Dying Of A Broken Heart Is The Evolutionary Thing To Do

Is dying of a broken heart an evolutionary trait? Yes. Because it saves energy whena person’s utility to the group has vanished. The sudden death of Queen Elizabeth drew attention to this: one day she commented on a dark cloud coming to a photographer, as she could see a storm gathering in the distance, from her Balmoral castle in Scotland… a few minutes before receiving the new female Prime Minister, Liz Truss. The next day the Queen was dying. 


Survival of the fittest means also not just the fittest individual, but the fittest group of individuals. With human species, old individuals didn’t bring the bacon in, but brought in how to bring the bacon in, and many other pieces of wisdom only revealed in the fullness of time…

In other words old individuals such as Queen Elizabeth, the elderly, weak and difformed could still bring irreplaceable know-how which prehistoric people needed to survive. 

However, such Old individuals tend to die readily when their heart is broken. And not only them, but younger ones too. 


How and why did the broken heart trait evolve? 

Because the “heart” is an indicator of happiness. That happiness flows, in part, from the social need the individual feels to be personally filling up. A broken heart indicates one has lost social utility.

True happiness also flows from satisfying animal needs: hunger, thirst come first.

However, for the old, many of these animal needs stopped being so pressing, for a number of reasons, including sensory failure and other basic mechanisms failure: for example, there is less hunger and thirst to satisfy when one feels neither hungry nor thirsty.  Cuddling is probably still an oxytocin enhancer, but a cat will do.

What remains in older age is the need to fulfill a social function. In prehistoric society that meant the old teaching to the less experienced. A broken heart, though, indicates that this function is not fulfilled anymore. The old one has just become a mouth to feed. Short in food yet pragmatic, many North American Indian tribes left the old to die in the wilderness.

Queen Elizabeth at 96…

Charles III was amply prepared, the queen, undermined by infirmities didn’t have the love of her life by her side, Philip, who died at 99, after driving until 98 (and causing an accident when he was blinded by the low sun). Philip, an authentic war hero (he played a crucial role as a commander in a crucial sea battle against the fascist italian navy), was of great counsel and the queen may have felt out of her usual depth advising all including Prime Ministers and family members, now that she had lost her sounding board.

The queen had lost her utility, her broken heart told her, so she died.  

Some have professed to want the queen to die an “excruciating death”. They are typically employed, not to say owned, by the plutocratic establishment so called “universities” which has put them in charge of stupidifying the youth. The idea was that she should suffer for the enslaving empire (except slavery stopped being lawful in England in 1066 CE… when England was really born and not just a Viking playground anymore). However, we do not choose how we were born. Queen Elizabeth had a dignified life and made pretty well out of it. Could she have done better according to my own criterions? Of course, but that’s from out there, Africa, America, and in insight.

I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying,” Dr. Uju Anya, an associate professor of second language acquisition at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote in a tweet on Thursday. “May her pain be excruciating.” 

Anya knows no history: none of the alleged crimes happened during Elizabeth’s life.

Jeff Bezos, the world’s third-richest man in stock market capitalization, then quoted Anya’s tweet and tweeted back: “This is someone supposedly working to make the world better?” 

I don’t think so,” Bezos added. “Wow.” 

Later Carnegie Mellon said Anya’s hatred “absolutely do not represent the vie of the university“…

But Anya’s Deep State satanic influencers who direct that her and her ilk be employed in making the youth better, Pluto’s way, saw hatred through division. Anya does her job well. However hatred, in this day and age, in its ultimate expression, is nuclear war. Anya then pushes for it by glorifying misplaced hatred, and teaching that this is the righteous way.

Elizabeth never did that. That made her a better role model than many a “humanity” department has to offer nowadays…

Patrice Ayme

Elizabeth Philip was her man when she met him, and she was 13…


P/S: I am of course against the monarchy, an institution obsolete already 25 centuries ago. However, it would have been better if the British-Indian Raj had kept Elizabeth as queen (no silly wars between Muslims and Hindus, killin millions, as happened). The preceding essay is just about a broken heart, and one must recognize that, given her karma, as an individual, except for not expressing herself clearly on the question of Brexit (she was against it), she did a very good job… Whatever her job was supposed to be.  

Monarchy keeps on reappearing. In Britain, it’s constitutional… Yet, all the way down the Eighteenth Century, it could be nasty. 

Queen Anne, upon accessing the throne in 1701, immediately declared war on France (Louis XIV of France had recognized earlier the rightful heir, James III ,the “Old Pretender”, as rightful king of England and Scotland (September), prompting Parliament to legislate for an oath requiring a public abjuration of the Stuarts’ claim to the throne). Queen Anne, upon dying in 1714, was succeeded by someone from… Hannover (Germany). It’s British plutocracy which rules…

Last time a monarch intervened, in England, with a veto against parliament was Queen Anne in 1708, when she blocked the reestablishment of a Scottish militia by the London Parliament in Scotland, “An Act for settling the Militia of that Part of Great Britain called Scotland”… the fear of the Queen being then that Scotland would join France in battling England…

It is the ongoing exercise of the veto power of the monarch which precipitated the US war of independence, because George III kept on refusing “assent” for many laws proposed by local governments in America…

Tyrant Putin is a monarch, but he doesn’t have the excuse Elizabeth did, to have inherited the charge… so that makes him technically what the Greeks called a tyrant (from unique in Greek)…. besides his advertised desire to bury the world in radioactive ashes if it doesn’t accept Kremlin suzerainty.

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “Dying Of A Broken Heart Is The Evolutionary Thing To Do”

  1. Gmax Says:

    I find the sudden death of the queen rather strange. Make no mistake I am not claiming a conspiracy but what did she die of?
    Besides your broken heart/no social utility theory?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Good question. It seems she had bad circulation in her extremities, pictures of her hands seem to show. When one saw her all alone because of COVID in Westminster, this looked like premature burial…


  2. oatmealactivist Says:

    Monarchy is an obsolete, irrational, outdated institution based in unearned hereditary privilege, seemingly indefensible – and yet I cannot deny the benefits of constitutional monarchy.

    Separating the government and the state. Endowing the trappings and style of the crown and palace in someone who never actively sought them. Providing a common touchstone and living embodiment of the nation for any and all to hold dear or look to in times of strife. Preventing aspirational despots from donning the glamour of the state, something they all seem to do when dying democracies transition to overt tyrannies. And, in the case of the British monarch, peacefully joining disparate people in far-flung corners of the world.

    The undemocratic nature of hereditary monarchy is, paradoxically, a great protector of elected democratic government. Monarchy is flawed, irrational, wrapped up in scrutable mystery. Yet it’s still better than any of the alternatives.

    As for Dr Anya, she’s entirely emblematic of the rot in academe. Her scholarship, all critical theory and “diverse perspectives on language learning, is an expression of her racism. And her social media posts, including the infamous one made last week, along with countless articles in the New York Times, comments by one of the hysterics on the View, etc are part of the now-standard hatred of anything American, British, French, European, Western, White or Christian.

    Is there anything in history like the Left’s (which really needs a new term) abandonment of the working class and anti-plutocracy in favor of actively undermining the core foundational values of its civilization? Did the late Roman intelligentsia abandon the spirit of the Gracchi and side with the barbarians?

    God save the Crown.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      On the positive side…
      The battle within the Commonwealth in the 1980s over racist apartheid-ruled South Africa got intervention from Elizabeth II.

      Then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher found herself isolated in her opposition to applying economic sanctions against South Africa. Queen Elizabeth, concerned over the damage this was doing to the Commonwealth and Britain’s international standing, opposed the prime minister, a rare occasion on which a dispute between monarch and elected leader became public.

      On the negative side, the Monarchy and the Chambers of Lord are symbols of HEREDITARY plutocracy.

      The ignorance of Dr. Anya, and her unawareness of it, express a pathology in academia, indeed. The NYT bans several of my decent comments, each week, and then publich rotten cognitive trashcans like that… Because they are in charge of teaching the youth, and the best of them!

      There was indeed such an intellectual rot in Rome, starting in a subtle manner under Sulla, but it was fiervcely opposed. However resistance to Sulla collapsed when the 70 something Marius, who led the Republican army defending the Republic against the rogue general, died of pneumonia, days into his 7th Consultship.
      After that, the rot was subtle: Horace, Virgil, Josephus, and many others, were pro-emperor, and extrmely well rewarded for it, but not grotesque, and produced good literature or history. The degeneracy set at the times of Marcus Aurelius and Aristides, nearly 200 years later. They were both hypo-crits (BELOW correct criticism).

      In the 4th century, with the reign of imperial Christianism instituted by Constantine as early as his Arelate (Arles) Council, around 216 CE, before the one in Nikea in 323 CE, when he invented “Orthodox Catholicism”, intellectuals went down the drain… Julian saw the whole thing clearly, but had the bad idea of going into battle without armor, in an ill conceived campaign against the Sassanids…
      Late Roman PLUTOCRACY negotiated with the puny invading Barbarians, at best a couple hundred thousands, instead of arming the dozens of millions peasants of the Roman people. Better: Romen Christian fanatic emperor Theodosius I won over the frank Arbogast with a divine wind and Alaric’s 35,000 hard core Goths, the same who conquered Rome in 410 CE, 16 years later…


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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: