigated and deployed, often with a time horizon of less than two seconds. For example in descent the terrain has to be analyzed carefully (which I didn’t do enough of when I broke my hand…) The terrain has to be used to brake and chose the best trajectories getting oneself where one wants to go, without too much accelerations, or terrain which is too hard, or too soft, or too sharp, or potential collision with various objects, on the ground or in the air (branches), unknowable dark ground to be avoided, bushes not to be approached too much less an ambushing snake lurks, etc…

Simply all this intense mental activity is not registered even in short-term memory, most of the time. It’s pure consciousness, no strings attached. Meanwhile, the rest of consciousness can roam, but when a serious problem arises, like a looming snake, all of it concentrates on said problem, right away, and with a computing power never used in normal life.

***

Examining Life Thoroughly Means Questioning Existence, Best Done In Extreme Situations:

So we are supposed to examine life. But what is it to examine? It means considering what was not considered before, getting out of set neural patterns. And doing this deliberately, forcefully. And nothing beats a life and death motivation. One can do this by activating the flight or fight neurology. Socrates had killed four men in combat. He was also famous by the courageous fighting he did, covering a retreat of the army, after a disastrous Athenian defeat at Potidea, 33 years before his execution, saving the life of the wounded Alcibiades, pierced by an arrow, in the process. Also Socrates had “loved” everybody, for decades, Plato said… So much so, adds Plato, that led Socrates to a wise abstinence later.

To examine, we have to embrace all that can be embraced, take it all in consideration. That does not mean visiting all the restaurants, and jetting around the world. It means a rich and diverse wealth of experiences. And extreme, and in particularly extremely dangerous ones, are an indispensable part of the mix.

An amusing aside, then, is that some of the individuals engaging in the most dangerous hare-brain pursuit, are, deep down inside, motivated by the examination of life, which is at the core of the essence of the genus Homo. It’s hilarious to think that some of the most apparently dim-witted brutes (like your average Jihadist) are thus motivated by the nobility of the human spirit, but so it is!  

I think, therefore I am? Not so simple! What is “I”, if “I” is multiple, as a method of division of work, evolutionary selected?

Consciousness is not only experienced dependent, but a much divided experience. Some will say: we knew this already, aren’t we multitasking already? What I tried to show above is something different. Just as there is the ship of state, there is the ship of mind. There may a captain to the soul, sometimes, but it has also a crew. With a mind of its own.

Patrice Ayme’  

Covenant (With Plutocracy)

June 12, 2017

A  covenant is a formal alliance or agreement made by a Creator, a God, with a religious community or with humanity in general. Covenants are omnipresent in old religions. They will even more important looking forward, as Artificial Intelligence (and, even worse, Artificial Consciousness) become capable of autonomy (= self-management). This the theme of the movie “Covenant” and its prequel, “Prometheus”.

The Covenant between the Mexicans and their gods, especially Huichilobos, led them to fight to death the Conquistadores, although that brought the systematic annihilation of their city, stone house by stone house, canal by canal, over 93 days (said Bernal Diaz; the Conquistadores, suffering themselves 50% losses, filled in the canals with the stones of Aztecs’ houses, to enable their armored cavalry to charge).

Aliens Have Landed on Planet Paradise, Strangely Reminiscent of New Zealand

It is also of interest to We The People presently: there is a covenant with what views itself as our creator and master, plutocracy.

The present covenant is ludicrous. What’s the Covenant plutocracy and its obsequious servants believe we have? That greed and power, collectively known as the “market”, are all the laws worth having (yesterday’s laws are in the way; as a plutocrat told me the other day: ‘I don’t care if i go to jail!’; he knows that whatever he does authorities will look at his $200,000 car, and let him be.).

God is generally known first as the “Creator”. In the movie “Covenant”, an anthropomorphic robot faces his creator, in this case, a human being. The robot asks the human who created him, the human, and then goes on to observe he will live on after his creator dies. The human affecting wizened gravitas labels the question of who created the Creator as an eternal question. Maybe, but we have had an answer ever since Lamarck and Cuvier established evolution, 217 years ago.

The question of who created the Creator, has become very naive. It’s conventional, ignorant naivety.

In truth, we were created by evolution, a progressive process. And we, in turn, have been accelerating evolution deliberately for more than 10,000 years. We will now evolve Quantum Consciousness robots: we have already started that process of evolution (one qbit at a time!) Ridley Scott, just a great writer and movie producer, does not realize this.

In “Covenant” producer and writer Ridley Scott assumes that the robot David, full of feelings as he is, is fascinated, even dominated, by an obsessive desire to study “creation”, which he does by creating species. So man-made robot David experiments, and creates various aliens. Those aliens start as nano-assemblies which amplify themselves by hijacking human genetics.

David is managed by five emotional sets: the desire to create species, as I already said, a resentment against humanity in general, the will to power, the will to create something superior, and the arrogance to believe that power is all the law that counts.

