Archive for December, 2017

Islamist Death Cult Propaganda: Destructive To Truth, Humanity

December 30, 2017

A university professor in Northern Ireland, historically a place of religious hatred, wrote an essay for Aeon which is pro-Islam in what supposed to be a smart way: Beyond Liberal Islam. Western liberalism is not the apex and terminus of human history, and it ought not to serve as the measure of Islam. Can Islam help to produce an appealing alternative to liberal societies? Is it time to look beyond the idea of liberal Islam?”

The author keeps sneaking in as obvious, enormously debatable, not to say deeply erroneous concepts. Such as: “The fallacious arguments of Islamophobes”, “the fact Muslim regimes are backwards for historical rather than metaphysical reasons”.

Of course not true. Islam is an extremely dangerous and reductive superstition. All too many people are ignorant of the fact the “West” was NOT Christian. The Frankish empire pretty much covered all of Europe, including Britain after 1066 CE… except for southern Spain.

The West was not just “Christian”. Whereas Islamist countries were just Islamist. More exactly, and differently from Islamist countries, where law and governance were Islamist, law and governance was not “Christian” in the West. The fundamental laws of Europe under the Franks were mostly Roman law plus (Latin written) Salic law. Both were secular laws. The leadership was also secular (although Charlemagne gave to the Pope some territories in Italy in 800 CE).

The superstition wants to kill or subject most of humanity:

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

Islamist law, the Sharia, contradicts UN law, itself an extension of “Western” law. It is, literally, outlaw.

K Vora answered my preceding comment in Aeon. Before I get to that reply, let me add the following map:

548 invasion main battles by Islam Jihad in 250 years. Initially, the green area, Islamist by 900 CE, was Greco-Roman (or associated civilizations, Seleucid, Etruscan, Latin, and, or Punic) for more than a millennium. After the invasions, non-Muslims were the subjugated, oppressed majority for many centuries, causing what’s paradoxically, and misleadingly known as the “Golden Age of Islam“!

I listened to the following video, which is accurate on its main points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

(There were other crusades, against non-Muslims, such as cathars and Prussians, that’s the main inaccuracy of the video, which is irrelevant to its main message.)

***

K Vora

I appreciate your well reasoned comment. Unfortunately, it will be distorted by well known probably paid commenters (one can search the names and see how many well reasoned comments have been obfuscated by them). We must accept Islam for what it is: A tool for the rogue elements of humanity (mostly males) to subjugate all others, in person and in thought. I hope Aeon does not block this response because we must confront our genetics in our evolutions (many paths) and if we critically analyse the behaviors of islamic regimes and societies, we have to explore rogue genes, whether y, or x, or corrupted.

***

Thanks K Vora! Yes, those paid commenters are a problem, and not just with Islam, or religion.

Paid commenters are a problem all over the Internet. And not just the Internet: universities and governments too. Legislation needs to be drawn, because what we have now is a sort of Orwellian 1984 of greed, where “Big Brother” is a compendium of the worst demons of our nature, and rules our information system.

Yes, we must confront our genetics, or, more exactly, the misuse of our genetics by our massively changed circumstances, namely the rise of civilization. (The word “mass” is literal here: the mass of humanity has gone up by a factor of a thousand from what it was during the evolution of the genus Homo…)

The very rise of Islam was entangled with a military strategic observation. Muhammad considered that the tremendous war between the Greco-Roman and the Sassanids, which had just concluded, had weakened both civilizations so much, that, for the first time in 1,000 years, Arabs could hope to raid the Fertile Crescent. Again. The Prophet was right. Desert raiders went according to rougher morals. For example, they used to kill girls liberally. When not enslaving them crudely (for future sale). Muhammad condemned the practice of killing girls, and encouraged slavers to impregnate their girl captives. Both measures led to a population explosion of young males, who became the young, fanaticized warriors of the invading Muslim Arab armies.

So not all is negative about Fundamental Islam. But even the positive, inasmuch as it reinforces Islam, can be negative. Because, indeed, as you said, Islam is about making the rogue, or at least, hyper-violent side of humanity into a religion. The most intriguing part is that the individual devoted to Fundamentalist Islam doesn’t perceive that way. Instead what they perceive is a totally organized life, dawn to dusk. One should read “the final rituals” (and the full three parts description of travelling to Medina and Mecca):

“Hasan stopped me on my way to the lavatory carrying a roll of tissue; he explained with lively gestures – words not sufficing – that I should cleanse myself with water after defecation. Islamic toilet etiquette calls for pouring water with the right hand and wiping oneself with the left. I nodded to him in agreement and continued on my way, with the paper. It felt like a small victory for Western civilization.

On a related subject, Mina has the most appallingly inadequate sanitation facilities. They are plentiful but so filthy that most pilgrims prefer the outdoors. Mecca and Muna both being located on hills and in valleys, streams of urine and waste water flow across great distances at considerable speeds. The Grand Mosque, where some 75,000 pilgrims sleep each night of the hajj, has no public water facilities except the Zamzam well. While no one excretes in the mosque itself, many do so just outside it, even against its walls. I myself did this once; though feeling terribly conspicuous and expecting a reprimand, in fact no one paid me any attention. I found it strange that the Grand Mosque and the Hill of Mercy, Islam’s two holiest spots, also serve as lavatories for the faithful.”

The reason for that totally organized life in Fundamental Islam is exactly the reason why military life is totally organized: it is the most basic training for obedience, core of the ability of the warrior. It’s why some view the Foreign Legion as a death cult. https://aeon.co/essays/why-young-men-queue-up-to-die-in-the-french-foreign-legion

This being said, there are 100 variants of Islam. Many are well aware of the preceding and ended up as far removed as possible from Salafism (=Wahhabism = Fundamentalism). However, those types of Islam are unknown in the West, and oil money has done its best to suppress them. So now, when talking about “Islam” what the ignorant mean, especially in the West, is Salafism… A type of Fundamentalism thoroughly discredited in Egypt by 1200 CE (it was subjected to the death penalty), and de facto ignored in the best parts of the “Golden Age of Islam”.

(What happened next is that savage invaders, the Mongols and Turks, decapitated the Middle East and North Africa, as they massacred the elites, and took possession of the lands: Arabic speaking intellectual guidance was lost, only illiterate peasants survived.)

Another video, a sort of baby version of what I have long written (albeit with the major blemish of ignoring the ravages of fanatical Christianism in the Greco-Roman empire):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

The thesis that the islam and invasion caused the collapse of civilization is known as “Pirenne’s thesis”. Pirenne was a famous historian of the 1930s, who wrote “Mohammed and Charlemagne”.  

Henri Pirenne’s remarkable classic — published after his death — offers a revolutionary perspective on how Europe evolved as the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople evolved into the Europe of Charlemagne and the Middle Ages. I agree with most of what’s in it, but I do not view it as the end all, be all.

Departing from the standard view that Germanic invasions obliterated the Roman Empire, Pirenne advances the radical new thesis that “the cause of the break with the tradition of antiquity was the rapid and unexpected advance of Islam,” and event of historical proportions that prevented the western Mediterranean from being what it had always been: a thoroughfare of commerce and thought. It became instead what Pirenne refers to as “a Musulman lake,” thereby causing “the axis of life [to shift] northwards from the Mediterranean” for the first time in history.

The other standard view, as advocated by Gibbon, was that civilization collapsed because of Christianism.

My own version is more subtle: Christianism and the invasions were a consequence of the Roman Republic collapse and the subsequent political and intellectual fascism that resulted.

Islam itself an aftershock of all this (both the Persians and the Romans quasi-ruled Arabia; Rome traded with India for centuries through its control of the Red Sea).

Islamophilia, in the sense of the love of Salafism, is fundamentally lethal for, not just civilization, but human ethology, even intelligence.

Vigilance and subtlety should be our mantra. Today it was announced that MI5 (British “Intelligence”) tried to assassinate the Irish Prime Minister.

MI5 asked a loyalist paramilitary group to assassinate the Irish prime minister during the height of the conflict in Northern Ireland, according to claims in newly released government documents. The records show that in 1987, Prime Minister Charles Haughey was informed by a letter sent from the Protestant Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) that British Intelligence wanted him dead.

In it, they claimed to Haughey that “in 1985 we were approached by a MI5 officer attached to the NIO [Northern Ireland Office] and based in Lisburn, Alex Jones was his supposed name,” the UVF said. “He asked us to execute you.” The letter was among the Irish government archives released today. Unsatisfied with the refusal, MI5 then asked the UVF if they would accept the blame. UVF said they turned down the request, telling the Taoiseach: “We refused to do it. We were asked would we accept responsibility if you were killed. We refused.” 

Real history is more complicated in crucial ways than simpletons have it. One shouldn’t confuse the history of myths, with the history of facts. Look at Islam like you should look at MI5.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Is Philosophy Just About Death? Should Religion Be Mostly About Suffering? No! Such Moods Underlay Plutocracy!

December 27, 2017

Abstract: DEATH AND SUFFERING, THE FUNDAMENTAL PSYCHO DRIVERS inherited from Platonism, Stoicism, Abrahamism (Judeo-Christo-Islamism), Buddhism & Nihilism weaken minds and resolve. This is exactly why they have been imposed on the (clueless) masses.

Philosophy, especially the philosophy obsessed by death and suffering, drives politics. Death and suffering obsessed philosophies, and religions are Pluto friendly, and make it easier for plutocrats to govern us all.

Politics is practical philosophy. Plutocracy made sure that the ruling philosophies, and religions, would serve it well, by rejecting life and threatening the masses with pain and anxiety. The obsession they nourished with death and suffering, both of which have to be avoided at the cost of enjoying life in optimal honor and comfort, are the twin pillars of the sheep mentality they have imposed on most of humanity. Islam is a death cult, right: it’s all about Allah, who, in the end, throws nearly everybody “into the fire“. However the root of that disease are much deeper, they pervade the Greco-Roman West. The cult of Jesus Christ is basically a cosmetically improved version of Socrates’ Death Cult.

And no, Hinduism provides no relief. It is more of the same, from a different angle.

***

Plato, Or Philosophy As Fake News:

Some philosophers, to this day, claim that philosophy’s justification is to prepare for death (the same critters generally boast that philosophy is just “footnotes to Plato”, as if they should be proud of their lack of progress; notice in passing that philosophy as footnotes to Plato is an Anglo-Saxon notion, and it partakes to the general Anglo-Saxon plutocratic will to dismiss philosophy as a “worthy object of study”, to quote Bertrand Russell) .

The idea of reducing philosophy to a death rehearsal is presented by that old fascist, Plato, as an exposition from Socrates. Plato claims that life is all about making nice with the “Gods”. Life with the “Gods” will be better, so we may as well not be too attached to life.

Of course Plato and his savant parrot, Socrates were lying: their ives demonstrate it. They were actually party animals, depraved drinkers indulging in a life of wanton sex, luxury and commerce with all the dictators they could find or fabricate.

Even the judgment and execution of Socrates couldn’t stop them. The smartly vicious Aristotle was back with the same trick on steroids later, and when he fled Athens, made the self-aggrandizing statement that he wanted to save Athens from sinning against philosophy again. In truth, Aristotle was busy demolishing Greek democracy, and succeeded. 

Montaigne and his castle, as seen by Salvador Dali, 1947. Notice the “Hommage to France” at the bottom, by the Catalan Dali. The infuriating secret of Western Civilization, now world, is that it’s anchor has been France. Not sure it will be the case looking forward considering the results of children scholastic tests TIMMS, PIRLS, and PISA.!

***

The idea that life is nothing, and the “gods” everything, enabled the rule of the 1%:

The idea was recycled first by the Stoics, modest critters crawling by the feet of tyrants, while protesting of their soothing capacity to endure any abuse. The Christians five centuries later, were loud and clear that this world was nothing and making love to Jesus in the after world was all what matters. The Muslim ran away with the idea another half millennium after that. In the Qur’an the Jews are condemned because they “would like to live 1,000 years”, and nothing is more noble and richer in rewards to die for “God”..

Was Socrates the first Jihadist? Jihadists, apparently following Socrates, claim that life is nothing, while pleasing and obeying the “God(s)” everything. An Athenian jury thought so that Socrates’ advocated preference for death should be honored, and condemned him accordingly, for “perverting the youth” (long story; notice similarity with what should be done to Jihadism). Socrates was given an opportunity to escape, but as genuine Jihadist are won to do, he prefered to die for his Great Beyond, full of nice “Gods”.

This “lust for death”, the most acute form of nihilism, went so far that it was condemned by Seneca in “Moral Letters to Lucilius”:

“The grave and wise man should not beat a hasty retreat from life; he should make a becoming exit. And above all, he should avoid the weakness which has taken possession of so many, – the LUST FOR DEATH. For just as there is an unreflecting tendency of the mind towards other things, so, my dear Lucilius, there is an unreflecting tendency towards death; this often seizes upon the noblest and most spirited men, as well as upon the craven and the abject. The former despise life; the latter find it irksome.”

Seneca explains in other parts that the description of Socrates’s death was much meditated upon and emulated by many in the Roman elite, including Scipio, of the famous Scipio family, one of Cato’s generals, in the war against Pompey. A little example of how Plato inflected history… Christianism is the lust for death writ so large, with the brandishment of the nailed, writhing naked Jesus as its very grotesquely cruel and threatening symbol. It is astounding that Islam succeeded to lust for death even more than Christianism itself.

In some sense even the Aztecs were less lusting for death than the Christians were. The Aztecs tried to capture in war their enemies alive, so they could sacrificed on the top of magnificent pointy pyramids; that made the Aztec religion in a sense less bloody than Christianism, as the Aztecs discovered to their sorrow, too late! The Aztecs were in particular disgusted by the elaborated tortures the Conquistadores inflicted. Roasting Aztec nobility alive all night long was standard treatment, as far as the Spaniards were concerned. It no doubt reflected in their minds what their “Lord” had supposedly gone through, and had redeeming values.

As Nietzsche pointed out, European nobility’s operational morality was the opposite of Christianism. Yet, they were entangled: Christianism lust for death and suffering enabled the nobility to inflict maximal death and suffering, in the name of “religion”. When the commander of the crusade against the Cathars was told that one couldn’t tell who was Christian, and who was a Cathar, he famously replied:“Brulez-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens” (Burn them all, Allah will recognize his own). That was not immediately cathartic. It should have been. This explains why Western Europe got rid of “God”. Now He is back in Arabic translation (“Allah”). And should be equally repulsed, lest Europe wants to end up like Syria.

***

Montaigne thought the obsession with death was poppycock:

Ever since they made a superficial reading of the Old Ones, simplistic “philosophers” have claimed that the aim of philosophy is to prepare for death. This reflects a lack of experience on the part of the beholders. Montaigne corrected this. Once, Montaigne was knocked of his horse by another horseman going at a full gallop. He described the incident in great detail in his “Essays”. He nearly died. His conclusion is that death can come unannounced, all of a sudden, and does not have to be painful. The whole experience was so disconcerting and weird, preparing for it would be completely impossible.

At this point he adds [free translation by yours truly, to make Montaigne more understandable]

“Nature herself assists and encourages us: if the death be sudden and violent, we don’t have the opportunity to fear; if otherwise, I perceive that as I engage further in my disease, I naturally enter into a certain loathing and disdain of life. I find I have much more difficulty to digest the perspective of dying, when I am well in health, than when languishing of a fever; and by how much I have less to do with the advantages of life, by reason that I begin to lose the use and pleasure of them, by so much I look upon death with less terror. Which makes me hope, that the further I remove from the life, and the nearer I approach to death, I shall the more easily exchange the one for the other.”

In case one does not get it, Montaigne hammers away:

“Not only the argument of reason invites us to it — for why should we fear to lose a thing [life], which being lost, cannot be lamented? — but, also, seeing we are threatened by so many sorts of death, is it not infinitely worse eternally to fear them all, than once to undergo one of them? … What a ridiculous thing it is to trouble ourselves about taking the only step that is to deliver us from all trouble! As our birth brought us the birth of all things, so in our death is the death of all things included. And therefore to lament that we shall not be alive a hundred years hence, is the same folly as to be sorry we were not alive a hundred years ago. … Long life, and short, are by death made all one; for there is no long, nor short, to things that are no more.”

It is of course not that simple: most painting of old famous men have a young girl, probably a granddaughter praying and crying on the death-bed (consider the deaths of Presidents Jackson and Washington). Desolate persons are always in attendance, crying. When we die, we live our loved ones behind. And if they loved us too, and they probably do, they will be deprived forever of our company. So, contrary to what Montaigne says, the loss of life can, and is, lamented. Simply, not by us. But what would we have been without the others?  

***

Is Buddhism A Pampered Caprice from The Wealthiest, For the Wealthiest??

The next prey we will devour today is the plump, jolly Buddha. Buddha, a pampered Prince (not just a plutocratic multi billionaire), naturally feared suffering more than anything. After all, he was not used to it. Suffering is something his class offered common people in abundance: if lower classes touched upper classes, they would be burned with a red-hot iron, where they touched, etc. From Buddha’s young perspective, as a princeling, suffering was not just something to fear, never having experienced it, but it was an humiliation, a descent to join the lower classes’ misery.

Make no mistake, suffering can be a horrendous thing, defying comprehension. Actually, it defies comprehension so much that, in its extreme forms, the brain just disconnects it. The brain probably does this with a massive release of endorphins, and other mechanisms not yet understood which block completely the pain pathways.  

Let notice in passing an important point here: the ultimate acceptance of pain, and its attendant dismissal is an evolutionary trait. But not an evolutionary trait to insure the survival of the individual (who, in the wild, when submitted to extreme pain can’t be far from death). Instead, the negation of pain profits the group, as a heroic defender will be free to concentrate on attacking the enemy, or then, counterintuitively, precisely not to hurt the predator during its dinner. This is a case where evolution acted at the level of groups and even ecosystems. (So much for the silly “selfish gene”! The real world is closer to the biosphere described in the movies “Avatar”!)

The brain is mostly in charge of ensuring survival of the individual, or the group. That’s why it evolved. Thus, in an ultimate struggle, this is the only thing the brain does. At least once, falling off a mountain in a rock avalanche in a mile high ice gully, my brain did just two things: finding an unlikely camming position between ice and granite, and mobilizing all the motor neurons, bringing hyper human strength. According to the usual mathematics of sportive performance, say at the Olympic Games, survival was impossible. But the usual parameters didn’t apply.

I had more than one close call, although another where survival was impossible. Each time, I have noticed that the brain blanks out all and any non sensory functions (in particular memorization). This happens during solo climbing: the brain shuts down unnecessary brain activity, immediately achieving what the great meditation masters are looking for (hey, it’s this, or death!) Once I was up a very pretty red and yellow, extremely exposed “Naked Edge” of Colorado front range rock, quasi-soloing the rope going straight down. I was laybacking, feet walking up close to my walking up hands holding a vertical edge. A gust of wind came, pushed and slowly turned me like a weather wane. I had to convert from laybacking position to lousy jamming. Then the wind blew the other way, and back I went. During this weird sequence, back and forth, fall forbidden, I was just making one with the rock and the wind. I clang to dear life.

Thus those who talk of death as if it were to be feared know little: as Montaigne more or less say, it will not come when our brain is in a normal state.

If one wants to embrace the future, where progress will hopefully shine, one has to dismiss the past. Contemplate for example that youthful, vigorous invigorating, open-minded vision of Palestine: young Palestinians dancing, some dressed like so-called Father Christmas, embracing modernity, life, the world, the future! The right direction for the embattled Middle Earth. (If Jesus is Socrates death cult v 2.0, Islam is Socrates death cult v. 3; and the fact Aristotle’s love of monarchy underlays the entire world political system is also something which has to be detected, understood, condemned and discarded.)

Giving an exaggerated mental space to death and suffering, while despising life, discourages rebellion against the established order. People besotted by common sense will think twice before fighting an established order whose symbol of goodness, brandished all around, is a squirming naked guy nailed on a cross.

Egyptian and Indian Plutocracies found another tricky metaphysics to discourage rebellion against the masters: the Eternal Return of the Same. That, too demonstrated the unworthiness of life, and how useless it was to try to change institutions: after all, everything will go back to what it was before.

In truth there is plenty of evidence that the “gods” were all in Socrates’ head (as he readily admits, when he talks about the “deamons” in his head; said “daemons” are so convenient an excuse, they are even found in the Qur’an!). There are no god(s), it’s all lunacy, but there are evolutions. On every sustainably habitable planet, life no doubt evolved (for indigenous life to survive, though, a long shot). And the universe also obviously evolves (although I am against the Big Bang theory, the evolution of the universe itself is in no doubt).

To be obsessed by death, suffering, and the eternal return of the same are ways to cast a maleficent spell on life, to make life, or, at least, rebellion, not worth living.  To claim that this is how to love wisdom, is equating philosophy with the love of what sustains plutocracy. Science, that means what is known with (more or less greater) certainty offered us plenty of proof for evolution. In particular evolution of our genus, the genus Homo, and of our genius, the genius of our culture, and what is now a worldwide civilization.

Rebellion against the established order is intrinsic to civilization: lack of appropriate evolution and revolution is why the Roman Republic collapsed. The Republic found itself hemmed by savage ideologies (some home-made) and tribes, while its industry became unsustainable (from a mix of social and ecological reasons). Rome had to turn back to the more total democracy it had known, and develop further coal combustion for energy production and the use of steam energized machines. Rome could have done it, it didn’t. Greatly because it was so inspired by the Socratic death cult (as we know from historiography). Lust for death? Rome itself died. Because the Greco-Roman empire didn’t embrace the future to get out of the predicament its very success had brought.

A few men, a few families took all the decisions in Rome, during the Principate and the Dominate. They were the worst, because excess select for the excessive (including Marcus Aurelius, the cruel and demented saint of the Stoics, who always sound so reasonable to the not-so-knowledgeable…)

Being completely penetrated by a death wish is exactly what the elites want their subjects to be driven by: death wish critters are easier to manipulate. If all one can look forward is death, hoping to foster a revolution against said elite is pointless. This is why death-wish superstitious religions are so frequent. A contributor to this site, SDM concurred: ‘Well said. Keep them worrying about unknowns such as an “afterlife” to accept the abuses inflicted in life.’

Indeed, yes, and even telling the low lives that, the more they suffer in real life, the greater their rewards in the famed “after life“. Thus, suffering is good, and the more suffering, the more of a gift of the elites is made to them, commoners.

In the Roman context, the death wish superstition was so-called Stoicism (not really started under a “Stoa”, but by Socrates, as I showed above). As it rejected emotions, thus full logic, Stoicism brought despair, and was a secularized prototype of Christianism (which it gave birth to, in mood space). The rise of Stoicism coincided with that of “Hellenistic” dictatorships (and contaminated the Roman Republic).

Verily, philosophy is not just to prepare death. and avoiding suffering. Philosophy is for life. And not just the life of bacteria, but the life of the mind, and the human spirit which extends it. Better philosophy is how to think better. And better is something we do, because, why not?

Patrice Ayme’

Stupid, Or Unreal Environment, Makes For Stupid Children

December 23, 2017

Two Convenient Ways To Make Stupid Children:

Kittens brought up in an optically mutilated environment, say an environment full of straps are themselves incapable of full vision. Forever. There are indications that nearsightedness in human children arises in part from said children never having the occasion to look at things far away. Aborigines brought up in a forest far from the sea have been incapable of understanding the concept of ship. Mathematicians know very well that those who have not been painstakingly exposed to a new concept can’t grab it (it happens to them too).

Why?

The neurology doesn’t just learn from the environment: it is modeled by the environment.

The environment itself stores data which complements, feed, interacts, and is entangled with the genotype (genotype = what’s inherited; in particular DNA and epigenetic mechanisms).

A spectacular demonstration of this is the similarities between canids and thylacines: although their last common ancestors lived 180 million years, they look just the same in all sorts of ways. The similarity is not at the level of protein coding DNA, which is completely different, but at some other genetic level as yet unidentified.  

Same environment made them the same. Similarly an intelligent environment will make an intelligent child. a) Thylacine. b) Australian Dingo, a canid which became wild

This, by the way, shows the weakness of the myth of the “Selfish Gene”: genes are actually environment driven. If one wanted to talk like Dawkins and his followers, one should say it’s the environment which is “selfish”’

So it matter which environment surrounds a child. It could come from the society, the religion, the family, all the way down to the mom.

In Islam, women are kept at home and poorly educated: thus they can’t show to their children what full intelligence, or culture is. This is true with all obscurantist religions. Hence when a society is submitted through an obscurantist religion, the plutocracy imposing it is happy: it’s easier to rule incurious imbeciles than inquiring minds full of critiques.

Stupid moms are the best way to create a stupid population.

A much more subtle effect occurs when parents favor a child who is perceived as weaker. The child may learn to dissemble, misrepresenting reality, and, or, a sibling, as something which oppresses him or her. If that becomes a habit, the child loses the sense of reality that is crucial to constructing  a better brain. Then this mental weakness brings further weakness, and a vicious circle may get established: the more whining, the more stupid.

Patrice Ayme’

How Did Plutocracy Create The Refugee Problem?

December 20, 2017

There is a massive refugee problem, and Europe is the paradise that is supposed to solve it. However, Europe is also a paradise of a different type, that of the Paradise Papers. Both notions are related. The present refugee crisis is different from, say, immigration to the US or Australia in the past. Or even whatever was seen at the height of colonialism’s most horrible horrors. Now, refugees trying to reach Europe are ready to risk life, limb, and even their own children (sometimes they even send the children ahead, as if it were the only way to save them, although they know all too well all the abuse and mayhem laying in wait). On the face of it, the despair of refugees was not as great, even when they were fleeing the Nazis, at the onset of World War Two, when the Nazis were warming up to their ever greater horrors.

In short, the answer is obvious: all what is happening now, even the evolution of science and education, is a province of plutocracy. Through their enormous influence on so-called (“elected“) “representatives”  worldwide, plutocrats, including not just Trump, but Putin and Xi, have made the planet into their masterwork. As I explained for many years, the root of the problem is more than multigenerational, it dates from the evolution of human nature. But the growth of the power of civilization has turned something that just collapsed civilizations into something that is destroying the biosphere itself, even before civilization has been established on any other planet.

Meanwhile, the left, misled even by Marx (who didn’t see the most extreme danger posed by the banking system), has been barking up the wrong trees: “capitalism”, colonialism, nationalism, even racism, didn’t constitute the worst of one is confronting there, the Dark Side of man, that obscurantism leveraged by the power of civilization.

Fighting sexism, radically, would be a better start than all the preceding isms, on the way to fighting obscurantism (a work I will use as a rough equivalent of the “Dark Side” from now on, as one does not go without the other).

***

Through The Alps Darkly:.

The scene is eerie: in the middle of the snowy night, white French local guides meet African refugees in a forest. Everybody is bundled in ten inch thick winter clothing and headlamps. The French talk to the Africans, in French, telling them they shouldn’t be afraid, they are not gendarmerie. Gendarmes would bring back the migrants to Italy (under a hare-brained EU law). The Africans speak perfect French. “Humanitarian” organizations in Italy have provided them with mountain gear.

After hours of efforts braving extreme cold, deep snow, cliffs and avalanches across a pass which is closed in winter, the Africans are understandably not keen to be driven back to balmy Italy. Some get killed during the traverse, falling off cliffs. The French gendarmerie then has to take enormous risks to extract them from precarious perches in which they have crashed.

In summer, the Névache valley is a paradise. Still migrants fall off cliffs in the middle of the night, as they try to avoid military patrols. In that alpine valley next to where I often reside, in the first ten months of 2017, 1,600 illegal immigrants went through, and were intercepted, and thus registered by authorities (most were not). Most of them were not. Out of the 1,600 who got official help, 900 were children. The Alps are dangerous. In winter, even through the Col de Léchelle pass, temperatures regularly dip to minus twenty (Fahrenheit or Centigrade). Snow is meters deep. Wolves, although illegally shot at by French authorities, roam. Migrants fall off cliffs, others freeze. 

Lower two-thirds of the wild and splendid Névache Valley. Migrants come from the right, and go the left. Most of the death and mayhem happen just in the forested pass lurking on the right.  The valley, by then endowed with roads and trains,  extends downstream 300 kilometers to the sea, zigzagging under the different name of “Durance”. Hannibal, escaping a Roman army in hot pursuit, probably used it, taking the Montgenevre pass just to the left, into Italy, and suffering his heavy losses from the local Allobroges (not the Romans). I have run and climbed all over the place, including the big (still) glaciated mountains in the distance.

The Italians are so happy to say goodbye to those French speakers from Africa, they give them free train tickets to travel along the Italian boot to next to the mountainous French border, well guarded by the Alps and the gendarmerie (Italy is, rightly, furious to see an enormous flow of refugees from Africa, and the rest of Europe doing nothing about it… although France makes war there, in half a dozen countries, enough to prevent a general takeover by Salafist madmen, and in spite of a lack of financial support from the rest of the EU).

I have a vested interest in the subject, having been brought up in Africa, and believing that French-speaking people living in Africa (my category in childhood) have a right to go to France, if and when they can make a living there.

Now, of course, cynics come and point out that there are not enough jobs in Europe. Curiously, though, they are, or used to be, lots of jobs in countries with high immigration, such as Great Britain post-Thatcher, or the USA under Obama-Trump… Or for that matter, in the France of the “Trente Glorieuses” (the 30 years of French economic ascent, reconstructing the country after 1945). On the face of it, there is high immigration to places with a future, and that means places with jobs.

So one needs to step back. Consider for example the San Francisco Bay Area. It used to have government built low-income housing. That was before Clinton style “Democrats” Post World War Two,  took power, and decided that anything short of the elite was just to be amused with fables. By contrast, the US government, under Democrat Truman and Republican Eisenhower, engaged in what would now be viewed as “Marxist” policies, far to the left of the worst proposed by Bernie Sanders.

***

Why Were There Quality Jobs In The Thirty Glorious Years, And Not Now? Guns!

Answer, short version: because power is at the point of the gun, said Mao, In 1945, twenty million angry young men, trained to kill, infused with spirits of democracy, civilization, wanted nice jobs, so got them.

In one place local authorities tried to stop demobilized soldiers with legitimate grievances: Algeria, on May 8, 1945. Bad idea. Result: a blood bath, and then decades of uncivil war (and an ongoing dictatorship).

The correct answer was not to do what happened more or less accidentally in Algeria, but for the authorities to bend over backwards. Nobody could stop the potentially angry young men: they were the army.

The GI Bill made even higher education free for those trained killers brainwashed into the ideal of defending democracy. In the USA alone, it meant more than ten million GIs, who needed jobs, and were well versed in the art of killing those animated by Satan-Pluto). Millions of GIs took advantage. Others went into extremely well paid industrial jobs: they could afford a good house, a good car, a good homemaker wife, and good children receiving a good education.

Republican president Eisenhower rose the upper margin rate to 93% in 1953. Yes ninety-three percent. Meanwhile he ordered the construction of a PUBLIC (no tolls!) freeway system (the famous “interstates”). Now, even in California (under “Democratic” control for decades), tolls are introduced (and fees are so massive in California “public” higher education that they can compare to average family income).

The Republican platform of 1956 would be condemned by today’s so-called “Democrats” as “Marxist“. Well, it worked for all. Thus not for plutocrats.

Here is the core of the 1956 Republican Platform:

* Assistance to low-income communities

* Protect Social Security

* Provide asylum for refugees

* Extend Minimum wage

* Improve unemployment benefits to cover more people

* Strengthen labor laws so workers can join unions

* Equal pay regardless of sex

During the “30 glorious ones”, high density housing was built for the lower classes. Throughout the “West”. Come the eighties and nineties, after a decade or two to wilful neglect, it was demolished for being “ugly”… From Paris to San Francisco.

Fast forward indeed to the 1980s: B actor Reagan, one of these ignorant puppets plutocrats love, playing the role of “president”, reduced enormously the taxes on the wealthiest. He paid for this by closing down lunatic asylum. No doubt, as himself a lunatic, he felt that his kind should be able to roam free. Meanwhile, cities such as San Francisco, or the Paris Metropolitan area, decided that low-income housing was an eyesore, and literally demolished with high explosives, said housing, imploding thousands of homes. Why should ugly dwellings mar the views of the truly rich and their servants? Let them live in the street.

In San Francisco, high school teachers may have to live in their cars: they certainly can’t afford rents. The greater Bay Area has eight million inhabitants. Those who want to live in a normal room, have to drive hours a day to their jobs. University professors in the South Bay have been known to live in their cars. But hell, why not? Who would want Kremlin agent, multibillionaire Yuri Milner, to pay his fair share of taxes? Milner is the god of many an intellectual nowadays, as those giving crumbs to them, reach divine status among the pigeons.

***

The Post Colonialist order of global plutocracy enabled the creation of tax heavens for the wealthiest, all over the world:

The “Paradise Papers” show clearly that laws are devised for the wealthiest to escape taxation. Something totally unsurprising: top politicians, when they graduate, turn into propagandists of the wealthiest, making them appear to be just like the friendly chap next door, although, to the wisest, they should look just like common chimpos pulling tricks.

Even though they are required to pay very little tax to start with, .001% of the richest people avoid at least 30% of the tax they owe. But of course the corruption goes much deeper than that: the entire system, from education to death taxes, is rigged so that the wealthiest get all the power and life support, and the rest barely enough to survive. Banks lend to the wealthiest, the art market is rigged as bitcoin for the wealthiest, when the wealthiest thieves get caught, they negotiate deals, and often just shrug away, suggesting the state may want to change its laws instead: Apple has been doing the latter for decades. Apple, the wealthiest company by market cap, said to the US, the mightiest country: change. And Apple may finally gets its wish, under King Trump I. If the law was hard and nothing but the law, all the C level officers of Apple would have long been under judicial supervision

0.01% of  the world’s population owe more than 50% of the wealth… And 99.99% of the power. Money is just the tip of the lever. Corruption and financial crimes have reached higher levels than ever. Plutocrats don’t want just wealth, they want power, and they want power not just for their own selfish comfort, but because they enjoy hurting others. In the latest, plutocrats plan to assassinate the biosphere (Glencore, mentioned below, became famous as a coal company; now it owns mines in Congo, and even the national parks they sit in; to make sure of that, Glencore employs… judges, no less! Thus, if one comes too close to a Glencore mine in Congo, just looking, even if accompanied by national park officers, one can be arrested… and “judged”, on the spot. Read on for more savory details on Glencore, as revealed by the “Paradise Papers”).

146 countries of which 100 are doing an automatic exchange of banking data. But, once again, the poor put their money in banks, the rich, in art.

Paradoxically, the OECD has progressed more in taxing wealth than the European Union. That’s an indicator of the fact that the 20,000 lobbyists active around the European Parliament work hard. So do the 6,000 lobbyists helping to draw the Trump tax reform.

***

The “Colonial” rule was not just “colonial”, most often it came with an administration implementing the rule of law; bad for red-blooded plutocrats:

So empires were not just “colonial”. They were colonial, plus administrative. Sometimes 100% colonial and 0% administrative, as in English colonial America (colons did whatever they wanted). Sometimes 99.99% administrative, and .01% colonial (as in Senegal, the case I am intimately familiar with). When the administrative policy was to implement holocaust, or genocide, mass atrocities resulted, as intended (consider Australia and Canada, even in the 1960s, when they forcefully separated some Native populations from their children). There were no limits to how nasty European colonialists could be: contemplate New England cities paying for scalps of Natives. Or the US government doing all it could to exterminate the Indians, in the Nineteenth with bullets and the Twentieth centuries, with alcohol, while claiming it didn’t. Or think Congo, with the pluto in chief, king of the Belgians, on a rampage.

However, in many places, and more in modern times, the “colonial” administration came to prevent the worst abuses (especially against the ecology). Yes, matters were far from good in many places (for example in Algeria, all too few people of Muslim descent had access to full citizen rights, let alone high education). However in many other places, especially in Black Africa, the “colonial” system worked better for the Natives than any alternative. One real reason that France ditched her African colonies in a hurry was that having a functional French hospital every 100 kilometers, for the benefit of the Natives cost way too much money. So a withdrawal supposedly for humanitarian reasons was anything but. However the leftists saw nothing of the sort. All the “Doctors Without Borders” of the present age don’t replace a state of the art hospital every 100 kilometers. Same for schools every ten kilometers. Now African “leaders” are in charge of this, as French president Macron reminded us… But they don’t have the means. Only plutocrats have the means, and they have them because they are stealing the people blind, including the people of Africa.

But the main underlying reason for frantic decolonization of territories apparently incapable of administering themselves was to prevent the increasingly civilized administration of vast territories. Instead what US plutocrats implemented, under the guise of decolonization, was to have developing countries become a free-for all. A free for all plutocrats. (The same method was implemented in Russia itself, in the 1990s, under the cover of Harvard and its ilk; Putin was both reaction and compromise, yet still somewhat part of the worldwide Pluto system.) 

***

Catch Your Fishes If You Can:   

An example has been the devastation of fisheries in West Africa. This is an old problem: the CIA was completely aware of it as early as 1986. Yet later, the son of the then “socialist” president of Senegal, a rather small country, and one of the poorest, became a billionaire… probably by selling personal authorizations to fish completely illegally to corporations from rich countries such as Korea (the son went to jail later, but refused to regurgitate much, or most, of the money; the 90-year-old father is toying with the idea of a return to politics, no less). 

As the Guardian put it in : “Tackling illegal fishing in western Africa could create 300,000 jobs: If governments in western Africa could end illegal fishing by foreign commercial vessels and build up national fleets and processing industries, they could generate billions of dollars in extra wealth and create around 300,000 jobs, according to a new report (pdf).

