Should Truth Be Moderated?

I Think, Therefore I Attack:

The first problem is that the importance of the relationship between seeking the truth and needing some aggression to do this, is underestimated.

We think, therefore we attack. Not just your brain, but mine too. Seeking the truth involves destroying yesterday’s false, fake, naive, ill-informed certainties. (This is why a land of faith in the irrationalhas a problem producing truth.)

Truth is what is. At some point, brains which learn are informed by what is. Brains are formed into what is. Formation requires energy. Learning the truth is about brain construction. So it is energy hungry, it is a baby which needs to be fed. Or it will devour you.

Truth is why philosophers in good standing are hated by the commons: the philosophers ask the commons to spend energy, in-form their brains, spend energy, get out of their comfort zone, burn what they adored. Not only do philosophers and other deep thinkers have different brains, the ones of philosophers and thinkers being much superior, they assuredly have different epigenetics. Well, as president Franklin Roosevelt said about bankers, I welcome their hatred: I devour it, it makes me strong (even Nietzsche did not dare to say that).

In Greeks politics, as explained by Aristotle, there were “tyrants” (turannus, actually). Aristotle explained these were individuals who whipped the People (“Demos”) into a frenzy against the oligarchy in power. (Oligarchy means rule of a few.) Donald Trump is filling this role a bit, panicking the oligarchy in power and all its sycophants and servants. 

Aggression is intimately tied to deep thinking. Both require strong motivation to destroy what was, to build a better self.

Refusing To Understand Aggression Is Refusing To Understand Not Just Why & How Mammals Killed Dinosaurs, But Refusing To Understand The Primate Condition Itself

Refusing To Understand Aggression Is Refusing To Understand Not Just Why & How Mammals Killed Dinosaurs, But Refusing To Understand The Primate Condition Itself


US Oligarchic Plutocracy’s Religion: Moderating Truth Itself:

The US oligarchs and their own brainless mobs have argued that “fake news”, “post-truth”, the FBI and the KGB (Putin) have conspired with those who set-up the electoral college, to make them lose their privileges (soon).

Facebook, the Washington Post and the New York Times (all of them controlled by some of the richest and most oligarchically connected individuals in the world) have argued they need to moderate”, and “be moderate”. It is not just particularly ironical with the New York Times. Paul Krugman from the NYT has written, for years, that comments needed to be moderated. Or the likes of me would pervert their innocent readers by exposing them to truth. So all of my comments were excluded, because I am apparently viewed as an immoderate partisan of truth (in earlier, more pleasant times, the Times’ editors would call me, to listen to my wise opinions).

Thus the call to moderation of the New York Times pertains to the same sort of general perverse psychological strategy which brought Adolf Hitler to pretend all day long that he was all for peace and a “calm” savior of minorities.

I have come to believe that most of the economic “science” of Nobel Laureates such as Paul Krugman is just oligarchic propaganda. Actually most of what someone like Milton Friedman said about social organization, science, the state, or lack thereof viewed as an asset, arguably led to the disastrous state of affairs we are in now. Milton Friedman got the Nobel in economics, but it’s easy to show important parts of this work, with tremendous policy consequences, which were enacted (mostly by Nixon, Reagan and Clinton), are sheer counter-factual nonsense.

(For example Milton Friedman argued that the state never helped to invent anything, whereas the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming: 99% of the greatest discoveries of humanity had state support in some sense; actually the roots of the university system comes from a mood the Frankish leadership had in the Sixth Century, practices they had in the Seventh Century, and passing mandatory secular educational laws in the Eighth Century.)

That such an ignorant person as Milton Friedman spewing outrageous lies was able to steer society, not just the economy, starting with Richard Nixon, goes a long way to explain why all presidents ever since, were bad for the USA (and the world), whereas all the preceding presidents, after Hoover, were certainly good for the USA.

So the New York Times banned all my comments about “Quantitative Easing” after the first few. Why? Because I pointed out that the richest people in the world profited from it, the way QE was done, and that it was disastrous for the 99%.


Facebook Will Determine Truth According To The Most Hateful, And Will Check It With Servants Of Those Which Made It Rich:

Now Facebook has announced it would use its own users to detect non-truth. My own personal experience shows that, since the confrontation between Trump and the present oligarchy, I have been insulted to an unreal level. I have been condemned in public for being things I am absolutely not. In truth, I have Jewish  friends, very close Muslim friends (they host my seven-year old daughter everyday), and I am a certified alien, and condemned as such (wherever I go). I was also anti-Trump decades ago, because I did not like the way US banks helped him, and right now I am not going to be anti-Trump, just because Trump tells the truth.

So Facebook is going to empower the individuals most hateful, most ignorant, hence most belligerent, to weed out… truth. To reinforce this, Facebook will use professional “truth” determing for profit services which have been fanatically devoted to Hillary Clinton, candidate of the oligarchs and plutocrats of the present establishment. 