Of course these philosophical emotions have dominated the Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries. So no wonder that Ridley Scott considers them: those moods made history. They dominated in philosophy (Nietzsche being the most blatant example), in politics (Marxism-Lenino-Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism, US Neoliberalism), and now in socio-economy, the so-called “NEOLIBERALISM” (21C mass inequality, mass-disinformation).

So is this a danger? Yes, and it’s a danger now from the present plutocrats: they are the ones behaving like man-made robots. We have seen David before: he heads a well known “social” network.

Patrice Ayme’

Islam: Religion Of Fighting, Says Caliph!

June 10, 2017

[Those who are tired of my all too learned discourses, should go directly to the smart, yet simple, video linked below; and suffer through the first minute of half deserved “conservative” rant, before the interesting part.]

Strange Disease Of Islamophilia Condemned By Youth, At Last!

The admiration for, and lies about, Literal Islam, is the miracle which keeps on giving. To world plutocrats.

Islam took over what had been, for millennia, the richest, most innovative and most civilized part of the world, and turned it into the poorest, dumbest, and most war-torn wastes, until oil was found. Any question?

Well, some had questions. As the president of Senegal, Abu Diouf, said, Saudi style, Salafist Wahhabi Islam is “not my religion”. This is why 100 severely different versions of Islam were created. In opposition to Salafist Islam. However, Salafist Islam is now propelled by Arabian oil (and Wall Street, and Washington power standing behind since the 1930s: the swamp Trump talks about is full of oil…) 

The Caliph has spoken. In Some Ways, The “Islamist State” Is More Honest Than Main Stream Intellectuals In The West

A young and slick Utuber looked into ‘Avallone Hunter’,  looked into Islam, and made a good job at it. He particularly got it right on “moderate Muslims”, who, according to the Qur’an are hypocrites, thus to be killed. Anyway, the video is good, once you pass the gratuitous attack and passing conflation of “progressives” with their opposites, at the beginning of the work (I am a progressive, so I didn’t appreciate that!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d8GDo49QKY

Do not despair of youth: they learn. Showing in great numbers, contrarily to habit, and expectations, the less than 24 years old just helped Theresa May, the plutocratic fanatic UK PM, lose her majority in the UK Parliament. The youth in the UK is pro-Europe and anti-xenophobic. They know more, and have a more appropriate mood than their elders. Alleluia! Terrorism will go away, once the youth is aware of why it appeared in the first place.

The “West” by the way, is the descendant, in more ways than one, some cultural, some genetics, of that richest, most innovative, and most civilized part of the world, which I call not the Middle East, but the Middle Earth, because it is what it is.

Italians are partly, genetically, Iraqis: Mesopotamians migrated over to the north shore of the Mediterranean, with their bio-engineered grain and know-how, bringing themselves and agriculture. 5,000 years before Greek civilization. This migration was recently genetically traced through the islands of the Aegean. Much “Greek” math was Egyptian, Sumer cities, 5,000 years ago, started the alphabet, and “Europa” was a Phoenician Princess (who travelled over to present day Europe; actually she would have been kidnapped…)

Considering the logic of Islam, it’s easy to see why all the gold it touches turns to poisonous mercury. Islam is an essentially hypocritical faith, saying science has to be pursued, but then “disbelievers” have to be killed. That’s, at best, absurd: how can one develop science without disbelief? How can want to develop science without feeling that creation, as it happened, is not perfect, but, instead, requires thorough explanation?Doesn’t Islam say we should stick to revelation, as transmitted by Mr. Messenger, an epileptic analphabet hallucinating in the desert?

Islam seems to have aimed at making into a capital offense all and any behavior that would not make Muslims reproduce like rabbits, to feed those vast armies of conquerors and jihadists. So women are supposed to be baby machines, and any man not inclined to engross them, within strict guidelines, is a traitor.

This all happened in the lifetime of one person. The Ferocity Of Islam Insured Fast, Gigantic Conquests, Before Resistance Could Be Mustered. After the tremendous defeats of Islam at the hands of the Franks, Islam was broken, never to grow again until very recently… (Except for the conquest of Turkey, and the slow drip into Africa…)

Islam is the war religion par excellence, and Adolf Hitler admired it for that.

The irony, of course, is that the Islam superstition, by separating men and women, is intrinsically homosexual: after, men are supposed to be with men, and women, with women. Actually, it’s even better than that:  women are supposed to be out of sight. So Muslim men intrinsically only love to have around other men, they have androphilia (men loving men).

The ferocity with which homosexuals are killed in Islam is precisely because Islam is so homosexual. It’s both a lie and a lifeline. An attempt to disguise what is going while avoiding the accusation of sodomy by the West which helped to destroy the Aztecs.

Violence in Islam is no accident, coincidence or consequence. It’s intrinsic. Violence, the violence of armies, is what made Islam possible. In a few years, Islam conquered the largest empire the world had ever known. Precisely because those who (claim to) die for Allah are promised paradise.

The question then becomes: why did such a monster superstition become an object of adoration on the part of so many intellectuals in the West?

Because many intellectuals in the West developed a hatred for civilization, shortly before or coincident and causally related to Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism and Maoism… Much of the anti-colonialist struggle, however justified, resorted to hating civilization all together… Although it’s civilization which had made it possible in the first place!

Many intellectuals became rich, powerful and influential this way. Hating civilization became their business model. And in Islam they found an ideology which had been created to hate the “West”, the Greco-Roman empire, and also the other civilization, the Persian Sassanid empire. Muhammad led the first attack against Rome. Within ten years, Persia was destroyed and the richest parts of the Roman empire had been conquered by the Islamists.

Muhammad didn’t see it: he died by surprise, in great pain, screaming on his deathbed in Mecca, for days, that he had been poisoned. By fellow Muslims.

That’s the drawback of a lethal, dictator friendly religion: it kills a lot.

So many Western intellectuals loved Islam, because Islam hated the “West”, and they, themselves, made a (dishonest) profession of hating the “West” (which fed them so well). The hater of my enemy is my friend, some say, forgetting about crocodiles, which show that the eater of their enemy is not really friendly. So did Hitler love Islam, and hate the “West”. In general, plutocrats hate civilization, so they are natural enemies of Islam.

The Qur’an orders to follow dictators as if they were god, as long as they are Muslims… Consider:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/god-hates-democracy/

US oilmen and sneaky British imperialists saw, as early as the 1930s, that they would gain by instrumentalizing Islam. So here we are. All Islam propaganda goes through Western fibers and satellites.

The problem of Islam is thus way larger than just Islam. Yes, Islam is the religion of desert raiding, it was established that way by a caravan raider. Yes, Islam is ideal for brutal military conquerors, and dictators, thus many of these, from the Turks to the Mongols, adopted it. But Islam is more than that. Islam is an ideology, one of many, of the sort which serve a much bigger species of monsters, always devouring civilizations. Islam is the tool of something maximally monstrous: unchained, free ranging plutocracy.  

Let’s finish on a lighter, enlightening note on how public opinion gets durably molded. I just saw a Suisse Romande report on what happened in 1971, when six high level reporters and producers were fired from TSR (called RTS now), the state (and only) French-speaking TV in Switzerland.

The present Swiss TV, RTS was able to access the documentation of the time, and interviewed both the leftists and the police officers, or their superiors, involved at the time. Basically what happened is that there was a “political police” in Switzerland (it was secret that there was a political police). So important TV personalities and producers were followed by the secret police and information was gathered anonymously (as Google, Facebook and company are doing now). Patterns were established: some were living with someone else while not married, some were heard saying things which were deemed to be revolutionary. In the end the secret police sent a list of six persons, asking them to be fired. The TV TSR did so. TSR accused the six of “subversion and sabotage“. It was alleged that they had relations with foreign powers (Cuba).

The six fired alleged defamation (in truth they were simple middle class, with nearly no rebellious spirit about them, and no connection with organizations or foreign powers). There was a trial for defamation; the chief of the federal police (equivalent to the FBI) came and said the TSR was justified, so the judges sided with the TV channel. All of this happened because those six wrote TV shows disturbing to the political class. (They more or less won in appeal, because the Federal police chief was unwilling to reveal a secret police was spying on the citizenry). However those six and others connected to them were excluded from TV, and thus wide influence, for the next thirty years… These sorts of manipulations is happening all over the world, making sure that We The People think and feels just what the ascending plutocracy cares about (like sport teams scores).

To this day, one of two principals in this affair, Rene’ Schenker, says that he cannot tell what happened, because if he did, justice would have to re-open an inquiry. The other principal obeying orders from above says that: “Yes, we fired with canon at flies“.  This is still happening. Look at the New York Times: it bans all my comments, one of many media to do so. The idea is that my ideas and observations should not be known. Probably thousands of others are in the same situation (interesting commenters have disappeared at the NYT). However, the New York Times enjoys privileges (say sits in attendance at the White House). Thus a propaganda system is established: Islamophobia is racism, Obama is a great progressive, etc… If Islamophobia is racist, any analysis of why Islam, that enemy of the Middle Earth, re-appeared, coincident with the supremacy of oil and Wall Street, and the discussion of the deal with Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1945, is excluded. And so on.

Last week, I read some extracts of the Qur’an to good, left, progressive, socialist, rabidly pro-Clinton voters, sensitive souls who cried when Trump got elected instead. It was a little experiment, but I was surprised by their overwhelming incredulity. They were astounded, they were aghast, they couldn’t believe it, their gaping mouths went into huge Os. They were so astounded, they thought I was making it up, and they came over to read the Qur’an by themselves. They had never did it before, but they though they knew Islam… Strange times, indeed… All too many people do not even know what it is to know. They feel they know, what they couldn’t possibly know… except if they believed fully whatever the authorities want them to believe.

Patrice Ayme’

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