Russian Soul Weak From Weak Literature

What makes Russia led by the Kremlin, strong, makes Russian culture weak. And reciprocally.

Boris Nemtsov, main opponent to dictator Putin, was assassinated next to the splendid Saint Basil Cathedral. He was going to lead on Sunday a march against Putin’s war in Ukraine. Nemtsov, an ex-Vice PM, and ex-Vice Speaker of the Duma, Parliament, was killed below the Kremlin’s windows, a place full of police, and state security. As if to show that the killers had nothing to fear… from the Kremlin.

Four shots in the back, each lethal. Nemtsov’mother had told her son that “if he kept cursing Putin, Putin would kill him.”  Putin promised her justice would be served. However an underling on the investigative committee immediately suggested that the assassination may be related to the Charlie Hebdo massacre (!). I have a more prosaic approach.

Pretty Catherine, Soon To Make A Lethal Coup Against Her Spouse, The Czar. For Starters. Putin Wants To Recover What She Invaded.

Russia is a place where opponents and critics keep getting killed, for purely political reasons. The tradition is not new. Ivan the Terrible had some differences with his son. He killed him. Peter the Great had the same problem. He had his son torn with red hot pincers. That son also died.

How are those unable to communicate, led alone love, their children, these terrible Czars, some of the great heroes of the eternal Russian soul?

Russian leaders keep on reminding us that they have nuclear weapons. Putin keeps on reminding us he mourns the “Big Country” (Imperial Russia… not the USSR, which had devolved some power to its constituent republics…). Now the ex-head of Mi6 in Britain is admitting that:

“Russia has become a danger to Britain and the country must be prepared to take steps to defend itself and its allies”, the former head of MI6 says.

Sir John Sawers, who recently retired after five years as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, told BBC Radio 4’s Today program that Russia poses a “state to state threat“.

Sir John said such threats would require more defense spending. But called on “increased dialogue”.

Body of Nemtsov, St Basil. Kremlin Behind. So Far, Only Bullets Talk

Here I am, dialoguing. The Russian intellectual class has failed, all too smothered by its own nationalism, not say laziness, to erect a robust critique against its masters.

And this mood of intellectual pusillanimity has been long in power (I am thinking not just of the irritatingly conservative Alexander Solzhenitsyn, or Gorbachev, here). True, as Peter The Great confronted the “Old Believers” with a maximal ferocity I approve of, he was no doubt confronted to the fiercest critique. However, in Russia the dialogue tends to be between ultra-conservatives, and those conservatives who are for some progress.

All the fiercest criticism is always coming from the savages (notice that this covers not just the “Old Believers’, but also Lenin, Stalin and their ilk).

Sir John said he was disappointed how, after the end of the Cold War, Russia’s and Europe’s paths had failed to converge. “[Russia] keep on reminding us that they have nuclear weapons,” he said.

How come Russia did not join the West readily?

Atavism.

Look at the immensely wealthy Count Tolstoy and other famous Russian authors. They are all about a subtle propaganda: Russia is a traditional place. Count Tolstoy, in Anna Karenina and other books, is all about the Russian soul being conservative. And the triumph of conservatism. Dostoevsky satirized revolutionaries and endorsed the Tsarist autocracy (one absolute ruler) and faith in Christ and the Orthodox Church.

The truth about the greatness of Russia is more geographical than moral. Russia was successfully led, for centuries, by a cruel, determined and highly imperially efficient plutocracy. It’s too effective to be all that conservative. Or then one should call the Dark Side “conservative”. This is (partly) why Russia ended as the largest empire on Earth. Europe was unable to reconquer North Africa, but Russia was able to set up forts all the way down to the California coast. (And conquer half of Eurasia.)

That different truth is what constructed the empire, and thus what has to be hidden. At this point, Russia is proceeding on mental inertia, doing what it knows best: do whatever it takes to cruelly grab more territory. Even if it means killing dozens of critiques inside, and risk total war.

But why no books on historical Russian figures? Where are the Alexandre Dumas of Russia?

Dumas did not hesitate in depicting some of France’s figures in pretty drastic, not necessarily flatering, situations. Think about what he wrote (all true) about Marguerite de Navarre.

De Sade directed his worst critiques to the Great Leaders. He presented the great leaders anointed by the Lord, as monsters who needed to kill… sadistically all and any, especially the innocent, just to relax during their vacations (incensed, the Ancient Regime and Napoleon put De Sade in prison. Still, in between De Sade launched the Revolution of 1789… from the Bastille! Don’t expect conventional history books to relate this).

The tradition of fierce critique among literary figures is obvious in France by the time of Rabelais. Rabelais made an entire parody of the Bible, complete with grotesque names and the most disgusting habits. Thanks to the disgusting Francois I, three philosophers were burned alive. Rabelais, the son of a lawyer, who endowed himself with an overall education second to none, not just as a philosopher, philologist, translator, lawyer, but also as a Medical Doctor.

Very similarly to Abelard, Rabelais fought the church tooth and nail, in a constant, unending war. His collaborator Étienne Dolet was burned alive, for atheism (and being relapse, the technical charge against Johanne of Arc). Obviously the sort of mentality obvious in Abelard, and the early Franks, travelled across the ages.

In the Thirteenth Century Dante had put a contemporaneous Pope in hell. No less. (No wonder, shortly thereafter Buridan publicized his heliocentric theory, which he deduced from new mathematics and new physics. The Church had Buridan work destroyed 130 years later: another proof that the intellectuals were at war, in Western Europe, with the powers that be.)

Even earlier, Abelard wrote the book “Sic and Non” (“Yes And No” ) about the main theses of the Church. That was in the early Twelfth Century, and the war between the philosopher and the fanatical Saint Bernard became absolute.

It is not a question of winning. It is a question of having a tradition of daring to engage into war against religious and political authority.

Where are the terrible, pitiless Russian literary descriptions of Russian autocrats?

Russia, since Ivan the Terrible, has had the bloodiest, most cruel leaders ever known. They killed, their children, spouses, and other close relatives. They should have allowed to write juicy books, the sort Roman authors have accustomed us to.

And what do Russian writers write about?

Anything but.

So now enjoy Putin.

A nation with a non-examined soul is not worth admiring. To say the least.

Patrice Ayme’

Note: Meanwhile the Western powers ought to give the Ukrainians counter-strike radar (the Ukrainians were only given radar warning of incoming shells, but not the software to direct counter-strikes; in the 1990s the French broke the siege of Sarajevo, by striking rogue “Serbian” artillery with radar directed counter-strikes)

No Force, No Republic

Humanity is force. This is what vegetarians, often, want to forget. It is no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a fanatical vegetarian, at the cost of his health (too much pea soup, I am not kidding). Hitler was out to project a sensitive image of himself. Thus the Nazis passed laws against cruelty to animals, and instituted a policy of strict protection of nature.

When the Public goes together to form a republic, a Public Thing, force is what that thing is made around, just as in a baboon troop.

Forgetting force is forgetting the Republic. Marcus Aurelius, chosen future emperor when he was just 17, outright taught stoic philosophy (some thought it was conduct unbecoming an emperor).

However, Marcus Aurelius went over the Dark Side when he forgot that’s;

Stoicism without force is only ruin of the Republic.

This has always been true, and is truer now than ever before, because, now, it’s not just a matter of nations, religions and civilizations going down in flames. It’s a matter of the biosphere going down.

It will take some getting used to: the drought in California in 2014 was the greatest in at least 1,200 years. The latest modelling is much worse.

Eradication, Final Solution to Abomination

Israel used force to prevent the construction of nuclear reactors: in 1981, a raid by eight F16s and eight F15s, dropped 16 tons of high explosives on Osirak, a French made reactor (the site was flattened again by the Americans, ten years later). Israel repeated the performance in 2007, annihilating the Syrian nuclear reactor.

If Israel does not use force, Israel will die. Rome was so strong that it could afford to go catatonic on fascism, theocracy and terminal plutocracy… And still not die. (Rome is very much not dead, as all historians who have paid attention will tell you).

The Roman Republic grew, for five centuries not so much because it was greedy, but because it had to react to exterior aggression (I basically do not know a case where Rome really instigated the aggression, the war… Except for the Third Punic war, the Carthago Delenda Est war… But, when the Roman Republic went to war, it won’t let go.)

Marcus Aurelius poisoned the empire, because he did not use force where it mattered, close and personal.

True, Marcus Aurelius spent eight year on the battlefield, trying to prevent the Marcomanni and other German savages to cu the Roman empire in two.

However Marcus Aurelius was weak in more important respects.

He forgot that emperor Hadrian, the predecessor of his predecessor, decided to choose him and Antonius Pius as future emperors, while passing over his own two sons.

Instead, Marcus Aurelius would heap all possible honors, including Consul and Emperor on his own son, before he reached the age of 16.

Instead, Marcus Aurelius would have not enough money to pay for the army, and decisively defeat the savages. Why? Because the plutocrats, heavily taxed under the great emperor (an ex-general) Trajan, were not taxed enough under Marcus.

First the Republic has to be strong.

At this point if one is on the danger list of Israel, France, or the USA, one gets disposed of.

That does not rile up my democratic instinct. Our leaders should be elected mostly to execute the “basses besognes” (= )

In the past, determined assassins and the like could only kill a few, although, as most societies wee organized according to the fascist model, there was such a thing as striking the head, and changing it.

In Switzerland, with a rotating presidency of seven (soon to nine), there is no great change to be expected by killing one (but for augmenting an ambiance of terror).

The Islamic State does more by destroying antiquities which prove that their religion is junk.

So the only justification for so much power in so few hands in the leading democracies is that they do what is necessary.

One thing they did not do was to change the financial system. There is certainty (in the case of Obama) and a high probability (in the case of Hollande) that the gentlemen will be out of power in two years. So they need them, and all their cohorts of camp followers, to make sure that they ingratiated themselves with the powers that be.

Obama was again in San Francisco, begging for money and making deals, a week ago. Some of the most influential locals (such as Brown, an African American long mayor of San Francisco) are begging him not to come anymore (the ambiance of corruption is not improved by the traffic jams Obama causes).

Obama should stick to assassination, like Hollande, or Netanyahu.

Meanwhile, the Greeks won an important victory. Although it was more symbolic than anything else, as France (still protecting her giant banks) had been forced to win the battle for the Greeks, earlier.

***

AUSTERITY IS SYNONYMOUS WITH PLUTOCRACY:

When he ran for his presidency, Hollande, the present French president declared that “Mon enemi, c’est la finance” (My enemy is High finance). People elected him on this basis, instead of voting for the other one, whose obvious friend was High Finance.

However, Hollande behaved just the opposite, deciding, after all, not to tax the hyper rich, and finally choosing a hyper wealthy young 30 something investment banker as finance minister.

Hollande went down ever more in the polls, while the French economy kept on diving from being, to nothingness. Hollande’s polls approval reached 11%, the lowest ever for a French president.

Finally France reversed course.

The mighty French Republic finally decided to declare in advance that it would run a deficit fifty percent higher than the limit imposed by the law instituting the Euro, and this for two years in a row.

This had a number of consequences: bringing the Euro down, and also solving the Greek problem: if France was going to run a 4.5% deficit, why would Greece have to run a 4.5% SURPLUS?

(The greater demand imposed by France can be qualitatively evaluated, considering the relative sizes of economies and deficits: it is as if France was going to run (15)x(1.5) above the limit, when Greece was looking only for 2x(1.5) relief. So the French violation is much greater… and was agreed to… a day or so after the Greeks won).

Paul Krugman agrees that the Greeks won. In “What Greece Won”.

As Krugman explains:

“Well, if you were to believe many of the news reports and opinion pieces of the past few days, you’d think that it was a disaster — that it was a “surrender” on the part of Syriza, the new ruling coalition in Athens. Some factions within Syriza apparently think so, too. But it wasn’t. On the contrary, Greece came out of the negotiations pretty well, although the big fights are still to come. And by doing O.K., Greece has done the rest of Europe a favor.

To make sense of what happened, you need to understand that the main issue of contention involves just one number: the size of the Greek primary surplus, the difference between government revenues and government expenditures not counting interest on the debt. The primary surplus measures the resources that Greece is actually transferring to its creditors… If you are angry that the negotiations didn’t make room for a full reversal of austerity, a turn toward Keynesian fiscal stimulus, you weren’t paying attention.

The question instead was whether Greece would be forced to impose still more austerity. The previous Greek government had agreed to a program under which the primary surplus would triple over the next few years, at immense cost to the nation’s economy and people.

Why would any government agree to such a thing? Fear. Essentially, successive leaders in Greece and other debtor nations haven’t dared to challenge extreme creditor demands, for fear that they would be punished…“

Let’s not forget greed, either…

Plutocrats are those who use power, generally through the money they command, to achieve satanic aims. Generally self–aggrandizement by commanding more is a primary obsession.

Central to this strategy is the tactic of making money ever more expensive, and reserved to the hyper wealthy. The less money We The People have, the richer plutocrats have.

Instead, to operate an economy effectively, one needs enough money to conduct all and any transaction that benefits the society at large. That’s a necessity.

Rome failed in that respect in the Third Century, because it ran out of precious metals, and also of enough internal force to impose a FIAT currency. The Franks remedied both problems.

The Franks  got the precious metals in Eastern Europe (a place the Romans had not conquered, per order from Augustus, and lack of oomph from not taxing plutocrats enough, thus having too small an army).

The Franks mixed the silver they mined with less valuable metals. and enforced the value of money: faux-monaieurs, the counterfeiters, were boiled. Alive.

Who are today’s counterfeiters? Who else but the money changers? The banksters.

All this because those who have power abuse it. And not using it is also abusing it. So when the inheritance of humanity is destroyed by Islamists, and nothing is done to stop it, not enough violence is used. Obviously.

So surrendering to the austerity is not just a weakness and a madness, it is a system of thought to submit societies ever more to the plutocratic madness, a much worse prospect.

Patrice Ayme’

Savage, The Franks? Islam Is Worse

Our friend the half-philosophers may start to huff and puff, as “Franks” were citizens of a federation (actually two of them, the one of the Sea, and the one of the River; the one of the Sea, or more exactly, Salt, is now known as Salian, or Salic).

Whereas “Islam” is a thought system, devised by some Arab warriors (PBUH), who got a good gig going for themselves.

To put in the same basket an ethnicity and a religion  is what some half-philosophers would love to call a “category mistake”. The irony is that I know (the basics of) Category Theory, and they don’t.

In Category Theory, there is a concept called a functor, which allows to go from one category to another.

Is Islam a functor from life, to death?

In other words, because I know of functors, I can mix and match different categories such as Franks and Islam, and be relaxed about it (instead of being all gripped and unimaginative, as the average constipated half-philosopher; notice in passing that the concept “functor” was invented by the philosopher Carnap in linguistics).

The historian Pirenne, long ago, suggested the thesis that the collapse of the economy in the High Middle Ages was caused by the Islamists (Islam confiscated most of the Roman empire, and imposed a total embargo, cutting not just the Paper route, but the Silk Road).

In other news, On Fascism, Russian & Islamist Edition, Feb 26, 2015, a plan surfaced for the invasion of Ukraine, written more than a year ago, by some major Russian plutocrats, who have influence on Putin and are best buddies with the leadership of the Russian “Orthodox” Church.

Don’t worry, anybody involved will soon die, and things will calm down, this is Putin’s way.

There is a clear self-censorship going on throughout the West right now, because people are scared of these fanatics, the Putinists, and the Islamists. This, in turn, is deleterious to any critical mood, thus discourse, thus adverse to fixing any problem.

One cannot have a sane public discourse if one cannot even draw a human being. Having public insanity in place of public discourse will affect the Republic, to the point it will die, and that is why it died in all and any nation that submitted to Submission (aka “Islam”).

TODAY’S ISLAMISTS: MORE BARBARIAN THAN THE FRANKS, 16 CENTURIES AGO:

As it rose Christianism destroyed the Roman Republic (or what was left of it). In 363 CE, under fanatical emperor Jovian, an ex-general, a systematic policy of burning libraries got started (Jovian may have been behind the assassination of laic emperor Julian, I am speculating). In 381 CE under ex-general Theodosius, then emperor, laws were passed to enact a “War Against the Philosophers“. Heresy (“making a choice”) became punishable by death.

The Roman empire, which still had many characters of a Republic (which officially it was… Now a “Christian” Republic) exploded.

However, in the next century, in the West, the Franks took control, and build a Catholicism so moderate that it made Paganism, Judaism, and Apostasy all legal (and conversions in all directions).

Interestingly, the Franks, who soon built what they called “Europe”, as an empire, have the reputation of uncouth savages. “Frank” means Ferocious, not just Free.

But the Franks had no problem with Catholics becoming Jews: entire village converted, until the priest was the only Christian in town. Charlemagne himself, 4 centuries after the Franks acceded to power, had his friends call him “David”, because he wanted to be like Israel’s King David (not a friend of God, according to the Bible).

Compare with the savagery of Islam: somebody who leaves Islam is to be killed, say the Hadiths.

So what of the supposed great intellectual tradition of “Islam”? That sounds strange, on the face of it. What about the great intellectual tradition of Christianism? Well, the answer is that there is no such a thing: as soon as he became a fanatical Christian, Pascal produced nothing. All great “Christian” intellectuals are intellectuals first, and, second spent the reminder of their mental capabilities avoiding the fire in which the church wanted to throw them.

In France alone, around 1530, three major philosophers were burned alive for having contradicted Catholicism. This explains why Descartes, a century later, preferred to live in the Netherlands.

Contrarily to repute, the situation with Islam was even worse. At least, in the West, intellectuals could engage the Church in full combat, and they often won. This is a direct consequence of the Frankish leadership submitting the Christian leadership, starting in the Fifth Century. After that time, the Church was never again the government of the West (except inside the Papal states, a gift of Charlemagne, later de facto rescinded).

Famously, around 1300 CE Philippe IV of France and his vassal the English king engaged in full submission of the Pope and his army. The Pope and the Templars both ended judged, dead, and, more importantly, taxed.

So what of these great Muslim thinkers? The answer is that most of them were, truly Jewish or Christians, or very recently “converted”, or then did not finish too well.

ISLAMIST SCHOLARS WANT TO KILL YOU:

The fact is, the greatest Muslim university, Al Azhar in Cairo, is definitively founded on what the Franks, 15 centuries ago, would have viewed as barbarian principles. It actually refused to condemn the “Islamist State” as not conform to Islam.

Al Azhar has decided that those who renounce Islam and their children ought to be killed:

“In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful

Al-Azhar

Fatwa Committee

A question from Mr. Ahmed Darwish who presented the question through Mr. (Blanked out) of German nationality:

A Muslim man of Egyptian nationality married a Christian woman of German nationality. The two spouses agreed that the aforementioned Muslim man would enter the Christian religion and join the Christian creed.

1. What is the ruling of Islam regarding this person’s situation?
2. Are his children considered Muslims or Christians and what is their ruling? 

The Answer:

All praises are due to Allah, lord of all the worlds. And peace and blessings be upon the greatest of all messengers, our master Muhammad and upon his family and companions all together. As for what follows: 

We inform that he has apostatized after having been in a state of Islam, so he should be asked to repent. If he does not repent, he should be killed according to the sharia.

As for his children, so long as they are small they are Muslims. After they have attained maturity, if they remain in Islam then they are Muslims. If they leave it, then they should be asked to repent. If they do not repent, they should be killed. And Allah knows best.

President of the Fatwa Committee of Al-Azhar

Seal of the Committee

September 23, 1978”

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=24511.0

Our civilization was founded on rejecting this sort of savagery on the part of Christianism. When the Islamists appeared, the Franks considered them to be a Christian sect, the Sons of Sarah (Saracens). Let’s persist in rejecting the savagery.

Antique Greece was not just defined by what it built, but what it rejected, the Barbarians (those whose talk sounded animal-like: barr… baa). One cannot be positive all the times, otherwise positivity itself loses meaning.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: After publishing the preceding, it came to light that the Islamist State, applying literally the savage texts that guide them, destroyed Mesopotamian art more than twice older than the invention of Islam by the raiders (Muhammad and the father of his 6 years old child bride, etc.). isil-video-shows-destruction-mosul-artifacts-150226153158545

There is no savagery but savagery, and Islam is its prophet?

The Brain Is A Web, Thus So Is Reason

When one looks at linguistics, biological evolution (in the most general sense, including eco-systems), neurology, civilization, one does not see trees, inasmuch as we see webs with reactive (not to say intelligent) strands.

The latest news, in neurology is, indeed, that the white matter, made of glial cells, axons, oligodendrocytes, etc. itself reacts (not to say “think”).

Why should not reason itself be the same?

Should the brain be according to reason, or reason, according to the brain?

Once reason has become a web, it has a non-trivial topology (in particular with a genus).

Old Explanation: Genetic Evaluation. Truth: Plain Scary

The genius of genus.

The next natural question is whether reason has a metric, a geometry, a notion of proximity. Indeed look at the brain, namely, the mind. Some nerve impulses go as far as possible, all along a motor neuron, or along a long axon. However, others go short, and are manipulated, not just at the first synapse they meet, but even before this, along the axons themselves.

Some will fear for reason, as they read these lines.

But a model exists, in physics. Renormalization.

As a field strength augments, approaching its putative source, the field itself modifies the effect it is supposed to describe. There is no general theory of how this works (although some field theories are known as “renormalizable”).

To put it in terms non-specialists may understand, the force varies with, and because of, the force itself. In any case, electromagnetism starts with 1/d^2, and ends up very different.

Actually, any physical explanation adorned with a non-linear feedback resists to linear logic (hence the problems modelling a lot of natural phenomena, from thermonuclear fusion to hypersonic flow).