The devastating, social, economic and human consequences of overfishing in western Africa’s coastal waters have been well documented but the report, Western Africa’s Missing Fish, by the Overseas Development Institute and Spanish investigative journalists porCausa, lays bare the extent of lost opportunities across countries including Senegal, Mauritania, Liberia, Ghana and Sierra Leone.

“The scale of the losses is enormous. Instead of jobs and development, the livelihoods of artisanal fishers are being decimated by foreign fishing fleets, which operate virtually unchecked,” says Alfonso Daniels, lead author of the report, which presents new evidence of the extent and pattern of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) in the region – a global “epicentre” of overfishing.

For the first time, researchers used detailed satellite and tracking data to analyse the two main practices of IUU fishing: the activities of reefers – large-scale commercial vessels that receive and freeze fish at sea – and the transportation of fish in large refrigerated containers that are subject to less strict reporting requirements.

In 2013, they followed reefers off the coast of western Africa and found vessels from China, Holland and South Korea operating there, with fish exported globally. Among the 35 reefers operating in the region that year, routes were consistent with the transfer of catches from fishing vessels to reefers, including inside the exclusive fishing waters of Senegal and Ivory Coast, countries that have banned ship-to-ship transfers of catches.”

The French state, at times, has helped Senegal to police its waters. But if Senegal was a formal part of a formal imperial authority France was leading militarily, this would not happen. Senegal, thanks to the French, is better defended than Sierra Leone, where foreign, illegal trawlers not only fish in the 200 nautical mile EEZ, illegally, but outright penetrate Sierra Leone’s territorial waters. Sierra Leone was given a boat to make patrols, but cannot afford to operate it.

The Guardian, as a thoroughly brainwashed member of the establishment, talks only lost jobs and revenue. But actually, fish is the main source of protein of West Africa, and its disappearance brings malnutrition, and death, to dozens of millions. If, once again, France and Britain were the guardians of the area, this would not happen.

But it does happen. So for millions of young West Africans of the most enterprising type, the best solution is to emigrate to where there jobs, health, and a future.

***

Better to die than having no hope, say the refugees:

Over the last decade, hundreds of thousands of refugees have probably died, trying to reach Europe. We have 33,000 confirmed names, over the last decade, but that’s just a small fraction of the total.

Surely nobody cares when people die in the middle of the desert

The systemic tragedy, that hundreds of thousands of people risk, every years, life and limb to gain entry into Europe would not have happened in the so-called “colonial era”. This should be meditated upon. What changed? When one makes this sort of remarks, smart asses proud with a pseudo-intellectual sheen roll out the phrase “racist colonialist white supremacist”. Never mind what is really said.

Colonialism better in some ways? I can’t wait for the insults. Insults are all too often hurled to prevent thinking.

Yet the situation is this: Africa used to be livable enough for Africans not to want desperately to leave it.

Some will contest this smartly, by pointing out that it was harder to leave Africa then, that’s why there was no massive immigration. However, I grew up in Africa at the time, and know it was more livable then. I lived among the Natives, and was pretty much one of them, and Africans, from the white north or the black south, and the browns in between, were not looking up to flee Africa for Europe at the time; their lives were balanced, happy, without Islamist madness and plenty enough of interesting things to do, like agriculture, fishing, cooking, talking, dancing. After nominal independence, this colonial order faded progressively away (except in Algeria or Guinea, where brutal dictatorships were imposed, with attendant mass deaths and mass emigration.)

***

Humanitarianism As A Cover To The Pluto Machine:

“Humanitarians” say we should help, it’s a shame we don’t. They want to save 5,000 here, 10,000 there. But how many want to come? How many hundreds of millions?

The solution is to make Africa livable.

Or Syria, or Iran.

And first, it takes military might.

To tell us we should help, and we don’t do enough is correct. But nothing short of dismantling the Pluto order will do. Humanitarianism, as it is today, mostly give Plutos good conscience, and put them in the front row, saving the climate they assassinate a bit more everyday. It was hilarious to see, at the Paris climate conference, self-declared “philanthropists” all out to help the climate, when they machines are ravaging it. Serious: one owns a gigantic airline (Virgin’s Branson, friend and host of the PC Obamas), another enormous computer machinery using the power of many nuclear power plants (Gates), another is a gigantic financial vulture (Bloomberg), etc….

Meaning claiming we have to do small-scale humanitarianism, is like saying an engine needs oil. Yes, the Pluto machine needs the oil of humanitarianism. To look good, and work good. Yes, it feels good to help. But nothing short of dismantling the Pluto machine will be really effective. Being plutocrats’ lap dogs make us part of a dog and pony show (yes, dogs and cats site are thousands of times more popular than brainy sites, I know all too well…)

***

What is the main killer in the developing world? Lack of surgery!

Two million surgeons are missing in the “developing” world, for five billion people. Lack of access to basic surgical care is the number one killer in the developing world, above malaria, tuberculosis, etc. Go explain that to Bill Gates. Two millions surgeons missing. Why? Plutocrats don’t like surgeons in particular, and doctors in general (except when they need their services). In the so-called “West”, the shortage in the education of doctors had been colossal, long-lasting, and deliberate. Why? Plutocrats don’t like doctors and surgeons: doctors and surgeons are brainy and they require a lot of education, thus cash, hence taxes. Doctors and surgeons can, would, and did lead revolutions. Revolutions are bad for plutocratic business. So the plutocratic system prefers to steal doctors in the developing world, paid by developing world taxes, are needed. And if developing world people die from lack of surgical care, well, no worries, no problem, plutocrats called “philanthropes” will come visit the dying, a pretext to fly their private airplane companies, and enjoy the seven stars hotels they own, throughout the planet.

Climate? Maybe they can visit Antarctica in the full luxury of a polluting cruise ship. They will make sure to say hi to a few servants, presidents, Prime Minister and princes on the way. While hypocritically, and deliberately confusedly complaining about their colleague, financier,  and uppity servant, Vladimir Putin (and his billionaire henchmen).

Tax the wealthiest! People brandish the “Tobin tax” concept. But there is nothing new about “Tobin tax”. The idea is as old as civilization, economists just use jargon (when I told that to Krugman, he censored me, before recycling the idea for himself later). Instead, plutocrats foster “philanthropy”, the love of man, something only them can foster. But replacing taxes by NGOs is replacing justice and equality by plutocracy and abuse: it can’t work.

***

French Doctors On Fire, The Latest Trend:

Nothing proves this better than the sad fate of Doctors Without Borders. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). Doctors Without Borders, a Peace Nobel Laureate is a French founded international humanitarian non-governmental organization (NGO) bringing healthcare to war-torn regions and developing countries ravaged by endemic diseases. In 2015, over 30,000 personnel — mostly local doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, logistical experts, water and sanitation engineers and administrators, advised by advanced countries doctors — provided medical aid in over 70 countries.

The success of Doctors Without Borders (MSF) is enormous, so various enemies of peace have learned that, because it is a civilizationalizing force, MSF is the enemy. So what do those followers of the Dark Side do? From Afghanistan, to Syria, to Yemen, MSF is now targeted. Doctors, by the dozens, are shot like dogs,  up to 57 died in one attack. To make sure they can’t help anymore, nurses got their hands chopped off, etc.

History is formal on this: one can’t have justice if one does not have order, and the only ones roaming are the dogs of war.

***

Plutocrats own Africa, that’s why Africans are fleeing it, thanks PC Baby Boomers:

It is dawning on people that the sort of self-obsession Baby Boomers instituted as ultimate guidance, electing Nixon, and especially Reagan, this haughty Political Correctness of a pseudo-left, pseudo-pro-peace, is nothing but. The world imperial order of plutocracy we got is the fruit of their self-absorption and intellectual laziness.

Bill Clinton, the ultimate selfish baby Boomer posing as an empath, went all the way, even where neither Nixon and Reagan had dared: he reverted, annihilated the financial order that Franklin D Roosevelt had instituted.. And has had to institute. Clinton put financiers back at the helm, so they could take care of selves, & Clintons.

I have been saying this for decades. Now the notion is finally reaching the mainstream. Even Vox is going my way. Consider: “How the baby boomers — not millennials — screwed America. The boomers inherited a rich, dynamic country and have gradually bankrupted it.”

I will deal with that essay in a separate essay of mine, as it says, from another voice, (some of) what I have been saying for years. Actually, those US Baby Boomers screwed the entire planet, and, first of all, Africa. (Other Baby Boomers, say the European ones, are just parrots of the US ones, because the USA is the leading nation of the world, whatever whoever is saying…) Thus, all and any of the so-called solutions they have put forward are to be viewed with suspicion, to say the least: they are meant to grease The Machine of plutocratic exploitation, not replace by something just, equitable and sustainable.

Plutocrats are crafty: they hide in plain sight. Watch the Obamas bonding continually with “Prince Harry”, a corrupt guy who was just born right, and could get away with parties in Las Vegas who would send the Commons to prison. Watch Bernard Henri Levy (BHL), coming out of one of his palaces, this greatly humongously splendid humanitarian, complete with open shirt, Hemingway style. BHL followed some of my ideas (say on Libya; Humanism Is Force, Or Is Not: against ultimate evil, only ultimate force works). However, BHL made a fortune, like quite a few other top French plutocrats, by exploiting Subsaharan Africa, in a way that no competent administration of the region would have allowed.

As it is, Africa is a dream come true for plutocrats: watch Glencore. That Swiss based company basically owns Congo at this point. Glencore produces rare metals and earths crucial for electronics laptops, smartphones) and electric vehicles (it started with coal, but coal is on its way out). Most of the production comes from giant mines in Katanga, next to Kolwezi. Kolwezi became famous for the lightning strike jump of the French Foreign Legion, under fire, to free more than 5,000 hostages. French troops suffered 11 dead, more than 60 europeans were assassinated, and now the region is under the control of Glencore… Thanks to somber cash payments, all the way to Congo’s President Kabila himself… As just revealed by the “Paradise Papers”.

Well, it’s paradise for the owners of the world. And if we go to hell, as the planet burns, they will chuckle, as Nero proverbially did.

Actually, although Nero was one of the worst emperors ever, I shouldn’t commit defamation, just because it sounds good. In truth, Nero was not in Rome when the fire started. Then he helped fight it, and opened the imperial palace to refugees.

Don’t expect as good a behavior from today’s plutocrats. They are much worse. Differently from Nero, they have colonized minds themselves. As events in many different countries showed recently, the Deep State extends all the way to the main companies, and all the way down, not just banks and the Justice systems, but also to Big Law, and even many NGOs.

Orwell imagined what he thought was the worst, and he came short. In his book, “1984”, gloom and doom rules. Instead what rules now is what is perceived as the best of all possible worlds, when, in reality, we are tottering on the brink of extinction, because of our insistence that we leave in a sort of democracy, when never ever before, so much mind control has been exerted by so few.

If you don’t believe me, watch Twitter, a de facto monopoly, set-up, as Google and Facebook, by the state, decide who gets published, and who gets banned. And who put Twitter in place? Not just the plutocratic servants in the White House, but tycoons associated to Putin, such as Yuri Milner.  I have said it for years. And I have disapproved of it for years.

Now, even the New York Times, which seems to have banned me for years as a conspiracy theorist, admits that I was right:

***

THE PARADISE PAPERS: Kremlin Cash Behind Billionaire’s Twitter and Facebook Investments

Leaked files show that a state-controlled bank in Moscow helped to fuel Yuri Milner’s ascent in Silicon Valley, where the Russia investigation has put tech companies under scrutiny.

It’s a bit more than an ascent: Milner actually invested for example 250 million dollars into Twitter, when Twitter was just a start-up (I love my Twitter account, by the way). 250 million dollars of Putin’s money, that is. I have related in the past the many proofs that Putin is not just a plutocrat, it’s one of the West’s plutocrat (those who find this a bit mysterious, should read “1984” again).

“In the fall of 2010, the Russian billionaire investor Yuri Milner took the stage for a Q. and A. at a technology conference in San Francisco. Mr. Milner, whose holdings have included major stakes in Facebook and Twitter, is known for expounding on everything from the future of social media to the frontiers of space travel. But when someone asked a question that had swirled around his Silicon Valley ascent — Who were his investors? — he did not answer, turning repeatedly to the moderator with a look of incomprehension.

Now, leaked documents examined by The New York Times offer a partial answer: Behind Mr. Milner’s investments in Facebook and Twitter were hundreds of millions of dollars from the Kremlin.

Obscured by a maze of offshore shell companies, the Twitter investment was backed by VTB, a Russian state-controlled bank often used for politically strategic deals.”

This is just the surface of the horror. To understand it fully, stand in front of judges. Most of them are also part of “The Machine”. And the worst? Many of them, don’t even know it. Hope? At least one judge, a president of an Appellate Court, had to resign for gender discrimination. He is 80 years old… Another one, a Federal judge named by Reagan 32 years ago, from the supposedly “liberal” 9th circuit, also resigned for the same reason. Meanwhile judges shuffle gender discrimination cases into “arbitration” (secret courts).

They probably appear in front of Yuri Milner, great bishop of worldwide plutocracy. (Don’t worry about Milner being indicted for being an agent of Putin, most of the red-blooded agents of the US judicial system, including judges, dream to be employed in one of Milner’s companies, or one of the companies of Milner’s pals… who are roughly anybody dealing with silicon…)

So let the refugees drown and freeze: they will give our philanthropic plutocrats ruling the planet the occasion to divulge their awesome “humanitarian” streaks. We are all just to stand in awe for the streaks of their bloody footprints. And for those who really want to change the world for the better, the way is obvious: hyper criticism of the entire establishment and Deep State (something giant, which includes the judicial system and Big Law), and especially of the ideas and moods sustaining it. Help the refugees, yes. But better, attack the system.

Patrice Ayme’

“Proof” That Faster Than Light Communications Are Impossible Is False

December 16, 2017

There are theories everywhere, and the more ingrained they are, the more suspiciously they should be looked at. From the basic equations of relativity it is clear that if one adds speeds less than the speed of light, one will get a speed less than the speed of light. It is also clear that adding impulse to a mass will make it more massive, while its speed will asymptotically approach that of light (and, as I explained, the reason is intuitive, from Time Dilation).

The subject is not all sci-fi: modern cosmology brazenly assumes that space itself, after the alleged Big Bang, expanded at a speed at least 10^23 c (something like one hundred thousand billion billions time the speed of light c). The grossest, yet simplest, proof of that is simple: the observable universe is roughly 100 billion light years across, and it is ten billion years old. Thus it expanded at the minimum average clip of ten billion light years, every billion years. 100c/10 = 10c, according to standard cosmology. One could furiously imagine a spaceship somehow surfing on a wave of warped space, expanding for the same obscure reason.

The question naturally arises whether velocities which are greater than that of light could ever possibly be obtained in other ways. For example, are there communication speeds faster than light? (Throwing some material across will not work: its mass will increase, while its speed stays less than c.)

Textbooks say it’s not possible. There is actually a “proof” of that alleged impossibility, dating all the way back to Einstein (1907) and Tolman (1917). The mathematics are trivial (they are reproduced in my picture below). But the interpretation is apparently less so. Wikipedia weirdly claims that faster than light communications would allow to travel back in time. No. One could synchronize all clocks on all planets in the galaxies, and having faster than light communications would not change anything. Why? Time is local, faster than light data travel is nonlocal.

The problem of faster than light communications can be attacked in the following manner.

Consider two points A and B on the X axis of the system S, and suppose that some impulse originates at A, travels to B with the velocity u and at B produces some observable phenomenon, the starting of the impulse at A and the resulting phenomenon at B thus being connected by the relation of cause and effect. The time elapsing between the cause and its effect as measured in the units of system S will evidently be as follows in the calligraphy below. Then I use the usual Relativity formula (due to Lorentz) of time as it elapses in S’:

Equations help, but they are neither the beginning, nor the end of a story. Just an abstraction of it. The cult of equations is naive, interpretation is everything. The same thing, more generally, holds for models.
As Tolman put it in 1917: “Let us suppose now that there are no limits to the possible magnitude of the velocities u and V, and in particular that the causal impulse can travel from A to B with a velocity u greater than that of light. It is evident that we could then take a velocity u great enough uV/C^2 will be greater than one.
so that Delta(t) would become negative. In other words, for an observer in system S’ the effect which occurs at B would precede in time its cause which originates at A.”

I quote Tolman, because he is generally viewed as the one having definitively established the impossibility of faster than light communications. Tolman, though is not so sure; in his next sentence he turns out wishy washy: “Such a condition of affairs might not be a logical impossibility; nevertheless its extraordinary nature might incline us to believe that no causal impulse can travel with a velocity greater than that of light.”

Actually it is an effect those who have seen movies running in reverse are familiar with. Causality apparently running in reverse is no more surprising than the fact that two events at x1 and x2 which are simultaneous in S are separated by:  (x1-x2) (V/square root (1-VV/CC)). That introduces a sort of fake, or apparent causality, sometimes this before that, sometimes that before this.

(The computation is straightforward and found in Tolman’s own textbook; it originated with Henri Poincaré.[9][10] In 1898 Poincaré argued that the postulate of light speed constancy in all directions is useful to formulate physical laws in a simple way. He also showed that the definition of simultaneity of events at different places is only a convention.[11]) . Notice that, in the case of simultaneity, the signs of V and (x1-x2) matter. Basically, depending upon how V moves, light in S going to S’ takes more time to catch up with the moving frame, and the more so, the further it is, the same exact effect which explains the nil result in the Michelson-Morley interferometer; there is an underlying logic below all of this, and it’s always the same).

Tolman’s argumentation about the impossibility of faster than light communications is, in the end, purely philosophical and fully inconsistent with the closely related, and fully mainstream, relativity of simultaneousness.

Poincaré in 1900 proposed the following convention for defining clock synchronisation: 2 observers A and B, which are moving in space (which Poincaré called the aether), synchronise their clocks by means of optical signals. They believe to be at rest in space (“the aether”) from not moving relative to distant galaxies or the Cosmic Radiation Background and assume that the speed of light is constant in all directions. Therefore, they have to consider only the transmission time of the signals and then crossing their observations to examine whether their clocks are synchronous.

“Let us suppose that there are some observers placed at various points, and they synchronize their clocks using light signals. They attempt to adjust the measured transmission time of the signals, but they are not aware of their common motion, and consequently believe that the signals travel equally fast in both directions. They perform observations of crossing signals, one traveling from A to B, followed by another traveling from B to A.” 

In 1904 Poincaré illustrated the same procedure in the following way:

“Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their timepieces by optical signals; they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they are careful to cross them. When station B perceives the signal from station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for example, that station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour 0, and that station B perceives it when its clock marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal to t represents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it, station B sends in its turn a signal when its clock marks 0; then station A should perceive it when its clock marks t. The timepieces are then adjusted. And in fact they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on the one condition, that the two stations are fixed. Otherwise the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, whereas the station B flees before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that way will not mark, therefore, the true time; they will mark what may be called the local time, so that one of them will be slow of the other.[13]

This Poincaré (“–Einstein”) synchronisation was used by telegraphers as soon as the mid-nineteenth century. It would allow to cover the galaxy with synchronized clocks (although local times will differ a bit depending upon the motion of stars, and in particular where in the galactic rotation curve a star sits). Transmitting instantaneous signals in that networks would not affect causality. Ludicrously, Wikipedia asserts that faster than light signals would make “Bertha” rich (!!!). That comes simply from Wikipedia getting thoroughly confused, allowing faster than light signals for some data, and not for other data, thus giving an advantage to some, and not others.

***

Quantum Entanglement (QE) enables at-a-distance changes of Quantum states:

(It comes in at least three types of increasing strength.) Quantum Entanglement, as known today, is within Quantum state to within Quantum state, but we cannot control in which Quantum state the particle will be, to start with, so we cannot use QE for communicating faster than light (because we don’t control what we write, so to speak, as we write with states, so we send gibberish).

This argument is formalized in a “No Faster Than Light Communication theorem”. However, IMHO, the proof contains massive loopholes (the proof assumes that there is no Sub Quantum Reality, whatsoever, nor could there ever be some, ever, and thus that the unlikely QM axioms are forever absolutely true beyond all possible redshifts you could possibly imagine, inter alia). So this is not the final story here. QE enables, surprisingly, the Quantum Radar (something I didn’t see coming). And it is not clear to me that we have absolutely no control on states statistically, thus that we can’t use what Schrödinger, building on the EPR thought experiment, called “Quantum Steering” to communicate at a distance. Quantum Radar and Quantum Steering are now enacted through real devices. They use faster-than-light in their inner machinery.

As the preceding showed, the supposed contradiction of faster-than-light communications with Relativity is just an urban legend. It makes the tribe of physicists more priestly, as they evoke a taboo nobody can understand, for the good reason that it makes no sense, and it is intellectually comfortable, as it simplifies brainwork, taboos always do, but it is a lie. And it is high time this civilization switches to the no more lies theorem, lest it wants to finish roasted, poisoned, flooded, weaponized and demonized.

Patrice Ayme’

Technical addendum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

As Wikipedia itself puts it, weasel-style, to try to insinuate that Einstein brought something very significant to the debate, the eradication of the aether (but the aether came back soon after, and there are now several “reasons” for it; the point being that, as Poincaré suspected, there is a notion of absolute rest, and now we know this for several reasons: CRB, Unruh effect, etc.):

In 1892 and 1895, Hendrik Lorentz used a mathematical method called “local time” t’ = t – v x/c2 for explaining the negative aether drift experiments.[5] However, Lorentz gave no physical explanation of this effect. This was done by Henri Poincaré who already emphasized in 1898 the conventional nature of simultaneity and who argued that it is convenient to postulate the constancy of the speed of light in all directions. However, this paper does not contain any discussion of Lorentz’s theory or the possible difference in defining simultaneity for observers in different states of motion.[6][7] This was done in 1900, when Poincaré derived local time by assuming that the speed of light is invariant within the aether. Due to the “principle of relative motion”, moving observers within the aether also assume that they are at rest and that the speed of light is constant in all directions (only to first order in v/c). Therefore, if they synchronize their clocks by using light signals, they will only consider the transit time for the signals, but not their motion in respect to the aether. So the moving clocks are not synchronous and do not indicate the “true” time. Poincaré calculated that this synchronization error corresponds to Lorentz’s local time.[8][9] In 1904, Poincaré emphasized the connection between the principle of relativity, “local time”, and light speed invariance; however, the reasoning in that paper was presented in a qualitative and conjectural manner.[10][11]

Albert Einstein used a similar method in 1905 to derive the time transformation for all orders in v/c, i.e., the complete Lorentz transformation. Poincaré obtained the full transformation earlier in 1905 but in the papers of that year he did not mention his synchronization procedure. This derivation was completely based on light speed invariance and the relativity principle, so Einstein noted that for the electrodynamics of moving bodies the aether is superfluous. Thus, the separation into “true” and “local” times of Lorentz and Poincaré vanishes – all times are equally valid and therefore the relativity of length and time is a natural consequence.[12][13][14]

… Except of course, absolute relativity of length and time is not really true: everywhere in the universe, locally at rest frames can be defined, in several manner (optical, mechanical, gravitational, and even using a variant of the Quantum Field Theory Casimir Effect). All other frames are in trouble, so absolute motion can be detected. The hope of Einstein, in devising General Relativity was to explain inertia, but he ended down with just a modification of the 1800 CE Bullialdus-Newton-Laplace theory… (Newton knew his instantaneous gravitation made no sense, and condemned it severely, so Laplace introduced a gravitation speed, thus the gravitational waves, and Poincaré made them relativistic in 1905… Einstein got the applause…)

What If The USA Had Used No Nuclear Weapons In 1945?

December 12, 2017

Old wisdom: Hiroshima was a terrible thing. New wisdom: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the shots needed to cure Japan swiftly, and with the least pain, releasing the world from the pain Japanese fascist military madness had wrought. Millions were saved. The atomic bombings were expiatory sacrifices to the gods of war, that civilization had to make. 

Master Kong (“Confucius”) believed that, if one acted with benevolence, everything would be best. Benevolence means “good will”. There is the little problem of determining what “good” is. That was the province of virtuous men. And so on. So-called  “Virtue Ethics” was invented in Greece at the same time, and is viewed to this day as a great invention by some Western philosophers, who paid to exhibit moral pretense, of the type fully compatible with unhinged plutocracy (that’s why they are paid). The founders of virtue ethics in the West are Plato and Aristotle, those adulated great destroyers of democracy (this is why Aristo-Platonism survived, as their evil teaching served the fascist regimes of the next 2,000 years).

It is of course going around in circle, defining “good” as what “virtuous” men do, and “virtue” as what does ”good”. In truth, most men and women believe they are doing good. Even Hitler, Stalin, and their ilk, thought they were doing good. Rare are those doing bad, with in mind terrible ends (that was Hitler, when he had been punished long enough to become half-mad).

Badness, evil, don’t have to be global, and apparently gratuitous, they can be local, and unfortunately necessary. When Churchill ordered the destruction of the French fleet at Mers El Kebir, he knew he was doing real bad, but in a context which made the treacherous atrocity part of a global picture which was better that way. The global picture was that Churchill wanted to show the world that even allies, friends and colleagues (in this case French naval personnel) would be destroyed, if in the way of victory in the slightest. The same subjacent moral calculus also stood below Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as behind the annihilation of Dresden and its ilk): anything standing in the way of righteousness will be annihilated. This is why we had no great power war for 62 years, for the first time in 3,000 years.  

Evil can happen by happenstance. Churchill didn’t know is that his suggestion that the French fleet could remove itself to the West Indies had not been transmitted to the French admirals. Oops.

Should Great Britain excuse itself for Mers El Kebir? Not really, but excuses should have been presented for not transmitting the proposition of letting the French fleet escape to the Antilles (where the fleet would have been nominally under Vichy control, thus respecting the ceasefire with the Nazis; such excuses probably were presented between officers, as the French and British sailors have long been in very close contact, before and after Mers El Kebir)

Apology is a path to understanding. Understanding, in full, and only in full, is more important than apologizing. Roughly all history textbooks, anywhere have to be re-written, so that they can give birth t understanding in full, to the best of our present knowledge.

Evil is in the details. If one wants to be moral, one has to plunge in the details. Hiroshima is an examination of one’s moral compass. The question is not whether one can claim to be a Hiroshima lover or not, but whether one has enough moral power to plunge in the details.

The way the Hiroshima bombing is mis-analyzed reflects the way the civilization’s bombing campaign against ISIS, or, for that matter, Nazism, have been misinterpreted.

The allegation by one commenter on this site has been made that the two nuclear bombs used over Japan were “the beginning of the end (or the end of the beginning?) of Western (US) moral supremacy.” Actually, West European mainstream morality, and even mentality rules the United Nations, and, to a great extent China. So it smacks more of an apotheosis than an end. Why? As Gandhi said about Western civilization: it would be an excellent idea

Considering my preceding essay on the way to peace through truth, Purasuchikku accuses me of “Schoolboy textbook interpretation of what marked the beginning of the end (or the end of the beginning?) of Western (US) moral supremacy. Color me disappointed.

Really, the US was well aware (Japanese diplomatic cables were systematically decrypted) that by June 1945, following the fall of Okinawa, the Japanese intended to seek peace, sending ambassadors to Stalin (Captain Hindsight would laugh at that one) and other neutral countries to broker negotiations. This diplomatic effort was too little, too late: half of the Supreme Council members were still hardcore f****wits bent on the “victory or death” strategy and hindered the pro-peace endeavors of Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo and the Emperor (yes).”

However, another commenter, Gmax, pointed out to Purasuchikku that “20,000 people were dying each day the war was going on. So the bombs killed 10 days worth of war. You forget Japan was busy killing half of China everyday.” (I said so myself in past essays; I will reconstitute a quick reasoning justifying this number below.)

Strategic bombing, or any sort of bombing, or war, is a grim occupation democracies  sometimes find themselves into. Precisely because they are democracies. Precisely because, if one does not violently oppose the Dark Side, the Dark Side will triumph. This is what “pacifists” of the simplest sort, and Confucius failed to grasp. Confucius was wrong about his hope that “benevolence” would solve all. Was the Munich conference of 1938, when Great Britain persuaded France and Czechoslovakia not to fight off Hitler, benevolent? Benevolent, for whom?

When confronted to a bear, or a hostile human group, prehistoric men couldn’t not have turned the other cheek, because otherwise, we won’t be here. Twice I killed extremely lethal snakes attacking me, and I had once a Homeric fight with a bear, who had charged me deliberately to steal my backpack (as was his habit). The fight ended when the beast got hit by a very large stone propelled at a significant speed. Three weeks later, the same bear gravely injured a grandmother, and was shot dead by rangers.  

Human beings have a predatory side, which defines mayhem as benevolence: that’s what Master Kong didn’t know, and Plato and Aristotle affected to ignore, as they were tops of the most exploitative elites (they were like various Stalins’ boyfriends)

All together, Japan probably killed 42 million people between 1937 and 1945 (latest numbers). That’s a rate of six million a year. Moreover, most of these people died of exposure, disease and malnutrition (same thing as the average Japanese soldier). One also has to keep in mind that the rate of death accelerated, as disorganization accelerated. In Europe, around ten million people got killed in the last six months of the war. In any case the rate of death was at least 2 millions in three months (20,000 killed a day).

So what happened with the bombs? All in all, including radiation sickness and malnutrition, less than 250,000 people got killed. More exactly, between 129,000 and 226,000 people died, half of them on the first day. In Hiroshima an important garrison was devastated, and 20,000 Japanese soldiers died (a legitimate military objective under any interpretation of the laws of war). The Nagasaki bomb was more powerful, but the ground was hilly, and quite a few people practiced “duck and cover”, after learning of Hiroshima (hide under and lay flat after the flash).

As I said, hours after Nagasaki, the pro-war party collapsed: emperor HiroHito used to be pro-war, he became thoroughly against it.

One has to know the history of Japan: the Mongols, at the time they owned China, landed in Japan twice. They were contained by the Samurai after landing. The Samurai took effective defensive position behind walls of stones they erected, etc. Ultimately, thanks in part of “divine wind”, kamikaze, the Mongols went down to the bottom of the ocean.

Truman: “A quarter of a million of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities… I asked General George Marshall how much the invasion of Japan would cost in lives… he told me at least a quarter of a million casualties on our side, and up to a million, and as much for the enemy” [not counting civilian losses, which were a majority at Okinawa]  

The Japanese High Command was hell-bent to revisiting the notion. The US landing in Okinawa had been very costly, including to the propagandized civilian population which often seemed more interested by death than surrender. The US domination in conventional weaponry was not so great that the US could afford a very costly landing. Kamikaze and other furious air attacks off Okinawa had been costly. A fleet carrier such as the Enterprise was very heavily damaged, and would have sunk with such damage earlier in the war. However, the US had become experts at saving their carriers. The Enterprise went to repairs. The US had many escort carriers, but few fleet carriers.

Just on one (of many) underground base west of Tokyo, the malevolent Japanese military had stored 5,000 planes, fully intent to use them during an attempted US landing (with suicide pilots in various states of unpreparedness). The chief of the Japanese army wrote a vibrant poem where he extolled the beauty of 100 million flowers being cut (namely most of the Japanese).

So now suppose there had been no nuclear bomb. The war would have gone on.  The US would not have landed in 1945. Meanwhile, Stalin would have conquered China. Indeed the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets, a double pincer the Japanese had not anticipated, turned, in a few days, in a rout for the Japanese. Around 100,000 Japanese soldiers died, the Soviets conquered northern China, and half of Korea.

As Wikipedia puts it:

Many Japanese settlers committed mass suicide as the Soviet army approached. Mothers were forced by Japanese military[21][22] to kill their own children before killing or being killed themselves. The Japanese army often took part in the killings of its civilians. The commander of the 5th Japanese Army, General Shimizu, commented that “each nation lives and dies by its own laws.” Wounded Japanese soldiers who were incapable of moving on their own were often left to die as the army retreated.[22]

The sense of civilization Japan had at the time was in need of a serious evolution. Even the fascists at the helm knew this.  When the Japanese Navy conducted a suicide attack on Okinawa, led by super battleship Yamato, the Navy High Command ordered the sailors to try to save themselves, if their ship sank, because there was a Japan to defend and rebuild. Saving oneself when defeated in war was contrary to bushido, the Japanese military honor code.

I write a lot of very nasty things about a lot of US presidents. Because they did very nasty things. However, some didn’t. Similarly in France: I despise, and retroactively condemn with utmost severity a lot of the leaders there. However, some shine. And even some who did terrible things shine. Because they did terrible things because they had to.

Clovis, Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Philippe le Bel and Clemenceau come to mind in France: they all did terrible things (even deliberate spiritual cleansing of the ethnic type, in the case of Charlemagne), but for very good reasons, and they changed history for the best. Some did fantastic things, such as Queen Bathilde (outlawing slavery; fostering education), without having to be nasty, right. They were lucky.

Truman did the right thing. The terrible, right thing (a student had dissuaded the war minister to atom bomb Kyoto, on the ground of saving architectural beauty…)

There is no truth without context, in pure logic as in history, and this is true for moral truth too.

The context of Hiroshima is that the fascist Japanese military government had been on a war rampage for 14 years.It had to be stopped, and stopped fast.  The Japanese people had been unable to stop it (although they tried in 1937, their violence was not up to snuff). Killing the Japanese military meant killing the Japanese war production, thus killing the cities, because that’s where the production was.  

Meanwhile the Chinese were dying by the millions every year. Stalin had a solution: turning China into North Korea (the Chinese Communists actually protested, in vain, about Soviet methods in China).

Another commenter on this site, Eugen R also pointed out to Purasuchikku that:Japan still occupied most of East Asia including big parts of China. Japan under pretext of defending Asia from the European imperialism implemented its own imperialistic policy, using unprecedented atrocities against the local population. Do not forget also Japan’s alliance with the Nazi Germany a horrible crime by itself. If the US would have had atomic bombs to drop on Berlin at 1942, most of the victims of WWII would have been saved…”

Indeed.

Fortunately, the bombs were dropped in August 1945, preventing Japan to go the way of Nazi Germany, and killing another few dozens of millions of people.

And what of Master Kong’s philosophy of benevolence? Five centuries after the “sage’s” death, the extremely experienced emperor and very learned scholar Wan Mang implemented Confucianism fiercely. Results? First nothing. Then a flood. Abominable civil war broke all over China. Peasant armies rose, plutocrat led armies rose. The emperor ended besieged in his capital, after considering setting up an air force (the head would be flier-engineer  died in a crash, after an all too significant flight). The capital was seized, the emperor was dismembered. The Han dynasty was re-established.

Thereafter, Confucianism stayed an idea, not a method of governance.

All religions are about everything. But some religions are also more about killing people, or setting up the mood to kill people (war being a way to sustain some civilization; yet it can be done to excess: consider Assyria).

Examples are the Aztec religion, the Punic religion, the Celtic religion, Islam (original version) etc. And also what was de facto the Japanese religion in the 1930s, a nationalist cult, mixing Shinto with bushido and their ilk, creating a de facto racist cocktail. The Aztec, Punic and Celtic cultures’ rules were annihilated, greatly because of their lethal, hyper-violent Zeitgeist.

Japan escaped that fate. In no small part because the crazed military fascists at the head of Japan got short-circuited big time on August 10, 1945. Thanks to the sacrifice of up to 226,000 Japanese who got atom bombed. They should be thanked and grimly remembered as sacrifices we, as a civilization, had to make.

The famous religions, some of them stoking hatred and superstition, are ways to tie people together again. They are all obsolete. The planet is creaking. Surely,  it’s time to tie people together again, by studying how we got there. Study history, people, make that into the new religion! You will find it addictive, even better than the old stuff.

Studying history, for real and in full would have wondrous effects in the places dominated by Islam, or in the fight against global plutocracy leading us to extinction.

You don’t want war? Create the contexts for peace. That requires no more lies. Not lying is not sufficient, but it is necessary, to dismantle evil contexts. One can’t use things known to be false as a basis for justice, thus a sustainable society.

Patrice Ayme’

Abolition of Nuclear Weapons’ Nobel Not So Noble

December 10, 2017

ICAN got the 2017 Peace Nobel for advocating the abolition of nuclear weapons. Fine. However, not that simple. The world faces a “nuclear crisis” from a “bruised ego”, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) warned in an apparent reference to what is often reductively described as “US-North Korea tensions” (because the entire planet should be concerned by North Korean histrionic ideology).

The nine nuclear weapons states objected. In particular, France, the US and the UK didn’t send their ambassadors to the prize ceremony, something which never happened before.

The case those so-called democracies make is that nuclear weapons enable dissuasion, and thus make war between great, and greatly reasonable, powers unimaginable. That’s an important point: I don’t know of a span of 62 years in the last 3,000 years without war between great powers somewhere. All the wars since 1945 have been anecdotes (although some civil wars killed up to 33% of the population, as in Cambodia).

So France, the USA and the UK are right: paradoxically, nuclear weapons save lives.

A campaign led by ICAN was launched to abolish nuclear weapons. ICAN, a coalition of hundreds of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the Geneva-based group helped pave the way for the introduction of a UN treaty banning the weapons, which was signed this year.

While 122 countries backed the treaty in July, the talks were notably boycotted by the world’s nine known nuclear powers and the only Nato member to discuss it, the Netherlands, voted against. Australia has maintained a longstanding opposition to a nuclear weapons ban treaty. Russia, France, UK, USA opposed the treaty, China abstained.

The most Christian city of Nagasaki was spared not: the bomb was dropped over the cathedral. Two-thirds of the Christians in the region died. However, those 10,000 innocents didn’t die in vain: within 20 hours, Japan decide to surrender.

Only three countries, the fanatics in the Vatican, the so-called Holy See, Guyana (population less than 800,000) and Thailand (a military dictatorship) have so far ratified the treaty, which requires 50 ratifications to come into force (according to UN law).

I am also, of course for the abolition of nuclear weapons. However, first of all, even in the best of possible worlds, nuclear explosives should be at the ready, be it only to bust an interstellar asteroid, a hyperbolic comet, or god knows what else (this utterance does not mean I agree to the existence of god for the purpose of this essay).

The United Nations should have nuclear weapons at its disposal, in the present state of international politics, where nations would engage in significant wars at a distance (consider Syria, Yemen, Hezbollah, etc.). And who has nukes officially at the UN? The five permanent members, countries, which, historically, contributed more to civilization than to its opposite.

 

When the prize was attributed, a survivor of Hiroshima, Setsuko Thurlow, an 85-year-old survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing and now a Canadian and ICAN campaigner talked. Ms Thurlow was rescued from the rubble of a collapsed building at the time. She said that most of her classmates, who were in the same room, were burned alive. “Processions of ghostly figures shuffled by,” she said, as she received the prize. “Grotesquely wounded people, they were bleeding, burnt, blackened and swollen…This is unacceptable human suffering. No human being should ever experience what we experienced.”

I have myself nearly cried, reading the description of the suffering of little children at Hiroshima. However, probably more than twenty million children died in World War Two, a conflict that killed probably more than 100 million people (5% of humanity then). The Japanese, in particular, should be contrite: the Japanese political system, culture and general Zeitgeist was directly causative of World War Two. To this day, WWII war criminals are honored officially in Japan.

Japan killed at least in a rapport of twenty to one: for one Japanese killed, twenty non-Japanese were killed by the Japanese. Call that high efficiency. Most Japanese killed were Japanese soldiers who died from bad treatment in their own army! They died of disease, and, or, malnutrition. Officially, 3.1 million Japanese citizens died in World War Two, says the Japanese government (others say only 2.5 million).  Number of Japanese civilians killed? 550,000 to 800,000, including the victims of strategic bombing (Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.)

The full Japanese cabinet met on 14:30 on August 9, hours after the Nagasaki bombing. The cabinet spent the day debating surrender. War minister Anami told the cabinet that, under torture, a captured American Mustang fighter pilot had told his interrogators that the United States possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed “in the next few days”. The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. McDilda, who had been shot down off the coast of Japan two days after the Hiroshima bombing, told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear to end the torture. The lie caused him to be classified as a VIP prisoner, probably saving him from beheading. In truth, the United States would not have had the third bomb ready for use until August 19, with a fourth in September 1945 and then approximately three a month thereafter. The third bomb would have probably been used against Sapporo, to demonstrate America’s ability to deliver the weapon all over Japan.

Following a second meeting, Prime Minister Suzuki and foreign minister Tōgō met the Emperor, and proposed an impromptu conference which started just before midnight on the night of August 9–10. Japan’s inability to defend itself was pondered. No consensus emerged. At around 02:00 (August 10), Suzuki finally addressed Emperor Hirohito, asking him to decide. The Emperor stated:

“I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer. …

I was told by those advocating a continuation of hostilities that by June new divisions would be in place in fortified positions [at Kujūkuri Beach, east of Tokyo] ready for the invader when he sought to land. It is now August and the fortifications still have not been completed. …

There are those who say the key to national survival lies in a decisive battle in the homeland. The experiences of the past, however, show that there has always been a discrepancy between plans and performance. I do not believe that the discrepancy in the case of Kujūkuri can be rectified. Since this is also the shape of things, how can we repel the invaders? [Hirohito then made some specific reference to the increased destructiveness of the atomic bomb.]

“It goes without saying that it is unbearable for me to see the brave and loyal fighting men of Japan disarmed. It is equally unbearable that others who have rendered me devoted service should now be punished as instigators of the war. Nevertheless, the time has come to bear the unbearable. …

I swallow my tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister.”

Japanese society, and Hirohito himself was culprit of World War Two. Hiroshima and Nagasaki cured it: within four days of the sun of satan rising over Hiroshima, Japan had decided to capitulate, and nuclear explosions were the main reason.

ICAN should learn history.

Beatrice Fihn, leader of ICAN referred to increasing tensions over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile development. “Nuclear weapons do not prevent conflicts. They caused this conflict”.

She is dissembling and lying: enveloping a lie into a truth, to help swallow it.  

The problem of war is vast. It’s related to our increasing powers. Nuclear weapons are just an aspect. To prevent war, one needs truth. When ICAN lies, it helps war. Truthiness helps war. At all sorts of scale.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

Next Year In Jerusalem: לשנה הבאה בירושלים

December 8, 2017

Question: Is giving in to the enemies of Israel the concession that Jerusalem shall not be again the capital of Israel a concession made to whom are, effectively, Nazis? I discuss, without weasel words:

L’Shana Haba’ah B’Yerushalayim (Hebrew: לשנה הבאה בירושלים‎‎, lit. “Next year in Jerusalem“) is a phrase Jews living in the Diaspora utter each year at the end of Passover and Yom Kippur. After the destruction of the great Jewish temple in Jerusalem, by the Romans in 73 CE, the hope of seeing it rebuilt became a central component of Jewish religious and secular consciousness.

Many are upset by this attitude of the Jews, in the last 1950 years, or so. They called it “Zionism”. And many identify Zionism with racism. How, why, do the Jews want to go home, generation after generation? How dare they?

Isn’t good enough, say the Jewish skeptics, that Jews are tolerated back on the so-called Holy Land? Why do they want everything back, like the owned the place in the past? Why do they want their capital back? Don’t they have it already?

Before last year presidential election, opponents of Trump claimed he was a Jew hater. They were, they are that dumb, and, or disingenuous. Even Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate and New York Time pillar claimed that, two days before the election. The fact that of Trump’s several closest family members several were Jews didn’t mean anything to them. Such a level of idiocy means that arguing intelligently is as easily done with the Commons as with common cockroaches.

We had to build our mosques on top of your temple, to show you who is the boss, and so that you could never return. Beautiful Gold Al Aqsa Mosque Crushes Foundations Of Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. God is a terrorist, or is not.

Now Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the cockroaches are roaring to high heavens. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel for more than a millennium. Say from 1200 BCE (king David) until 136 CE.  Rome had two terrible wars with Israel, one in 66-73 CE, starting under Nero, and the other in 132-136 CE. In 73 CE, the victorious Romans demolished the great temple. In 136 CE the Romans ordered the dispersion of the Jews out of Israel,  and took to calling Israel “Palestina”. (from “Philistia, land of the Philistines”, something justified by old Assyrian inscription). In 360 CE, Roman emperor Julian ordered the Jewish temple rebuilt, but the work was interrupted by a quake and Julian’s death. During the Sassanian occupation of the area, in the Seventh Century, the Jews were again given autonomy. But then the Christians regained control, and the Jews lost the autonomy, and the Muslims followed suit, even forcing Jews to wear marks on their clothing. Jews regained autonomy, shortly after demolishing the British government’s headquarters in the King David hotel in Jerusalem.

The international consensus at the united nations was that Jerusalem was an international city. Right, a treaty was signed to this effect between Richard the Lion Hearted (representing Philippe Auguste of france, his suzerain) and Saladin. (Treaty of Jaffa, 1192 CE!)

The reason being that Jerusalem is sacred to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In the case of the Muslims, it’s because Mohammed flew there on top of a winged horse after his death (don’t make fun of the Prophet, or Allah may make you drink melted lead, one of his prefered punishment, says the Qur’an). Another reason is that the tiny territories given by the UN at the creation of Israel, don’t have much of the city.

However, Jerusalem is not just the religious capital of the superstition known as Judaism. As I said, it was the capital of the STATE of Israel for 1,300 years. Not as long as the 1,600+ years of Paris as capital, but close. And about as long as Memphis was capital of Egypt. Memphis was capital of Egypt three times between 2950 BCE and 664 CE.

The question is this: what is the justification for the existence of Israel? Conventional wisdom says it’s just a place for the Jews to be, otherwise they end up in ovens, and related situations. This is a silly reason: Jews shouldn’t end in ovens, because if they do, everybody will (as the top Nazis recognized, sotto voce, among themselves: the treatment they gave to the Jews, extermination, was going to be extended to others).

No, the real reason for Israel is Israel: bringing back the state by that name, made greatly, but not exclusively, of Jews. That state had Jerusalem as capital.

But what of the reasoning that this compromises peace?  Jacques Attali‏, one of France’s deepest thinkers, and close to president Macron, wrote on his twitter account (we follow each other): @jattali: “The United States’ unilateral recognition of a reunified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and of no other state, is against the long-term interests of Israel and the Middle East peace process.”

I recognize that the “of no other state” part is uselessly aggravating. However Trump said:  “We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved,” That does not seem to exclude that East Jerusalem couldn’t be the capital of a Palestinian state (having a double capital was close to a situation found in Berlin for decades).

So my grain of wisdom? The Hamas charter wants all Jews killed. Hamas rules Gaza. I have quoted this saying of Prophet Muhammad in Hadith (41; 6985)  many times.

According to the Hamas charter, Jewish people “have only negative traits and are presented as planning to take over the world.”[39] The charter claims that the Jews deserve God’s/Allah’s enmity and wrath because they received the Scriptures but violated its sacred texts, disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew their own prophets.”[40] (This mentality is straight from the Qur’an, which insults the jews, page after page, even asserting all pigs, monkeys and dogs we see are, truly, Jews…) ).

Here is a piece of the Hamas Charter, halfway through Article Seven:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Eight:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.]

An essay in the Huffington post disingenuously claims the preceding Hadith does not really say what it says. Yet it’s repeated in at least 2 other places; moreover the Qur’an is extremely insulting to the Jews (although it quotes the Bible favorably to justify a “rain of stones” on homosexuals). The constantly repeated idea in the Qur’an is that Jews disobeyed “god”. Their “god”: the prophet of Islam knew better than the Jews what the Jewish “god” wanted, and he wanted them punished for it. 

In other words, the Palestinians are in denial. The Qur’ an and its murderous threats is their main problem, not the jews. The Jews have the right to come back where they were from. Recognizing this is recognizing the reason for Israel. Anything short of that tries to refute history… and justice.

here are many times more Muslims in Egypt than there are Jews in the world. The Middle Earth has space for the Jews to return.  It will enrich the place force tolerance, hence intelligence.

Meanwhile, negotiating with the most determined enemies of Israel is like negotiating with the Nazis, and literally so. One couldn’t negotiate with the Nazis, for a number of reasons. One does not negotiate with rattlesnakes. This is what the French Republic thought. France declared war to the Nazis, as soon as Great Britain changed its mind and agreed to help France militarily, if France got into a war with the Nazis.  The result is that the Nazis were forced into war 6 years early, and lost said war.

The case of Hamas is typical: read the text above. It’s straight out of Nazi central casting, the sort of declarations even the top Nazis (say Hitler, Heydrich, Himmler) didn’t dare to utter. Respecting this, and giving Hamas the concession that Jerusalem shouldn’t be again the capital of Israel is making to Nazis the concession that Jerusalem shouldn’t be again the capital of Israel. How wise is that/ How moral is that? How prudent is that? How cowardly is that?

If we want truth and reconciliation, we need truth first. The truth is that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel. It was the case for more than 1300 years, roughly as long as the superstitious ideology known as Islam. I am not a Jew, I am more than that, I am a historian. Or, at least someone cognizant with the basics of common history. It’s where the facts are.

Patrice Ayme’

OF MANY MINDS WE ARE, Therefrom Our Volition’s Enormous Inertia

December 6, 2017

PENSÉE UNIQUE“, INTELLECTUAL FASCISM, MONTAIGNE, HOW TO BUILD A BEAUTIFUL VOLITION AND WISDOM IN FULL.

Many view the following as smart, deep and wise, what we could call the empty-headed view of wisdom:

“When I dance, I dance; when I sleep, I sleep; yes, and when I walk alone in a beautiful orchard, if my thoughts drift to far-off matters for some part of the time for some other part I lead them back again to the walk, the orchard, to the sweetness of this solitude, to myself.”

Michel de Montaigne

I, myself, and me, Michel, or how to focus on numero uno? Is that the epitome of mountainous wisdom?

This thought of Montaigne reflects a whole current of thought back in Eastern Eurasia. Where is the wisdom in that? Right, sometimes one should confer with oneself, I do it nearly 24/7. But who established scientifically that mono-thinking is superior to multi-tasking?

What is the difference between mono-thinking and Pensée Unique?

“Pensée Unique” is the ultimate instance of intellectual fascism, organizing one’s thinking around few, all too few thoughts, and emotions. “Pensée Unique” goes hand in hand with Political Correctness, the latter being possible only with the former.

Oriental thoughts masters, and Montaigne were, and are, searching for a vacuum, where none is to be had.

In truth, the brain is an intensive, gigantic and ultimate multitasker: giving haphazard orders to the brain is like giving haphazard orders to the ocean. One has to be smarter, and more conniving than barking out orders to billions of entangled neural networks. (Yes, entangled, and probably not just classically so: quantum entanglement has now been demonstrated over 500 nanometers…)

When Montaigne danced, he could do so because many parts of his brains synchronized. OK, right, when a cockroach is looking for food, it probably does not let its thoughts wander. And the species has been around thousands of times longer than ours. Is that why we should imitate them?

In truth longevity of cockroaches has to do with their stupidity: were they more clever, they would have bigger brains, eat more energy, and thus would have been more prone to extinction, like T Rex. However, even coackraches let their thoughts wander: turn the light on, they will notice it, although all they thought about a second before was food. They are therefore multitasking: part of their brain is out to detect the exposition light brings them.

If we are into wisdom, we are into brains, and if we are into brains, we are multitaskers.

Drus, peak of death, Chamonix, Alps. I should have died at the location of the upper dust cloud, more than half way up, in the hidden very steep ice gully on the right. That I didn’t is a mystery (had I kept on falling, after huge rocks hit the ropes in the ice gully, by partner would have died too).

The ability to multitask does not mean that the wise should be incapable of concentrating. Just the opposite. Concentration comes naturally, when the situation requires it. I tend to be a scatterbrain, in the noble sense of the term, yet, I am a mountain climber, an activity which, like mountain running, requires concentration (so does deep-sea diving which I still do when next to a non-freezing sea).

More than once, I found myself in desperate situations when only hyper concentration and resulting superhuman strength and agility were required to bring my survival. However, the way survival was achieved reveals how the brain works. The last time this happened was 15 months ago, when I broke a crucial hold in an overhanging traverse where falling was an option implying death and, or, a very grave injury (and thus helicopter rescue, at best). But I didn’t fall, and i am still mystified by it.

I have faced, at least once, certain death, and I pulled it off. How? I don’t know. In cases like that the brain is so fully concentrated that the short-term memory system ceases to work. Motor neurons all fire together, and the frontal lobes, the strategic thinking is actually employed tactically, 100%.  Yes, it’s addictive. When I mountain run on snow, going down at high-speed, and I have to visualize trajectories carefully, to avoid blatant ice, and finishing in the trees, downslope, at 5 meters per second, I sure have to concentrate. I am not like the presumably half senile Montaigne, proud of being able to dance by only thinking about dancing, an occupation I could engaged in, with a blindfold.

So I don’t know what the admirers of  Pensée unique” hope to achieve. An early death of the mind?

I go the other way:

When I run, I think. When I sleep, I think. In both cases I think, but not in the same way. That’s the trick of superior wisdom acquisition. By not thinking in the same way, I mean not with the same parts of the brain, not with the same neural circuitry, not with the same neurohormones. I try to approach any subject from many different paths, many different neuronal pathways, many different neurohormonal environment. Thinking becomes a sum over all neurohormonal and neurological pathways.

It is indeed amazing how different a subject become, when one is ten miles from the closest human being, running on snow on top of a mountain ridge, much of the brain monitoring the next ten strides, one after the next, besides searching for ice and other indications of various traps.

Of all the things I have thought about, all of them literally got run in the ground at some point. Thinking, when running, is conducted bare boned, as the brain eats oxygen (and I only do mountain running, which demands very high brain activity to select placements and trajectories whereas running around a track can be conducted with a blindfold, holding someone’s hand)

Thus, thinking about a given subject when conducting a brain intense sport forces the brain to consider only the essence of a problem. Similarly, and for the same reason, multitasking forces into concentrating into the essence of any subject, by forcing mental concentration on the bare bones aspects of said subject. Another effect is that reducing by force the usual neurological, and neurohormonal approaches to a subject enables said approaches to rest, and thereupon, reduce themselves to a more concentrated essence, and being approached afresh.

“Free will” or more exactly, volition, is not free: it is a prisoner of our own brain, its neural networks, its experiences, associations, theories and emotions. All those, in turn, were built progressively, over years and even decades, nonlinearly feeding on themselves, and back to the environment they evolved from and modified in turn (in that environment, typically, one’s family).  Volition is a house we helped built, and also a robot we inhabit.

This fits with the rolling cylinder metaphor familiar to the ancient Greco-Romans. Cicero, in De Fato (43), presents Chrysippus’ metaphor of the rolling cylinder as follows: “‘In the same way therefore, as a person who has pushed a roller forward has given it a beginning of motion, but has not given it the capacity to roll, so a sense-presentation when it impinges on the will, it is true impresses and as it were seals its appearance on the mind, but the act of assent will be in our power, and as we said in the case of the roller, though given a push from without, as to the rest will move by its own force and nature.”

Some impulse, say a sensation gets something to roll (or not) according to its nature, inertia does the rest.

The Greco-Romans didn’t have inertia as an explicit concept, they touched it there. Rolling cylinders were used as an important example which Galileo Galilei rolled away with, establishing deep laws thanks to smart experiences involving them. (too bad Greco-Roman society, then, had become adverse to too much thinking, they could have discovered Galileo’s physics)

This distinction between impulse and subsequent evolution, is actually fundamental to differential equation theory: the initial conditions are a different input from the structure of the equation itself. Different initial conditions can give completely different results, from the same differential equation.

The nidopallium in birds is involved in executive functions, and higher cognitive functions. One intricate behavioural process governed by the nidopallium in birds is migration. There is significant neuronal recruitment to this region of the avian brain during migratory flight. It enhances cognitive potency in the nidopallium.

Thus birds benefit from improved navigational capabilities during migration, prompted by the significant changes in spatial sensory stimuli. This illustrates that neuroplasticity in the brain, avian, or not, depends upon the mission. We build the cylinder we are going to roll, depending upon what we do, and, or, plan to be doing. But, once it’s mostly built, our existing neural networks, and the neurohormonal machinery bathing them, presenting enormous inertia, is how volition rolls.

The great masters wanted concentration? Well, the best way to get it is through deconcentration, and subsequent recreation.

One may wonder why so many sages insisted so heavily that “Pensée Unique” is the way of wisdom. The reason is always the same: the elite, the establishment is plutocratic in nature. That means it rules, fully using the Dark Side. That works best when the people’s operating system is a sort of sheep mentality, transforming them into the placid “sheeple” (sheep + people). This is a generalization of Nietzsche’s dual morality model of European civilization: Christianism for the masses, lion (“blonde beast”) for the aristocracy.

It goes without saying that all and any wisdom propagandized to the masses for more than a generation or two was sustained and amplified by the aristocracy (power of the best), truly a plutocracy (power of evil). By telling the masses they should concentrate on the task at hand with one and only one thought, “Pensée Unique” at any given moment, the elite told the masses they worked best as robots, and made sure no wandering thoughts would compromise the established order.

Montaigne was the first of his very wealthy family to achieve nobility status. That implied that Montaigne didn’t have to pay taxes (just like today’s plutocrats). He could just live off the considerable revenue of his immense domain, making wine (the domain still does).

Montaigne knew higher-ups intimately: not only his friends forced him to become mayor of Bordeaux, but he was a personal friend of the King of Navarre, selected and elevated later to King of France, Henri IV (and one of the best leaders civilization had).

Montaigne was a sage, one of the best groundbreaking thinker ever. He broke free of some of the stranglehold of wisdom, Greco-Roman style. He was not always right. For example Montaigne was against the colonization of America, whereas the Greeks’ spirit was to colonize away… And it’s easy to argue Montaigne was wrong on colonization: it’s impossible to pretend, that, in the fullness of time, we are not all descendants of colonizers, because, we are. Even inside Africa, colonization started long before Neanderthal genes made it all the way to South Africa.

Science can, and always does, beat back received wisdom, make it much more nuanced. Yes, the world is local, as field theory has it, but not really, as Quantum Physics, and the dismayed Einstein himself, established, and now confirmed with countless experiments. Truth is true, but in a certain context, thus will always surprise us, as contexts change. Thus so it should be with minds, especially when they think anew..

Montaigne objected to colonization. It was not really original: the first to object to colonization were the Native Americans Jacques Cartier debated with on ther Saint Laurent, in 1534.

So France bungled the colonization of America. Philip II of Spain, himself the son of a wise emperor native French speaker, didn’t have this pangs of conscience: he sent an armada, exterminated the French in the Carolinas, who left only a name behind (and maybe some genes among the Natives). To be a saint, when confronting evil, does not destroy evil, it helps it out.  

Montaigne objected to colonization on moral ground, he wanted the savages to be free and prosper. But, actually, the French “mission civilisatrice” and trade colonizing model, would have saved the Native Americans from the holocausts which lay in their future as they were left to the tender mercy of the English “West Country Men” and other Bible, holocaust stomping colonizers of the enslaving and scalping sort.

Montaigne would have discovered that possibility, had he debated all the possibilities. He wanted to save the savages, he insured their ruin.

Of many minds we are. And the more minds of which we are, and cultivate, the more human we get.

Patrice Aymé

Of Gods, Mice and Laws: Just Pretend, Knowing You Pretend!

December 3, 2017

Western Europe has (finally) turned pretty secular, but not so the rest of the world. One should remember that, thanks to secular Greco-Roman law which ruled the most civilized parts of Europe for 26 centuries, Europe was never as completely god-crazy as the rest of the world. Neither was China, and this fundamental secularism explains probably the superiority of China and Europe in civilizational matters.

Eugen R finds “that the Universe is governed according the law of mathematics an oddity, and not a necessity of existence. How came these laws to existence?”Einstein, even more basically, couldn’t believe the universe was comprehensible. But it is com-prehensible because the universe has laws and thus can be apprehended. Eugen ruminations in “God. Programmer?” are more bleak than I think is wise. So here is my take on it:

If we lived in a universe which had no laws, such as plutocracy (which is intrinsically lawless), we would not be able to get a handle on the universe. And this is exactly what is happening, and why.

The Gods are the jokes the higher-ups have always played, and pretend to believe they mean everything that matters, so they could not just live better, but feel, and even act, better!

Laws of nature are given: this is a fact, the baby becomes cognizant of within minutes of coming to the world: close the eyes, and rest, comfort is given.

If truly in denial of the laws, one couldn’t live accordingly, because one would die right away. Even the craziest religious fanatics, know enough true physics not to die quickly: they don’t jump off windows, and don’t crash headfirst to get into the bus!

To be part of this world, this natural world, is to be law-abiding, to a very great extent, because otherwise we won’t be: to be lawful, or not to be. There is no alternative to natural laws, but death, prompt and definitive. All human beings learn this, starting as infants. When our great leaders, political, commercial or spiritual, act otherwise, as if they could make the laws, they lie to us.

“God” is just a concept claiming we still have a well-meaning parent teaching us the laws, and if we just please the deity, everything will be OK in all ways. Whereas we truly have no one, and especially nothing to guide us… Except for the laws of nature. But this claimed assumption, that the maker of laws can be befriended, self-hypnotize us, and those we want to rule.

Whether a “programmer”made the laws of nature or not, is irrelevant to the world of facts: the laws are in evidence, the “programmer”is not (notwithstanding that Aztecs could point at hummingbirds everywhere, and their main deity was a hummingbird, of sorts). There are enough laws to learn and search for, that we don’t need to spend time searching for something outside of the universe.

The evidence, instead, is that the laws of nature are here alone, they are primary actors. Why would there be a need to suppose that some agent made it so that jumping in a lava lake is deadly? All we know, is that trying to swim in lava would be deadly. And that’s enough to survive that one.

Those who claim natural laws are from the actions of a supernatural agent, generally are themselves easily found out to benefit from such claims. Thus their alleged supernaturalism turns out to be all too human for their comfort… and against that of those who trust them.

Ultimately, laws of mathematics are just laws of the neurology, thus laws of physics. Physics is all the god we have, but it is a mighty one and it doesn’t forgive.

All we can do, is to humanize the universe, and make our own god(s), knowing full well we did. Just as my daughter told me to do when she was two, and she wanted to learn from some role play, while I eyed the whole thing skeptically: “Just pretend!”

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: EugenR:”As in most of the cases I fully agree with you. The question is how to influence those who don’t make the effort to use their human capacity to comprehend reality based on evidence and not imaginary reality based on wishful thinking and flattery.”

PA: Happy we agree, as usual… As I said, many individuals have large base material interest to foster superstition (what stands above [nature]). The vast masses also have interest to just pretend that there are human deities up there, as it makes the world less inhuman, a place where baby thinking works, a return to very comfortable infantilism, the thing closest to the deepest, most comfortable slumber.
The solution, then, is to explain what is going on, and why pretend is OK, as long as it does not have too much of a deleterious impact on nature, human and not.