Hence a question: Should We Moderate Truth?

Of course not. That would be inhuman. Thus, if we are human for the better (plutocrats are not), we should not moderate truth. Humanity is strong, dominant, because humanity is a truth machine.

An oligarchy is always in place because the People assent to it: Aristotle, Rousseau pointed this out. That means that the minds of We The People broadly accept that the oligarchic rule is wise enough. And it is, in general, a lie.

Why? Because the oligarchy, being from a few, is not as smart as if all thoughts from all of We The People had been processed, that is exposed, considered, and debated: the Roman empire collapsed, from society-wide Alzheimer. And most civilization collapse from civilizational Alzheimer (be they the Qin, Yuan, Ming, or Kaiser Wilhelm empires, or Easter island).


What To Do? Learn To DEBATE Ideas.

That means insults should not be viewed as rational arguments.

For example calling Donald Trump “anti-semitic”, meaning anti-Jewish, as Paul Krugman did, 48 hours before the presidential election. In truth, Trump’s son-in-law is an “observant Jew”, and his beloved, trusted daughter Ivanka converted to “observant” Judaism, when she was 27… Examples like this show that the “Democratic” pundits were deliberate promoters of lies.  

Viewed from afar, the entire organization of US society is a lie. The Democratic Party was a Demoncratic (= plutocratic) Party. And this is the truth. Yes, that’s also an insult, but insults which abstract truth are alright, and sometimes necessary. The problem is when the “truth” turns out to be lies (as the rock group the Jefferson Airplane put it 48 years ago in a famous song, “Somebody to Love“).

There should be no moderation in the art of thinking the truth.  Especially in these times, when civilization is destroying its home.

Those who claim that truth should be moderated are not just enemies of humanity and all its values, but enemies of the biosphere itself.

Patrice Ayme’







Tags: , , , ,

33 Responses to “Should Truth Be Moderated?”

  1. John Rogers Says:

    “I have come to believe that most of the economic “science” of Nobel Laureates such as Paul Krugman is just oligarchic propaganda.”

    Yeah, me too.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Krugman started his career as Reagan’s globalocratic operative, inside the White House. So incredibly obvious in retrospect… But we all fell for it, for decades…

  2. brodix Says:


    We do arrive at the truth through trial and error. Possibly the current situation is leading us to some equally large truth. Maybe it will be very enlightening, or maybe it will simply be very harsh. Or some combination.

    I suspect Roosevelt borrowed a lot of underemployed capital to put the underemployed labor to work. So some of the bankers hatred might have been for show.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      When Roosevelt assumed power most banks were rather bankrupt, or worse. He closed them all. This being said, I am no specialist, and you may be right. Certainly FDR big talk against Hitler was just for show… FDR was just waiting for the fruits to ripen…

      • brodix Says:


        That is when significant deficit spending started. Much of it was people buying US Savings Bonds, but I remember a comment by Ross Perot, back in the 92 campaign, about how stocks are fun, but rich people keep much of their money in bonds. Where would this savings go otherwise? Eventually the bubble is going to pop.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Financial bubbles pop. So what? There were many pops during the last few decades. The truly rich have REAL assets. Real estates, real companies, factories, networks… Alaso money can be recycled not just in stocks, but in real companies.

          • brodix Says:

            Meanwhile all those pension promises are based on the equivalent of college loans on the next generation.
            Todays rich know the bubble is mortal. Try buying farmland, or lots of other basic economic necessities whose prices are being driven through the roof by those oceans of cash looking for safety.

  3. Paul Handover Says:

    I support your proposition. Indeed, what person who wished for a viable future, as in a free future, would not do so.

    But I think in using the word “truth” you select a word that has as many meanings as the word “love”.

    To my way of thinking your essay is really about the word “integrity “. Truth has many hues but integrity is solely black or white.

    Don’t misunderstand me! I support fully this post of yours. And that’s the truth! 😉

  4. gmax Says:

    Krugman is a fraud. Did you read some of his twitter feed recently? He said he did not write it. That ‘ s obviously a lie, and it sounds like crazed conspiracy theories all over from before Trump election. First he repeated 1, 000 times that Trump could not possibly win, that Nat Silver was wrong to say Trump had 1/3 chance, then that Trump hated Jews. Does the guy think at all?

  5. ianmillerblog Says:

    Truth is an interesting concept. According to Gobbels, if an “authority” told a lie convincingly enough, everyone would believe it. We badly need a place to critically analyse statements, but I rather fancy it would not matter. All you have to see is the climate change deniers – they merely wave their arms and say there is no world heating. You cannot get the truth to people like that.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Climate change deniers? There are those who are paid for that this includes a few scientists who have an obvious interest, like the heads of a famous geophysics institute in France which depends upon fossil fuel subsidies.