Look at the mood of submission to Islam: ever since the Charlie Hebdo attack, a general bending of reason to savagery, a vile submission to unreason, with the pretext of tranquility, has imposed itself. Representing something resembling what some imagined a so-called “Messenger” would look like is frowned upon. Outright censorship is applied in the Anglosphere.

(It is not just ironical, but an example of thoroughly dysfunctional, discontinuous, self-contradictory reason: as depicting human beings and gods is forbidden in Islam, so how would true Islamists know what their god, dog, messenger, or whatever would look like?)

Another meta-example is graciously offered by mathematics itself. Mathematics is the field depicting reason itself. However, it does not have safe foundations.

Category Theory was actually strong, because of the mood that underlays it. Namely that foundations, globally, should not be worried about, while, locally, much progress can done by making them richer (that’s what Grothendieck did).

So, once again, we see that reason is rich, and can get richer, but it is local, not global.

Evolution, as understood for most of the Twentieth Century, was driven by chance or weird considerations about reproduction (animals were supposed to prefer so and so because it allowed them to reproduce better… as if they cared!) For example, we were told the Peacock’s tail was there to show to females the beholder was healthy, hence would bear them more children.

(More refined recent studies show the obvious, just as with eyes on butterfly wings, Peacock tails may rather be scary devices, as anybody who has deployed an umbrella for a lions would know.)

Chance is here to say, but the big Damocles sword over facile explanations is Quantum Physics itself: the Quantum is teleological, and no doubt impact both genetics and epigenetics.

This means that the most inner machinery is not just potentially teleological, but really teleological.

That Biological Evolution did not exploit what is, after all, the most fundamental law of the physical world, the Quantum Process, as it progressed according to physics for 4 billion years, is, frankly, impossible.

Patrice Ayme’

Tangled Network of Civilization

Civilization is like a living organism, it’s even a living creature which has to be created again continuously.

Consider a few examples:

“Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup,” Jean-Claude Juncker, then chief of the Eurogroup, said at a Brussels conference on economic governance in 2011.

Indeed. Juncker allowed some of the largest plutocratic institutions in the world to escape taxes, in the order of trillions of dollars. He is, morally, a criminal, one of the most prominent. Thus, he is in charge.

Mr. Dijsselbloem replaced Mr. Junk. He is sour. He has a problem with the Greeks.

Westerners Came From The Orient

Or, more exactly, the Middle Earth. On top, in orange, the Steppe Origin of English, 6500 years old. On bottom, the Anatolian origin, older by 2,500 years. In an intermediate theory, Anatolian roots went up to the steppe, first. This sounds more natural, because the first cities came from Anatolia. Agriculture followed an even more southern route, through Crete and other Greek islands. In any case, (white man) language then went down to India.

Dijsselbloem is chief of the Eurogroup, since 2012, he whispered to Varoufakis, the Greek Finance Minister. “Congratulations, you just killed the Troika!”. Varoufakis said:”Wow!”

Dijsselbloem does not represent the Troika… So what does he represent? The desire for a career similar to that of the guy who took over the party that Dijsselbloem joined straight out of high school.

That guy, Kok, became Prime Minister of the Netherlands, and later, after stepping down in 2002, became one of the most importantly rewarded politicians in the European Union, getting onto countless boards of “private” companies, such as Royal Dutch Shell, the ING bank, the privatized TNT-Post, etc.

Professional politicians ought to be outlawed, just like professional slave traders have been. And for the same reasons.

Civilization needs to be defended. Against the atavistic impulsion of the few to kill and abuse the many.

The CEO of HSBC, a bank suspected by authorities to finance hard drug networks and Al Qaeda, among other unsavory activities, is 55 years old. In 2003, 12 years ago, this remarkable creature got a secret bonus, worth ten million dollars or so. The bonus was so secret that nobody at the present HSBC knew about it. The money was in Singapore (did I need to say so?)

As Mr Junck above said, financial conspiracies are best conducted in secret. Only thus are they highly profitable. All the so called “Dark Pool” money passes through numbered accounts, diamonds, drugs, weapon and terror… to get cleaned and untraceable. HSBC Switzerland had 1,500 secret Saudi accounts.

As the Libyan dictator charged with his entire tank army into rebel Benghazi, after proclaiming all rebels would be kill to the last, the French Republic was right to destroy it. Civilization has to be saved, and this starts with destroying the enemies of civilization and humanity. However, after some French troops helped in the taking of Tripoli, the West got cold feet, and then unwisely left Lybia to its own instruments.

The situation in Libya was not going to be simple.

The West had a duty to send ground troops and help set-up a highly federalized society, where the oldest civilization could thrive again. Several part of vast Libya are vastly pre-Islamist, and even pre-Hellenistic.

But Libya is part of the roots of the West: Roman emperors’ families came from there. So Libya, and these roots, have to saved, just because they remind us of, and preserve, the reasons that helped bring us where we are. So they explain us, and embody our principles.

Some of the people who are the direct descendants of one of the oldest civilization fight for that, and their 3,200 year old Tifinagh alphabet. They need help. We did not give it to them. In no small reason because we obey force.

After he caged the FNL (Algerian Front National de Liberation) leader, (then French president) De Gaulle went to negotiate with him. Why? Not because Ben Bella was right and carrying the torch of civilization. No. Just because Ben Bella was strong. Being the leader of a terrorist group.

De Gaulle thought he could make Ben Bella an offer he could not refuse, gangster to gangster. (‘I give you Algeria, and also the Sahara with the oil, and the people therein who hate your guts, in exchange you give me UN votes.’) It was favorable to Ben Bella and the FNL, but De Gaulle just wanted to cleanse France from the non-French Algerians (I withdrew momentarily the appropriate epithets).

This is no way to build civilization.

At some point, it used to be fashionable, in the USA, to accuse some (typically French) intellectuals of “Orientalism”. (Those behind the fashion could be tracked to oil interests, of course.)

However, “Orient” was the notion used even before the rise of Rome… In fear of the future rise of something in Occident: as agriculture migrated West, with the rains, people in the Middle East could guess that the next superpower would be in the West (the sacred prophecies were kept in Republican Rome, as the most sacred book).

We are all from the Orient, and recent genetic studies have show just this: as agriculture migrated west, so did the farmers, through the Aegean islands such as Crete (the first publications on the genetics of this appeared in 2014, although the overall theory is much older).

The New York Times has this long article on the origin of English, the “Tangled Roots of English”, admitting finally that some cherished notions of linguistic are silly. Well, the silliness goes further than that: French (Germanized, abstracted and simplified Latin) and English (greatly a Franco-Normand invention), have about 80% words in common.

So the tree of linguistics is wrong. It’s not a tree. Just as with genetics, it’s more a network than a tree.

And it’s of course the same with civilization: a network, not a tree, and one, with many roots, not many, with no roots.

We come from everywhere, thus everywhere is our business. There is no civilization but civilization, and entanglement is its nature.

Patrice Ayme’

Power Hinders Knowledge

Man is the wisdom animal, Homo Sapiens, yet, still first a beast, when wisdom is not brought to bear.

Wisdom has a soul of its own. The human beast has a different problem: eliminating the competition, hence an obsession with power, the first step towards eating the enemy. Interestingly, Paul Krugman is increasingly entering this dark universe, with explanatory schemes fully compatible with them (although they may leave many of his normal readership behind for now).

Wisdom, in man, has always been technological. The genus Homo evolved without serious canines, no claws, or (generally) horns,  and little strength, because his hands were made to carry weapons, and his arms to swing them hard, and precisely. This made humans, even female and young, obviously extremely dangerous to all mighty beasts (who therefore learned to take a wide berth, from buffalo to lion). We have evolved with that, and through that, this technological singularity, not to say singularization, for at least five million years.

Earliest Glasses Depicted, Starring Hughes de Provence (1352).

A bane of civilization was that as it advanced and became ever more precise and learned, the most competent scholars and artisans, upon reaching the age of their greatest expertise, middle age in the Middle-Ages, were unable to work or study. Glasses were invented around 1285 CE in the republic of Florence (please notice the word “republic”; the republic was established in 1115 CE; because it cared about the public, it invented glasses, or so I say).

Science is us, and it protects.

In “Knowledge Isn’t Power”, Paul Krugman observes that: “sounding serious and being serious are by no means the same thing, and some of those seemingly tough-minded positions are actually ways to dodge the truly hard issues.

The prime example of recent years was, of course, Bowles-Simpsonism — the diversion of elite discourse away from the ongoing tragedy of high unemployment and into the supposedly crucial issue of how, exactly, we will pay for social insurance programs a couple of decades from now. That particular obsession, I’m happy to say, seems to be on the wane.”

It was both an obsession, and a delusion. An obsessive delusion: creating a terrible crisis now to avoid a possible one, in a few decades. It worked; much of the Obama years were wasted, pondering it, and making savage cuts, including in future defense systems and science.

Then Paul turns to “a new form of issue-dodging packaged as seriousness on the rise. This time, the evasion involves trying to divert our national discourse about inequality into a discussion of alleged problems with education.

And the reason this is an evasion is that whatever serious people may want to believe, soaring inequality isn’t about education; it’s about power.

Just to be clear: I’m in favor of better education. Education is a friend of mine. And it should be available and affordable for all. But what I keep seeing is people insisting that educational failings are at the root of still-weak job creation, stagnating wages and rising inequality. This sounds serious and thoughtful. But it’s actually a view very much at odds with the evidence”

Paul ought to have been more precise here. The plutocrats and their obsequious servants allege workers don’t have enough brains to work, except in low qualification jobs… As demonstrated by the fact they earn little.

It’s like saying that the king of France wore a 15 million euros costume because he had been chosen by god.

The Rate Of Return on Investment is highly dependent upon new technology, and thus new science, and thus education and even intellectuality.

Thus fighting savagery is not just a question of civilization, it’s a question of ROI.

Rising profits for the few is both cause and consequence of monopoly power. Ultimately, the monopolist capture education itself. To get a post high school education in the USA right now, in a prestigious university comes easily for those who can pay the university twice the post-tax income of the median family income. In other words, it is reserved to the 1% or so.

The CEO class is entangled with the hereditary plutocratic class, which justifies its existence by giving exaggerated salaries to CEOs.

Any civilization is in a race between technological progress and ecological exhaustion. That means a race between education, science, philosophy and savagery, obscurantism, superstition. Any society is in a race between inequality and justice. To persist, let alone improve, the human condition, these races need to be won.

Humanity is in a quiet period right now, a bit similar to the withdrawal of the sea before a tsunami. It’s obvious terrible, never seen before problems are brewing at the horizon. The greenhouse effect is going to enter non-linear acceleration any year now. The human population is soon to be nine billions while the climate becomes ever more erratic.

All sustainable societies, those which lasted centuries, made it so that the few could not end up with all the power. Otherwise they quickly went from Republic to plutocracy: the Middle-Age Florence is an example.

The Roman Republic lasted 5 centuries, but it had an absolute limit on the wealth a family could control. That law broke apart when Rome became a global power, as the plutocrats were able to evade taxation. A century later the Roman empire at its apogee was able to use taxes on wealth to finance education and welfare, but, after the death of Trajan, this system broke apart, and Rome fell in terminal plutocracy. The fate that awaits us.

***

In the 1960s, a young university professor could achieve instantaneously an upper middle class way of life. Now only senior professors, after a few decades of career, can hope to do so.

And this “career” itself is a continual harassment, with less than half the “professors” achieving tenure.

And this is true all over the economy. And not just in the USA. In countries such as France, the teachers’ salaries and the esteem the profession gets, are so low, that the state is reduced to find volunteers at the National Agency for Employment (that is among the unemployed).

The piling up of money on a few individuals has broken down the meritocracy. “Merit” is now defined as the moral ability to admire financial gouging, and the will to partake in it.

This rapacious mood, of serving high finance, has infected all of society, and has made more sedate activities such as teaching, or thinking, less valued.

The continual evaluation of the worth of individual according to how much they earn and can afford, as the public sector shrink, is ruining not just the economy, but also souls and minds, thus leading to a lack of ability to soberly assess what ails us.

What ails us is the shrinking of the public sector. Education ought to be essentially something for everybody, something for the public. Instead it has turn into what privilege can enjoy, the entry to the higher class.

That was tried before, by the Celts. Only the upper class could access to reading and writing, jealously guarded by the Druids. Thus the Celts got defeated by the better educated Roman masses.

The Celts (aka “Gauls”, Gaulois) had a much larger army, with a much larger cavalry. They also had better weapons (they actually fabricated and sold to the Roman the weapons which equipped the Roman army)

However, although Caesar succeeded at some point to infuriate most of Gallia, deep down inside, the Celts knew that the Roman civilization, Romanitas, was founded on a better mentality.

This why the Celts, Germans, and Brits once converted to Romanitas, never rejected it (the Boudicca revolt in Britannia, just as the Vercingetorix revolt in Gallia, were pretty much driven by hot heads; differently from what happened in Judea, they were not repeated).

This is also why, once the Franks came up with their superior No-Slavery model of civilization, that was not rejected, either (except for the outcast movement to enslave Africans, launched by the king of Portugal in the Middle -Ages, which ended miserably in 1865).

Fighting inequality enables more to contribute their minds to the advancement of wisdom, thus brings higher wisdom.

That’s why the Punic and Celts civilizations (truly rough plutocracies) were replaced by the Greco-Roman, in turn replaced by the Franks, and why the Franks, by 1000 CE, had the most advanced technological civilization.

Overall, although here and there China, India and the Middle Earth had some elements of superiority. Europe was pulling ahead, because the lack of slaves forced to use machines and devices (glasses, clocks) ever more. Where a Chinese or Indian emperor wanted something done, an army of slave children could do it. Whereas in Europe, sovereigns had to negotiate with grouchy old men.

That was so true that, when the Mongol Khans ruled from Hungary to Vietnam, and Moscow to Southern India, they made irresistible offers to Parisian artisans to build fancy machines in Karakorum.

Education in a civilization means equality first. Power to knowledge means no power to the few, because power to the few means power to the worst. And very little brainpower, overall.

It is because woman was weak, that she became ever wiser. Making a few humans strong as gods, we go against the very principle that made humanity evolve as the better angel of creation.

Patrice Ayme’

Non-Conservation Of Energy & Multiverse Madness

Before unreason took over physics, one of the major principles was energy conservation. However, this was before. Now Sean Carroll, following other Multiversists (as I call them insolently) crucially depend upon nonconservation of energy.

Sean wrote an article, short and to the point: “Energy is not conserved.”

Well written, indeed. Carroll glibly asserts that “see, it was not so hard” (to throw away the most fundamental principle of physics, energy conservation).

Galactic Cluster Focuses Blue Galaxy Light

All the blue blotches are images of a far-away galaxy, which are focused by the cluster of galaxies in front. By the way, both Newtonian Theory and Einstein Theory predict the deviation of light by matter (more so with Einstein, as time slows down, allowing for more time to deviate).

The Universe we have, and can see, is so immense, we can’t comprehend it. There is no need to claim there are more of them than atoms. Except if there is a need to go completely crazy (something Putin and other plutocrats are all for!)

That energy is NOT conserved is essential to enable the creation of universes at the drop of a hat.

Nothing is really true anymore, even energy is not conserved. It costs nothing to create a universe.

Next we will all be led to believe plutocrats create not just jobs, but universes.

It’s probably related. Thanks, Sean.

So take two galaxies clusters, G1 and G2. Suppose they separate from the expansion of the universe. Sean Carroll, following the Multiverse fashion, asserts that it cost no energy to separate said galaxies.

Then he has a photon P travelling from G1 to G2, and he sees it has lost energy, so energy is not conserved. Multiversists repeat this argument ad nauseam.

In truth, what they stumbled upon is that the definition of mass-energy in the Theory of Gravitation is not clear. That’s all. The difficulty has been known for generations of mathematicians (behind closed doors). However, it does not mean that physics reduces to dust.

It just means one has to go back to Riemann’s intuition of the 1860s, and reconsider it carefully. Riemann tried to reduce force to geodesic separation. I would suggest to reduce energy to a function related to geodesics density. As geodesics separate, energy is put in the system. With this notion, the fact that it costs nothing to create a universe disappear. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/quantum-trumps-spacetime/

Physicists can’t reduce the universe just to physics, physics has to reduce to mathematics, too, at least in part.

One may wonder what the Multiversists reduce physics to. Apparently, having done away with energy conservation, a fundamental axiom, they replace it by universe creation. They reduce all of physics to the creation of universes.

Dark Energy, the accelerated expansion of the universe, questions the entire scheme of present day cosmology, let alone physics. Starting the conversation (logos) by throwing out the most sacred principle of physics (energy conservation), and replacing it with instant karma is as glib as glib gets.

Instant karma? Thanks to the alleged non-conservation of energy, the creation of trillions of universes per second per cubic meter is eminently reasonable.

Does that makes Middle –Age theology sitting angels on pinheads a plausible outcome? This is reductio ad absurdum, if I ever saw it.

Quantum Field Theorists may smirk, and accuse me of not knowing that energy is not conserved in QFT

The time-energy uncertainty relation seems indeed to allow for large energy excursions, if they happened in a short time. But that’s related to “virtual particles”, which admittedly are neither virtual, nor particles… Just resting on that would allow a universe in a length of time so short it has no meaning (because it has no clock).

Agreed, physics is hard. Agreed, today’s “Standard Model” of High Energy Physics explains only 4% of the universe.

But that’s no excuse to go crazy, and see gazillion universes on every pinhead.

That only help the crazies.

Crazy like foxes, crazy like plutocrats.

Patrice Ayme

The Future Of The Soul?

Evolving, And Collective, The Soul Still Exists, And Science Is Its Prophet:

Is it useful to speak of the “soul”? Why not? Why to deprive us of words? Over the millennia, the word “soul” had many meanings. No, immortality is not necessarily a property of the soul.

There was always physics, and, thus, there was always metaphysics. The latter being the logical universe of the former. There will be always physics, and thus there always will be metaphysics.

Metaphysics is what is beyond physics. Any logical discourse has a universe that is beyond itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse

Our Soul Decides What It Means

And mathematicians have agreed to disagree with themselves about metamathematics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Thus, both physics and metaphysics are moving targets. So the soul, naturally, should be, as understanding progresses. But we thinkers, are hunters, and we go after the biggest preys. We need an unending chase, to feed our souls.

To each stage in the mentalization of the universe, to each stage in human understanding, its own physics, metaphysics, and thus, then notion of a soul.

Neurology indeed enables to embody some of the notions of soul Aristotle floated across. One can speak of the “German soul”. And the “German soul” has changed.

Quantum Physics has started to spawn Quantum Biology, thus, soon, a scientific system of ideas that will be best described as “Quantum Minds”, not to say Quantum Mentalization.

If one brings all what we know about Quantum Physics, to bear on what the soul could be, our mental universe, the universe of possibilities and the imagination, tremendously expands.

The Quantum is characterized by waves, something intrinsically vague (pun intended, except it’s not a pun: “wave” and “vague” have the same root).

Quantum waves are non-local, and entangled, so they embody (sort of, as they constitute, de facto, the “ether”) something going much further than the body.

When a mind is operating, a beyond-astronomical, beyond-set, beyond-category, entanglement of wavy delocalizations is self interacting. This is the soul.

The Quantum Mind, per its very nature, is hard to know: it’s always changing, and interacting with it is a more-than-delicate matter. So the very question of whether it survives is inappropriate.

Souls are always interacting with souls. Quantum-interacting (even though the interaction goes through classical means, that is, particles, at some point).

Thus souls survive in the collective.

Ever more arguments, and even now experiments, show that those waves, while not particles, are endowed with an ethereal existence capable of differences, thus identity.https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/structured-light-why-light-slows-down-in-water/

One of the philosophical lessons of Quantum Physics is that local is global. Another lesson is that the particular world (the world of particles), is only a minute part of the world. This universe is full of waves, and Dark matter is its prophet.

Full Quantum Neurology is a soul in waiting. Only thus will consciousness be explained. Meanwhile, as physics cannot even get started on consciousness, we have to admit, just because of that, its incompleteness.

Notice in passing that the Quantum Biology based soul does not suffer of predestination problem often plaguing old fashion religion. The Quantum seems to say that the spirit is everything, and has a global reach, but still, it is, somehow, local. That’s unifying, somehow, very disparate and traditionally contradictory notions.

Our moral discourse needs to know there is more than us, because our discourse itself is more than us, and Quantum Wavy, besides. Morality needs a universe, the framework Nihilism is deprived of. And, logically there is more than us. This supplement d’ame, we give it a name, the soul. We are a discourse, the soul is our universe. Amen.

To diminish words and concepts diminishes the reach of our poetical imagination, central to mental creativity. Let’s not be afraid of words. Let’s, instead, endow them with refresh meaning.

Patrice Ayme’

Commonly Accepted DELUSIONS: FOLLIES That BIND. Will To Infanticide. Example: ABRAHAMISM.

It is common to condemn the madness of the crowds, and to be mystified by all sorts of follies, conflicts, moods and ideas inciting to mayhem, which crowds engage in, with relish (just observe any sport stadium crowd getting hysterical about their team).

But why such an inclination to collective madness? Why so little wisdom in so many moods and thoughts systems? Why so much allure to collective sentiment? Is it an accident, a coincidence, an happenstance… Or is the mayhem not a consequence of the crowd, but, instead, what creates the crowd? Is the call to mayhem a method, a system, a deep, and perverse, logic at work, hidden from a first glance? This is what we will show here: the madness of crowds does not arise from the crowd as much as the crowd from the will to madness.
There is a fascist psychology underlying the madness of crowds, to make out of many minds one. Common crime, or common thought crime, helps.

Because, quite often, there is a higher sort of wisdom, a secret plot, a perverse mechanism, a nonlinear feedback, attached to the apparent blatant lack of wisdom. An apparent lack of wisdom can hide a deeper logic. The logic often has to stay hidden, because, if revealed, it would look rather perverse, and the opposite of what the mechanism it claims to achieve appears to be. 

For millions of years, the greatest enemy of man has been other men, the men of the alienated tribe, next door. Proper ecology serving the survival of all, required to find them repulsive, to reject them, to kill them. Such is the basic reason for the evil men commit: ecology. But there is even worse: there can be too many children, and the most atrocious crimes, are the most binding:

The atrocious delusion that the boSS is more important than the life of a child is the faith which Binds Judaism, and Its Ilk: Christianism, & Islamism. Should we use the neologism “pedocidal”?

Crime binding innocence to extinguish it. Should we call Abrahamism, the “Would-be Child Killer religion“? That would distinguish it from Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.

DELUSION IS A SIGN THAT WE BELONG:

How does one recognize friend from foe? By a signal. It could be the color of a skin, the color of a badge, a flag, and other visual or auditory signal (an accent, say). However, the ultimate structure is a brain structure. They fall in two classes: ideas, and moods.

So, to recognize the friend, the one who has the signal, and the foe, the one who does not, it’s best to entertain a particularly strong signal.

One not seen in nature. That will be best, because no doubt very special.

But are not the most clever, and wisest ideas and moods, faithful reproductions of nature?

Yes.

So the best way to identify a friend, and thus foe, are most stupid and most unwise ideas, and moods.

This is why Judaism, Christianism and Islamism celebrate the would-be child killer, Abraham his name, as their founder. The idea of killing one’s child is assuredly unnatural, unwise, most cruel, and grotesquely inhuman. It’s the ultimate dumb atrocity: destroying the species, starting with one’s flesh and blood.

It’s abominable. Thus it’s best to identify friend (the one who expresses intense admiration for the same despicable madness) and foe (the one who has kept common decency, readily distinguishable as alien, therefore).

What do we see here?

The madness, the insanity which binds.

Thus many delusions are the cement that does not just unite the group, but even defines it.

No doubt delusions will also help to unite those scatterbrains (schizophrenic) minds some of us suffer from.

Delusion can be the crucible of the many, and the cement of the one.

Madness in crowds and madness of the one, thus spring from a common logic of human ethology.

Are all groups defined by delusions? No, the Directly Democratic Republic can define itself without a common madness (this is why Switzerland holds together, in spite of its four official languages and several religions). By insisting on the basic ideas and moods of our common humanity.

This is why the Republic can be enough of a religion, the one that works, without delusion.

Human nature is made to make one out of many (mental fascism). That’s how lions and hyenas were fought (just as baboons still do it: by making the troop into one giant superorganism). Making one of many was also what was necessary to stay competitive on the (human meat) market: if one did not want to become dinner for the other guys, one had to stay united.

Thus humans sharing a group have a strong instinct to think all the same. In two ways: to define the group, even if it means through a delusion, and to make the group fight as one.

(The more crowded the human population, the more delusions will have to define groups; this is why nationalism grows with the crowding… the latter being relative: considering its technology then, in 1900, Germany was relatively more crowded than now; hence the rise of German fascism, which went in parallel with the explosion of the German population, 1850-1914…)

Yet, human beings are truth machines. That’s an instinct going the other way. Because herd animals think all the same, they cannot think anew. Except to stampede, somewhere., or search for the simplest things: new grass, water.

Those who search for truth will avoid the group (all the more as it is all too often defined by a delusion).

Searching for truth is more human, and a way to reach for greater survivability.

Hence the one, the philosopher, will, by necessity, fight the group. Between the delusion which define the groups and the truths, which define the philosopher, it’s a fight to death. The spirit of philosophers always won over the madness of the crowds.

Yes, delusionists, and illusionists are fit for attack, especially when they engage in mass delusion. It’s a matter of collective safety, for the world community. The reason for this is that delusions feed aggression. Delusion is entertained to create the group, the troop, with aggressive purpose in mind.

In particular, theists. Especially of the would-be child sacrifice type (Abraham his name).

As I explained, the main reason for collective delusion, just as for individual delusion is to create a system of mind (moods plus thoughts) that binds.

Thus, the fundamental reason for the collective to bind through delusion is aggression. Either real, or potential. Exclusion and alienation are aggressions. Mass delusions enable them.

Mass delusions such as various sects of Abraham (the word ‘sect’ comes from cutting: chopping heads is what sects do best).

Mass delusions are obsessive about aggression. Be it supposedly for resisting aggression (real or imagined), or committing it, in any case, making it as the big thing in life, worth deluding one’s mind, just to identify as a group, and enjoy the pleasures thereof.

Delusion such as: ’I am the Elected People, not that’s me; I prove it, by exterminating you, etc.’

When a religious group goes around, exhibiting its religious appurtenance, it exhibits its delusion. Thus, implicitly, its aggression.

And size matters. Because the size of a threat matters: when groups of predators fight each other, say lions versus hyenas, generally the side with the greatest total mass wins.

This is why French public schools forbid religious symbols of more than such and such a size, or why schools in Britain impose uniforms (and that’s even better).

WE ARE ALL SCIENTISTS; “BELIEVERS” KNOW THEY ARE DELUDED:

Believers know they are deluded, deep down inside. That’s why they are so aggressive, when confronted to their incoherence.

In Copenhagen last week, an Islamist assassin shot at a Freedom of Expression meeting, killing and wounding, and then repeated the performance at a Synagogue, killing and wounding. In a freezing rain, 500 deluded fanatics came to the killer’s burial. Let’s hope the police and secret services took a lot of pictures.

Experience shows fanaticism makes a universe most pleasant to those who dominate it.

Experience is what gives us a ground for all our propositions. This is important, because it means, whether they know it, or not, all human beings are scientists.

This is why the notion of “believer” has been introduced. It, all by itself, is a delusion. A deliberate, collective delusion, to create the group (and then proceed with some crusade, jihad, ghetto).

“Believers” are precisely those who believe in NOT applying science, for the most important metaprinciples.

However, what they have to apply every day to function as animals, and full human beings, is based on what is called “the scientific method”, but which is simply common sense, systematized industrially.

Thus “believers” fundamentally, do not believe!

Patrice Ayme’

Deluded Leaders: Eurogroup, Saudis, Netanyahu. Obama?

Obama is asking Muslim leaders to “do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam, that there is an inherent clash in civilizations.”

Sure, there is no clash of civilization. Civilization is one. Islam is just a religion. One of a great many. Islam itself is many variants, at war with themselves. To define a civilization from the religion(s) it harbors is not just abhorrent, it is silly.

There is no civilization but civilization, and reason is its messenger.

Verily, reason is not everything, experience is both its prophet, and its ground.

Some countries are led by savages. They can call themselves judges, kings, whatever. Savages them all. A savage judge, or a savage king, and a savage intellectual or doctor of the faith, are all, still, savages.

Can we share our small Earth with savages, in the age of nukes? Likely not a sustainable proposition.

Charlemagne Was Most Ferocious, But Magnus, Indeed

[Charles the Great, with his nephew, Roland, on the Parvis de Notre Dame.]

Saudi Arabia is owned by some of the world’s most savage Plutos. Raif Badawi was condemned to 10 years in jail, to be struck a thousand times with the whip, and a huge fine. His lawyer, for daring to defend him, got 15 years.

What is Raif’s crime? He wrote: “Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists are all equal”. Raif protested the religious authorities who wanted to condemn astronomers in general: in Islam, the Moon is not a physical body, but a signal from god (the savages got that from the Pagan religion in Mecca, before Islam; it was centered on the Moon, accompanied by 360 deities… hence the “Satanic” verses).

The Saudi authorities said that astronomers relativize everything (a charge made by the Christianofascists to burn, alive, after piercing his mouth, astronomer Giordano Bruno four centuries ago). Relativizing everything makes Sharia impossible to apply, whined the Islamofascists in Arabia..

So Raif got 50 lashes of the whip. He has only 950 lashes to go. That’s lenient, if the authorities had decided he was an apostate, he would have got death.

Is somebody in Saudi Arabia culprit of adultery? The punishment is stoning to death. Don’t fear for Jihadists: they can grab and rape whoever they want. They just call their prey a “battlefield bride”.

Hey, Muhammad, the “Messenger of dog god”, showed the way: he took many “battlefield brides”. Including the seventeen year old Safiyaah, and the twenty-year-old, Juwayriya, both Jewish girls.

Islam is not a civilization. It’s just a superstition.

So what is Obama talking about? A clash of civilization with a superstition has happened before: twice Christianity had to be crushed into submission. The first time by the Franks, over a period of four centuries, which culminated when the Pope “surprised” Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne) on Christmas 800, by crowning the imperator of the Franks, Roman Augustus (“Roman emperor”) in Rome.

(As Constantinople did not have an Augustus at the time, Charlemagne was technically single emperor of the entire Roman Empire, a feat that infuriated leaders in the Greek speaking part, the Pars Orientalis.)

Juncker, the organized criminal who heads the EC, has received the letter from the democratically elected Greek government. Juncker transferred, over the years, trillions of euros of tax evasion from We the Peoples of Europe, to plutocrats and their private jumbo jets, islands, foundations, palace, etc.

“If we break our mutual trust, we break Europe,” croaked German finance minister Schauble. He added, trying to sound perfidious: “I have compassion for the Greeks as they have an irresponsible government.” Me, I have compassion for Schauble, and want to push his wheelchair around the Grand Canyon’s rim, as I discuss the error of his ways.

Inside the Eurogroup. Varoufakis screamed to the Dutch finance minister that he was a liar. Ministers of the Eurogroup feared that the two were going to come to blows.

Is the Dutch finance minister a liar? Certainly so. The Dutch finance minister probably wants a cushy job offered by Wall Street, as all his peers and predecessors did, so he would say whatever it takes to please Goldman Sachs, a plutocratic USA government entity which got 60 billion dollars from the government of the USA in 2008 (which it later reimbursed with more money given under the table by another agency of the government).

The European leadership is crawling with High Finance employees, past and future. It should be as high a priority to put them in jail as Jihadist. Indeed, they caused the later. Hey, even president Obama said this!

Obama said that poverty alone doesn’t cause terrorism, but “resentments fester” and extremism grows when millions of people are impoverished.

“We do have to address the grievances that terrorists exploit including economic grievances,” Obama said.

And who has caused the global economic crisis? Foremost, High Finance. Fundamentally, it’s the same mood that brought us slavery, and the worst imperialisms and colonialisms, let alone holocausts.

Obama also revealed one of my favorite themes: no single religion was responsible for violence and terrorism. By this he means that, in the fullness of causality exposed, the violence of Islamism is just an amplification of the one that made the fortune of Christianism.

Obama wants to lift up the voice of tolerance in the United States and beyond, he said. Well, there is a name for that: Laicity.

***

THE ELECTED MOISE OF THE ISRAELI GHETTO?

Israel PM, Netanyahu wants all Jews to come to Israel. Apparently his model for the future of Judaism, is something in between the Warsaw ghetto and Auschwitz. Maybe one should present to Netanyahu another part Jew (suggested the governor-general of Poland, Hans Frank).

Netannyahu does not know history enough.

There were Jews in Gaul, three centuries before the first Christians showed up. Later, for something like seven centuries, in the empire of the Franks, and the “Renovated Roman empire” that followed it, people were free to convert from Catholicism, to Judaism. As Catholicism was rather ferocious, entire European villages converted.

Thus Judaism is more of a European religion than Christianism itself.

After the mad return of Christian fascism around 1095, with the First Crusade, which started with massacring Jews in Germanic lands, many Jews converted to Catholicism (whether voluntarily, or not). Thus many Europeans have Jewish ancestors.

To say that “the majority of Europeans were complicit in the attempted annihilation of the Jews,” as Roger Cohen did in the New York Times, is a heavy accusation. My own family saved more than 100 Jews, at enormous risk, barely escaping a hunt by the Gestapo, and I just don’t believe that, at least not in Western Europe (for complicated reasons, Eastern Europe, with the exception of Poland, was different).

Most French Jews survived: of the 75,000 Jews deported and killed in France, most were central European refugees, that the USA had refused to admit.

Now as far as the Great Leader’s ardent invitation to all Jews, the following problems arise:

1) Where to put them? In the rest of the occupied Left Bank of the Jordan river?

2) The inhabited part of Israel, so far, is very small. Half a dozen H bombs would annihilate all the population there. Thus, if the Great Leader assembles there all the World’s Jews, he potentially creates the ultimate ghetto, the ultimate extermination place for Judaism.

Supporters of Chelsea football club (7 to 8 blacks, owner, a Jew) ejected from a Paris subway carriage a French citizen, Mr. Souleymane, because he is black. They started to sing: We are racist and we like it. Other black passengers left the carriage, including a woman.

Souleymane brought a formal complaint, Scottland Yard and the French police are inquiring. Meanwhile a group of teenagers were arrested.

Meanwhile Obama said: “We have to confront the warped ideology, [the “extremists”] attempt to use Islam.” He added: “it’s not a clash of civilization. That the West is in war against Islam is an ugly lie.”

Indeed, there is no clash of civilization. Please, don’t tire me by calling the Greco-Romano-Frankish civilization “Christian”. It’s ignorance to do so. The Imperium Francorum had no state religion. Nor did the Renovated Roman Empire, starting in 800 CE (nor does the USA, by the way).

The Franks picked up what they wanted, or invented, in Christianism. Two centuries, but a universe, separate emperor Constantine, and Consul Clovis.

Christianism was never the state religion of the West. OK, not quite: the deluded plutocrat Louis XIV (War Be Upon Him! WBUH!) established a state religion in France, Crapolicism Catholicism, while destroying the country, and his name ought to be dragged in the mud, and burned through the sun of Enlightenment,  five times a day, by Western civilization patriots. (Instead of gawking around some monuments the maniac erected, with gaping mouths.)

Even Saint Louis, who ejected the Jews, had to admit he could not kill the unbelievers as he wished, because that was against the law. Even Louis XI, two centuries later, who cracked down on the heliocentric theory of Buridan (1320 CE), protected the Protestants, using his soldiers and force (yes, that was before Luther’s birth).

On day one of Islam, Muslims started to kill each other about what Islam exactly was. That’s when the divide between Shia and Sunni started.

Well, civilization has an answer: Islam can be all it can be. As long as it is compatible with civilization.

Patrice Ayme’