      The guy Trump wants at the head of the EPA is of another sort which nobody talks about, and a sort which is much more numerous, SILENT and thus vicious: those who think that it is a good thing that CO2 augments the GPP (Gross Primary Production), A paper in Science a few weeks old shows it augments 40% relative to CO2 augmentation.

      Paradoxically, forcing one to surface in plain view (PM Trudeau is one hidden in plain view) will allow one to debate the situation better.

      In logic, the notion of truth is far from elucidated… Hence the rise of truth-less foundations such as Category Theory, which have truth only relative to their diagrams (at least so they hope, although they do not escape my basic objection on the foundation, namely that only strict finitism makes sense… As long as one strictly believes in Quantum Theory alone…. Something I don’t… a little bit of a contradiction here…)

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Truth is not logically easy. A logician as famous as Tarsky worked hard on truth, in 1950s. I don’t think logic is final on truth.

      The main problem that I see, is that any logic (containing integers) fabricates a METALOGIC (actually an infinity of them, Goedel showed). And in each metalogic an infinity of propositions can be either chosen to be true or false (the Goedel propositions; although there is no explicit mechanism to build them, or even realistic ones, as long, as, de facto, one does not use FINITISM, as computers do, and I do).

      That is another argument for finitism I have not used before: if you want truth, you better be finite. Tellingly, one better be definite!

  6. oatmealactivist Says:

    I have eagerly been anticipating your post on this topic.

    As the saying goes, ‘never let a good crisis go to waste.’ The Demonocrats are treating Hillary’s loss as such a crisis, using the red herring of fake news to justify a regime of censorship and propaganda that would make Pravda blush.

    If they succeed, it’s not difficult to foresee a future with a public entirely uneducated on any matter of policy or philosophy. And when you have such a public, the case to take away their right to vote is made that much more convincing in the oligarchic echo chamber.

    If Silicon Valley had any integrity and an appetite for real progress, we’d see startups dedicated to the cause of the free exchange of ideas, the dissemination of real news and public education. But our new overlords are just the old ones, and are squarely opposed to democracy.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for being eager.I think you are very right: after two, three weeks of not knowing what to do, they are elaborating a narative where the people and the Russians, and the “fake news” are the problem.
      (They sure know “fake news: well: Obama said for 8 years he could not do anything because of the Republicans, an obvious lie when he had supermajority:

      The problem of Silicon Valley is that Google (partly) and Facebook (fully) were built with government/establishement action. The trajectory of Sherryl Sandberg was a clear indice: Harvard > Summers/Treasury > Google > Facebook.

      Then the government (Bush/Paulson was fully integrated in the Goldman Sachs machine, thus the Clinton-Obama circus of appearances) integrated the high tech MONOPOLIES in the surveillance system.

      While tweaking, helped by Supreme Court, the Patent System (I have not talked much about that, nobody does, but the problem is accute) so that the monopolies stay in place (as small companies don’t have a chance).
      It’s possible that Trump will break all of this (deliberately, or by happenstance, or both…)

      The real Silicon Valley of the small inventors has integrity and appetite and it is Trump friendly. It is crushed in media and policy by the tech monopoliies, at this point…

      • oatmealactivist Says:

        A problem with the Obama lie of being hobbled by Republicans in Congress for eight years is that it made the Demonocrats hungry for a powerful, unitary executive. Not a president but a princeps. Their arguments typically end with the conclusion of giving more and greater power to the state to the benefit of the already powerful.

        And I completely agree with your point on patents. Big corporations love high taxes and regulation. They’re able to skirt the rules, but they create a high hurdle for scrappy upstarts to get any footing, so they remain unchallenged. Why should a plutocrat compete when he can rig the system?

        Where the dominant players are unable to exert regulatory control through their puppets in Washington, you see more progress, more fluidity. Microsoft surely abused it’s monopoly, but antitrust law wasn’t necessary to defeat them: Apple and Google managed that by out-innovating them. And now Apple and Google, riding high, are the abusers.

        These are dangerous times.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Yes, the competition of abusers selects for increasing abuse.
          And you are very right about the (implicit) desire for a stronger executive. Now they screwed themselves tight, big time…
          The patent tax system was gutted in the most outrageous manner. At its core.

  7. Paul Handover Says:

    Gmax offered a definition of integrity as being “without contradiction”. However the Cambridge University dictionary offers: “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles” in terms of the ‘honesty’ meaning rather than the sense of ‘wholeness’.

    To my mind that CU definition is spot on and supports why I preferred the word to ‘truth’.

    But there’s another way of looking at this; possibly a rather naive way that came to me in this morning’s shower. Each of us can be identified as the individual that we are. Social security number, Passport number, driving license number, employee numbers, etc., etc.

    Wouldn’t it be fun if attached to our individuality was a score that represented our record of integrity, our history of being truthful. Just as our driving record is available for insurance agents to look up.

    So those who sought power and control, and material wealth, could be evaluated as to how truthful they had been along their life’s journey. For frequently we have ideas, motivations and goals that turn out to be based on falsehoods. But if and when we realise that we openly admit our mistake then we demonstrate strong moral principles and, boy of boy, are we at a stage in the affairs of this world where we need leaders who are truthful as in being honest and having strong moral principles.

    Just my two-cents worth!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul & Gmax:

      Hmmm… Both definitions seem to have problems for me, but i am too tired to get into it. I will think about it overnight. Basically no contradiction is not enough for honesty and strong moral principle, and I can find 80 million Nazis who believed, deep down inside that you know whom was honest with strong moral principle…

  8. SDM Says:

    Nukes, climate change, plutocracy, oligarchy, fascism, all dangers in varying degrees to the general population. Truth is hard to find in the MSM or on the internet. The “news” is now entertainment and propaganda – “manufacturing consent”, distraction, celebrity nonsense, subterfuge, One must search through it most carefully. Truth is dangerous and therefore it gets buried all too often. Getting to “the facts” is difficult when they situation is ever evolving. Getting to the truth is essential – good luck in your search.
    What organizations or groups are best supported to promote the truth?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There is a need for a change of moods. A pretty good essay in the New York Times just said the problem was that the left came to consider “irony” was good enough. (I could not go deep in the article, as the Times now messes up my computer, in a heightened state of sabotage, it went from cencorship to active sabotage; I could not believe it, the first few times…)

      In general, shallow thinking is the enemy (the pseudo-left would point at Trump here, but they are actually full of it; right now we are with THEIR government, and will still be for not just the next 4 weeks: there is lots of inertia, even executive orders can’t be reversed right away…).

      We are like gods, or, at least, our hands are divine, they can do whatever, but our minds are not, and they don’t know what to do, or even what they do.

  9. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Withdrawing from “Boldprogressive” organization, and why I left; what I did not say is that they flood my mailbox with their pseudo-intelletual masturbation; I tried to stay kind…]

    I am tired of pseudo-leftism. The deep issues are left untouched, unseen, while complete plutocratic agents who started their careers with Ronald Reagan (like Paul Krugman, Lawrence Summers) are the true leaders of the Democratic Party (truly a party of plutocratic demons who sold their souls to the tax-free globalocracy). Diabolizing Trump is just a distraction, a cover-up….

  10. picard578 Says:

    But political ideologies are often based on truth denial, and result in truth denial. E.g. liberalism would ignore this, because in liberalism racism is only a bad thing if applied against non-whites:

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Picard: Denial is a mentality by itself. Confronted to a contradictory thought system, or a contradictory mood, denial typically fetch an anti-idea, a mini-thought that is strongly articulated with an emotion which is typically violent, and made to generate violent hostility, thus eschewing any deep debate of the offending thought, or mood system, which generated this micro-debate, to start with.

      The whole idea is to go from preventing to debate ideas in depth, to passion, violence, shutting down a deep debate, bulldozing it with rage.

      The Trump era has been excellent to study this phenomenon.

      For example, if I try to debate with demoncrats about some of the ideas around Trump, I get right away:”he has no ideas, he is not human, he hates women, I don’t want to live in a wolrd wherechildren are exposed to a guy like that, he is an agent of Putin, he is just a showman, he is going to be impeached, he hates Jews and so do you, Trump hates Muslims and so do you, Trump was elected by Putin, Trump grabs women by the pussee, Trump kisses women he does not know, Trump is the most ignorant president ever, Trump is surrounded by goldbugs (Krugman) etc.”

      • picard578 Says:

        Indeed. That is also why multiculturalism does not work. Never could, because human brain does not like unknown. Or different. So to protect one’s ego, it makes up excuses to ignore anything that does not fit the carefully-contructed pattern, or “reality”, it is using to observe true reality. Because human knowledge is incomplete, brain will fill in empty spaces with one’s own personality. That would not be a problem normally, but the process can even prevent learning new facts and ideas, as they are rejected in favour of preconcieved notions.

        This system is problematic enough when all people have similar patterns of thought, when ideas are different but patters used to form the ideas mostly identical. But when patterns – cultures – are different, it goes to the level of trying to fit round pegs into triangular holes two sizes too small. Hence conflicts.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Exactly. However, Intellectual conflicts can be good when, and necessary for, bringing mental debates progressing towards better solutions.

          • picard578 Says:

            True, but that is only really possible when people are thinking in the same terms (same cultural background). Otherwise it is basically a noise, everybody talks but nobody understands whan anyone else is talking about.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Well, indeed, there are limits talking to fundamentalist Muslims or (real, fundamentalist) Nazis, or Soviets is hopeless. Should we call that Total Cultural Disconnect (TCD)?

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: