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. 

WHY WOULD DYING OF A BROKEN HEART BE EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGEOUS?

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. 

Why? 

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.

Logic Is Not Everything: It Can Be Anything

A common mistake among many of the simple ones, is that, as long as we keep calm and use logic, we can solve any conflict. It was understandable that one could do such a mistake due to naivety and inexperience, before the Twentieth Century. However, we have now, black on white and well known, demonstrations to the contrary, in formal systems studied by professional logicians. Besides, as The French Republic is demonstrating in Libya again, in collaboration with the USA, war has a logic which squashable critters don’t have.

Yes, I am also thinking of the famous Incompleteness Theorems, but, obviously, not only. There is way worse.

This Means All Important Choice Have to Do With Love, Esthetics, Will, Power, Craziness, The Proverbial Human Factors. Logic Can’t Go Where The Heart Rules. Or Then Go Into METAlogic.

Before I get in incompleteness and further evils, let me recap some of the traditional approach. I thank in passing Massimo P, for calling my attention to this.

The value of logic, February 23, 2016, Massimo

This is going to be short and rather self-explanatory, with no additional commentary on my part necessary at all. Here is the full transcription of Epictetus’ Discourses, II.25, a gem to keep in mind for future use:

“When one of his audience said, ‘Convince me that logic is useful,’ he said, Would you have me demonstrate it?

‘Yes.’

Well, then, must I not use a demonstrative argument? And, when the other agreed, he said, How then shall you know if I impose upon you?

And when the man had no answer, he said, You see how you yourself admit that logic is necessary, if without it you are not even able to learn this much–whether it is necessary or not.”

Actually Epictetus uses “logic”, it seems to me, rather in its original sense, a discourse. Yet Massimo, like the moderns, will tend to use logic as it was meant in, say, 1900, just before Bertrand Russell objected to Frege’s forgetfulness of the “Liar Paradox” in his formal system justifying arithmetic. A further exploitation of the Liar Paradox brought the incompleteness theorems.

Logic is indeed how human beings communicate. Logic enables debate, and debate is the equivalent of sex, among ideas. It generates entirely new species. However post Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, logic has progressed much.

Modern studies in logic show formal logic can be pretty much anything. Formal systems contradicting the most cherished axioms have been found to be consistent. Some have cute names, such as “paradoxical logic”, “fuzzy logic”, “linear logic”. Thus, Logical Pluralism has been discovered. “Classical Logic” (which neither complete nor coherent) is just a particular case. In some logics, a proposition can be neither true, nor false.

Along the line of ones of the greatest logician and mathematicians of the 20th Century, Generalized Tarski Thesis (GTT):
An argument is valid if and only if in every case in which the premises are true, so is the conclusion.
So yes, madness can be logical. “Logic”, per se, is not much of a constraint. It’s only a set of coherent rules to draw a conclusion. The only constraint is to keep on talking.
The Ancient Greeks would have been very surprised.

So if logic is not the end-all, be all, what is?

Knowledge. Knowledge of the details. In other words, knowledge of evil. That is why, when I demonstrate, using knowledge, that Marcus Aurelius, supposedly the big time Stoic philosopher, makes the apology of Intellectual Fascism, I hear the cries of the Beotians, whose pathetic logic have crushed underfoot. What happened? I went outside of their logic. So they insult me. (Should I spurn them, and make them feel that I have nothing to say, or insult them back, by showing them, and others, what idiots they are? Sitting on one’s hand in front of rabid fascism is neither wise, nor safe!)

In other news, French special forces are operating on the ground in Libya, helping, among other things, very precise US strikes. This is a case of using the same logic as the enemy. The Islamists terrorize and kill: a logic which is pretty drastic. It can also be adopted. Let see how it goes, when the country with the greatest, longest military tradition, adopts it too. (France has a long history of drastic war against invading Islamists, since the Battle of Toulouse, in 721 CE)

Speaking of the enemy, the French Internal Revenue Service is forcing Google Inc., the famous monopoly. to pay back taxes. Google has sent the clown it uses as CEO to Paris. Google was transferring profits it made in France through Ireland, and then Bermuda. The bill? 1.6 BILLION Euros. Great Britain has a similar situation and economy, but is asking for only a tenth of that. Such is plutocracy: greater in the UK than in France.

Ah, the French Defense Ministry is not denying media reports that the French army is in combat, on the ground, in Libya. Instead, the French government has announced the start of an inquiry for finding out who compromised National Defense. In other words, it wants it to be known. Or there is much more coming, which it wants to hide. Or then American paranoia is contagious.

In other news, Belgium, historically a part of Gaul, has closed its border with France, as if Belgium were Great Britain, and France, full of Huns (instead of only Afghans). Amusingly, and a testimony of how much old gripes have subsidized, the Franco-German border stays open.

Logic is not all. Facts are much more important, including facts on the ground.

Patrice Ayme’

Solstice Song

So this is the Solstice,

And what have we done,

We, the civilization of Humanity,

The only one there is,

Our Earth, her Moon, our biosphere,

Once more around the Sun: another year over, a new one just begun.

In this dark universe, we have brought our lights, our lonely lights,

Gentler than all others, peering through the night,

Dark Universe, Enlightening Humanity. Light of Moon, Enlightenment of Thinking, Throwing Light On A Fragile Future That Better Be Human

To our Moon, we may owe our life, the Enlightenment of Humanity, the snows of temperate climate, which helped.

Merry Christmas, Roman Saturnials, Celtic Yule,

Our northern ancestors celebrated that birth of the year, ever since they created edible plants, and took care of them,

Eons ago,

Well before their words could come to us.

I hope you have fun,

The far and the dear one, the old and the young,

A very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year,

Let’s hope it’s a good one, without any fear,

To use your minds as much as,

This civilization needs to keep on going,

Minimizing pain, maximixing love.

And so this is Christmas,

Verily We are the Anointed Ones.

For weak and for strong, for rich poor alike

The world is so wrong, yet so right.

No doubt a heavy, confusing, exhilarating,

Cross for us to bear,

No need to go the gym,

Exercising our minds is plenty.

And so happy Christmas,

For black and for white, for yellow and red ones,

Let’s stop all the fighting, which brought nothing good

And start those Jihads we really need,

Smartly discarding those we don’t.

A Happy New Year, let’s hope it’s a good one

Without any fear, to assume what we are,

Anointed to pursue,

Thought in the universe.

We hope you have fun

The near and the dear one, the old and the young,

A very Merry Christmas, a happy new year, let’s hope it’s a good one.

Those wars we don’t need are over, if you want it,

New wars have begun, which we really need,

Just to save our biosphere, our sanity, our civilization.

Merry Christmas:

It’s not a question of never more wars over the horizon,

It’s a question of how we fight, and why.

Humanity never rests,

Thinking is a debate,

Debate is combat,

Humanity means ever more dashing,

Incomprehensible, yet enlightening thoughts,

Where gods never threaded before,

Made obvious for all to see.

Humanity means ever more science, and fiction,

Humanity means going to Mars,

And well beyond, Plus Oultre, as Charles V put it,

Humanity means going thermonuclear,

Humanity means never aging,

Humanity means ever anew,

Thinking through everything.

Humanity means never any return of the same,

Humanity means there is no horizon,

But for the next one,

And the one after that.

Humanity means love for us shall lead us,

Ever after.

So enjoy,

Enjoy your Earth and her Moon, ever rotating around their Sun.

Life has been an ever-changing journey,

Ever since it started to evolve, more than four billion years ago,

Ever faster,

Ever more potent,

The greatest change is upon us now,

Life, thought,

Will blossom across the galaxy,

They have to, just to survive,

And we are in charge,

So happy Solstice,

We are going to need ever more happiness,

To conquer all,

Starting with ourselves.

Patrice Ayme’

Peace Through Strength Only

There are arguments which are disingenuous, but traditional. One is that one should “turn the other cheek”, that one should reply to aggression with love, etc. All right, that certainly can help with friend and family, but, on the political scale, responding to aggression with love helps the less, the largest the scale of the political system concerned.

That Europe is under attack cannot be painted over: the working age population in many countries has gone down. Let me show the graph for Portugal, which is down 5%. But even the largest countries are affected; many of the best and brightest, both in France and Germany, are often found in places like the San Francisco Bay Area (and Germany’s population shrank catastrophically from 83 millions to 79, notwithstanding Merkel’s importation of more than one million Middle Easterners…)

Portugal Is Shrinking. Actually All Of Europe Is Shrinking, But NOT Great Britain, Where The Same Methods As In The USA Are Applied

Some say “Terrorism” (aka, Islamism) kills relatively few people: around 3,000 people get killed, each month, in the USA, by firearms. Obama correctly observes:”That’s insane”. Terrorists can hardly expect to kill as much, indeed. However…

However, “terrorism” imposes a much higher cost on everybody.

9/11 showed that unconventional mass attacks work (the French and Israelis had expected such an air attack for decades, all the more as it was tried in France in 1996, when a jumbo jet was hijacked for that purpose; no animal was injured during the rescue of the hostages). Since the 1990s, a missile defense system was set-up around civilian installation such as La Hague (where there was more dangerous nuclear material than anywhere else in the world)

So now, at least in France, water supplies are closely watched in real time, and extravagances such as watching for explosives are spreading throughout society. Not that having a camera for all and any angle is a bad idea: it will make all these who want to dress with a full veil, as suspicious as the emperor in Star Wars.

Today “plausible threats” were directed at all Los Angeles public schools. Just when children were going to study for the day, 1,200 (one thousand two hundred) schools were closed. 640,000 students (more than the population of Luxembourg) stayed home. Parents could not go to work, while they made other arrangements (child abandonment being against the law).  A similar threat in New York was ignored.

Terror causes derangement and madness, that’s how it works. In all social, economic, and political matters, psychology is the most important factor… Until a crash or a collapse or other tough encounter with reality intervenes, and a completely different psychology, war making, emerges. And psychology can get very twisted. Beyond what is usually brandished in psychology textbooks. Real psychology deployed by individuals is always ahead of what they read in, or heard about from, textbooks. Because under-standing is all about going meta (going below, or above, what is understood, by making a theory about what is known, beyond what is known.)

The European Commission has proposed a “Super Frontex” to save the Schengen (”No Borders”) Europe. The empire is counter-attacking. Indeed there were more than one million two hundred thousand official illegal entries in the Schengen space this year.

The existing “Frontex” is in charge of helping the states defend the frontiers of “Schengen” (which is the European Union  plus Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, Macedonia minus Great Britain). “Frontex” has 400 agents. “Super Frontex” would have 2,500 ready to intervene nearly instantaneously… even without the authorization of the nation where there is an illegal immigration crisis.

This would be a major step in making Europe into a nation. Unsurprisingly Hungary is against it. However France and Germany are all for it.

That many problems affecting Europe can only be addressed by much more strength is becoming increasingly evident to more and more Europeans: hence the success of “far-right” parties, or increasingly “far-right” ideas (UK PM Cameron’s majority being the most obvious far-right success in 2015).

After the Paris attacks, the French Air force hit targets four times in Raqqa, the Islamist State’s capital, on some very precise, well determined targets. After that, conscious of the problem of hitting inside a city full of innocent civilians, and of the fact the islamist State creates entire cities of tunnels below the cities it seizes, the French and the Americans brought diplomatic force to bear on Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and company. It bore fruit: those countries have announced the constitution of a force to fight the Islamist State on the ground (which will be advised by Western Special Forces helping planes find targets in a timely manner, a tactic which allowed to recover several cities).

That’s nice, especially if Turkey closes its borders. In not unrelated news, the European Union announced it would reconsider favorably Turkey’s candidacy to the European Union.

In other, but related, news, Marine Le Pen, who was accused criminally to have stoked ethnic hatred for comparing hordes of kneeling Muslims blocking the streets of France to pray their abusive god, to the Nazi occupation of said France, was found not guilty. OK, she has no said, to my knowledge, “abusive”, about the Muslim God, but I will do whatever it takes to not be accused to be a follower of Marine, so I will not hesitate to forge ahead, in the philosophically correct way.

Abusive? Abusive behavior brought to bear upon the female spouse is ordered by God in the Qur’an:

Qur’an, Sura 4: Verse 34 “… As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds,  and beat them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.” All male chauvinist pig abusers should swear allegiance to the Islamist State, that would be a smart move. (Hurry up while it lasts!)

Pushed by the U.S. army, 7,500 Peshmerga, the fighters of Kurdistan, took the (mostly Kurdish) city of Sinjar. The Islamist State’s fighters were led by fanatical Afghan and Chechen commanders. American bombing helped to destroy their hold on the city (which is nearly completely destroyed). Most Jihadists were able to flee. The USA speaks of hundreds of Jihadists killed. The Kurds found Yazidis corpses in fields around the city: older women, who had been persuaded first to drop their weapons, were then eliminated by the Islamist State. Younger women were then used sexually. until they died (a few escaped).

Why was the Islamist State’s main road not cut earlier? Surely, France and the USA had the means to cut that road, in the last two years. But they did not, because of the “turn the other cheek“, “Islam is peace, and we are too” philosophy embraced by the befuddled populations and governments in the USA and France (among others). Or, let’s say, so was the excuse.

Strength is not just that of security services, and the army. It’s also legislative strength, propped by the correct philosophy. “Political Correctness” has been a weakness, because it was mostly sustained by the all-too Christian “turn-the-other-cheek” philosophy.

“Turn the other cheek” is what tyrannical Roman emperors and their cliques wanted common people to do: it is easier to slap again those who turn the other cheek. Persuading the Commons that turning the other cheek was in their best interest, was always a tactic to turn the rabble into an obedient, sheep-like mob (an image Christianism used ad nauseam!) As Nietzsche pointed out, the philosophy of the aristocracy was rather that of the “blonde beast“:

Coat of Arms of England: 3 Blonde Beasts

The Plantagenet Dukes of Normandy, Starting With their founder, the Viking Rollo (made vassal of the King of France in 911 CE) used initially only two lions… Benjamin Franklin, deliberately blind to the preceding philosophy, that peace can be attained, and preserved, through strength only, wanted to use the eminently edible turkey as symbol of the USA (maybe Franklin was trying to persuade the King of England that he, Franklin, was only as stupid and harmless as a turkey?). Common sense prevailed, and a suitably predatory eagle was chosen.

Ultimately, humanity is all about the smartest, and greatest strength. Whatever vegans try to mumble through those naivety orgasms they indulge in. Civilization is a one parameter group of transformation from the Absolute Worth Energy (AWE) at the disposal of each person. In other words, energy being at the core of human living, thus humanism, proper and optimal violence management has always been at the core of the most human humanity.

Patrice Ayme’

For Our Creator, Evolution

Mammals we are,

Milk we need.

Or we won’t even be.

Thinkers we are,

Love we need.

Or we won’t even think.

Love tells us,

What to feel.

Love:

Milk for the soul.

We, bodies and souls

From a tangled web blossom.

Not just the quantum web,

Holding the universe together,

But even the web,

Of the highest values,

Holding minds together.

Values we learned to become

While other minds,

Gave us,

What we are.

No Love, No Chipmunks. No Heart. No Mind. And No Cuteness.

 

Patrice Ayme’

Who IS, What IS, EVIL?

EVIL IS, WHAT EVIL HIDES:

There is no more important question than the nature of Evil. What it consists in. Let alone where it hides. Upon the definition of Evil given by civilization, depends the survival of advanced intelligence on this planet.

We have ever more power. We need ever more intelligence to manage it. We need an ever stricter morality, to motivate said intelligence.

As we will see by the end of this essay, enormous evil (starving all of humanity to increase the evil gains of those who lead us) is already in place. It’s not just my (long held) opinion. Science magazine even agrees.

To motivate ever stricter mentality, we learn to become ferocious. This is a long held truth, not just of Islam and Christianity, but also Buddhism:

Exterminator Of Evil, Tenkeisei. Obviously Such Hard Work, It Requires A Demon

I scoff when I see German TV making fuzzy the face of the mass criminal who just killed 149 people. What? To protect his privacy? The privacy of evil? Oh, some will say, to protect those who were close to him. Well, are they not co-culprit? From the village where the co-pilot was, he was well known to nuts. People knowing that ought to have contacted Lufthansa, or the authorities.

Evil is all too private.

Let’s make it public.

Some have said, the mass murder by a (implicitly well educated, disciplined) German was unlikely. But Nazi was, mostly, an enormous mass murder-suicide. It differed only in scale.

Fifty years ago, intellectuals worried about nuclear war. On the face of it, it was a strange worry: the USSR and the USA were fighting for world supremacy. Their elites wanted to control the planet, they were overstretched in all ways.

The USSR crashed and burned, Putin is trying to revive the ambers.

Now people have forgotten about nuclear weapons. But they are here, more than ever. Why did they forget? Because the world has become morally asleep. And why that? Because much greater danger are not just looming, but exerting their grip. Reality has become an inconvenient distraction on the way to lucidity.

***

NUCLEAR WAR IS EVER MORE LIKELY:

The situation is worse now: it is easier than ever to make nuclear weapons. It is not just a question of ever more efficient ultracentrifuges in underground fortresses. There are now even more advanced methods, using lasers, to separate Uranium isotopes. The USA itself is starting to use lasers to separate the highly explosive U235.

France and the USA are the two countries in the West which make thermonuclear weapons (Britain just buys them from the USA, and Israel got the technology from France). France and the USA have not made a technological breakthrough that would allow to neutralize nukes.

Say death rays of some sort; although France and the USA dominate in high power, military grade laser technology, said laser tech has not got to the point it could shoot down 99.99% of incoming missiles; actually it could not shoot down one.)

So, at this point, from lack of technological progress, nuclear weapons are still the ultimate weapon. And they are getting ever easier to make.

What does that mean for the talks with Iran? Well, that it is the occasion to refine an intrusive regime of nuclear inspections, to be used as a paradigm with other nations.

And what of Obama’s naive will, initially, to do away with nuclear weapons (thus affording a pretext to give him a Nobel)?

Well, as the world is, the safest way to prevent nuclear war is to augment the military research budgets of the West (only Israel has been doing well that way, devising plenty of anti-ballistic missile systems, with USA help…) Yes, I know, it’s cynical. But flowers won’t work.

***

EVIL HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE:

Usually I roll out the usual suspect, Abrahamic entities. Here now, we have a 27 pilot. He wants to become captain. But he knows his sick mind will not allow it. So he let go with the very depth of the human Dark Side: he brings another 149 innocent people, including babies with himself. The Will To Extermination.

Hitler was just the same.

When the war was clearly lost, the Nazis kept on fighting. At this point many average Germans who previously supported Nazism turned against it: why could not the Nazis give up, as even the Kaiser had, in World War One? Because of the Will to Extermination. The extermination of whom they wanted to exterminate was the Nazis’ main industry in their last few months. If they did not know it before, now the Germans could clearly see that the Will to Extermination was the Nazis’ main motivation. That maybe why the day it surrendered, Germans never supported Nazism again (in most ways; and differently from Japan, where the population never saw their imperial forces in full extermination mode: that happened on the national territory, only in Okinawa, a smallish, distant island).

***

WHEN IS EVIL HIDING? EVIL HIDES ALL THE TIME

The Greeks knew that Pluto could make itself invisible. The evil co-pilot hid his madness from his employer, just as he hid from his employer that he was under doctor’s order to stop working.

Pilots ought to be required to make their health physical and mental PUBLIC property. That ought to be true even for those piloting a car for Uber. If they don’t like it, they can do something else.

To be able to kill people en masse ought to be viewed as a privilege given by the masses to a few, in counterpart of what, they keep an eye on these few, at all and any moment.

Hitler claimed he was out to help oppressed minorities, oppressed workers, and make Germany proud, great. He claimed to be against “plutocrats” (his word!) In truth his real aims were not this, and he knew all too well that he brandished the red of revolution (Soviet style), when actually he was sponsored by plutocrats. And, while he claimed to be a nationalist, he was blatantly and gigantically supported by American plutocrats such as Henry Ford.

Nowadays, Pluto is hiding better than ever.

The world’s richest man, and arguably greatest monopolist, instead of being in jail, has self-defined as the greatest philanthropist, and now directs health research worldwide in the coffers of what he, his family and associates have invested in. All of this tax free, of course.

You want another example of spectacular evil? What about starving people to make corporations and their plutocrats even richer?

***

DO BIOFUEL POLICIES SEEK TO CUT EMISSIONS BY CUTTING FOOD? YES!

A study published yesterday, March 27, 2015, in the journal Science found that government biofuel policies rely on reductions in food consumption to generate greenhouse gas savings.

How much more evil can one get?

Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

(Indeed, it’s know that “biofuels” are very inefficient. Making ethanol from corn or wheat requires energy that is mostly derived from traditional greenhouse gas-emitting sources, such as coal, natural gas. But then it benefits companies such as Monsanto, which make the Genetically Engineered corn in which Bill Gates is invested!)

“Without reduced food consumption, each of the models would estimate that biofuels generate more emissions than gasoline,” said Timothy Searchinger, first author on the paper and a research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy.

Searchinger’s co-authors were Robert Edwards and Declan Mulligan of the Joint Research Center at the European Commission; Ralph Heimlich of the consulting practice Agricultural Conservation Economics; and Richard Plevin of the University of California-Davis.

The study looked at three models used by U.S. and European agencies, and found that all three estimate that some of the crops diverted from food to biofuels are not replaced by planting crops elsewhere. About 20 percent to 50 percent of the net calories diverted to make ethanol are not replaced through the planting of additional crops, the study found.

The result is that less food is available, and, according to the study, these missing calories are not simply extras enjoyed in resource-rich countries. Instead, when less food is available, prices go up.

“The impacts on food consumption result not from a tailored tax on excess consumption but from broad global price increases that will disproportionately affect some of the world’s poor,” Searchinger said.

The models used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board indicate that ethanol made from corn and wheat generates modestly fewer emissions than gasoline. The fact that these lowered emissions come from reductions in food production is buried in the methodology and not explicitly stated, the study found.

The European Commission’s model found an even greater reduction in emissions. It includes reductions in both quantity and overall food quality due to the replacement of oils and vegetables by corn and wheat, which are of lesser nutritional value.

“Without these reductions in food quantity and quality, the [European] model would estimate that wheat ethanol generates 46% higher emissions than gasoline and corn ethanol 68% higher emissions,” Searching said.

The Science paper recommends that modelers show their work more transparently so that policymakers can decide if they wish to seek greenhouse gas reductions from food reductions.

Actually “policymakers” is the concept that hide the truth. It is to We the People to decide whether we should starve so that plutocrats can jet around the world in their private jets, while plotting our fate, and future ill-gotten gains, and powers they attribute themselves ever more generously, while we are invited to partake in ever more austerity.

Plutocracy is not just an inconvenience. As its name indicates, it is the ultimate evil. And it hides. We have to make sure it does not become a fate. And that means, first, to roll it out of its hiding places, from the minds of co-pilots to haughty policies which are anything but.

We are not led by great leaders, intelligence and goodness. We have been led, astray, by viciousness and the basest instincts, all too much. Time to withdraw the respect, and change course. As Dominique Deux half-joked in a comment on this site, time to make an app where passengers will vote: “… automatic implementation of the majority vote.
They’ll never ever vote for doom.
Democracy wins again, and smartphones become useful.”

We are all passengers on this Earth. And any baby has more right to be, than Bill Gates. Or any of our other great leaders. And those who have already abused power massively (see the food for fuel policy above), ought to have less right to be in power than anybody else.

Patrice Ayme’

Searchinger, R. Edwards, D. Mulligan, R. Heimlich, and R. Plevin. Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science 27 March 2015: 1420-1422. DOI: 10.1126/science.1261221.

 

Soloing, & Celebrity Cult

We are living in the Internet age, and the plutocratic age. Plutocracy wants celebritism to rule the minds. When people feel, think, and live through celebrities, they are ready to do so through plutocrats.

Plutocrats hence push everywhere for the celebration of the unique act, because unicity is what they extoll.

And no act is more unique, and useful, to plutocrats than those which say life is not important.

My Friend John Bachar Free Soloing, Showing Off. Fell To His Death, Free Soloing

[I was told, Oct. 2015, that this is actually Dan Osman, see comment; Dan was also, and more than John, living off stunts; he died jumping off Leaning Tower, close to where the pic above was taken, when his rope broke.]

Hence it is no wonder that the New York Times wrote a long article on a solo climber (I have known the author, Dan Duane, a friend, for decades, but, as one will see below, this does not make me blind, or, otherwise said, it’s dangerous to be my friend…I have been pitiless with my friend Barack, trying to set him right about non-battlefield usage of drones, in no uncertain terms…).

In The Heart-Stopping Climbs of Alex Honnold, we read that the master of climbing without ropes spends his life cheating death (By Daniel Duane, March 12, 2015).

“Honnold could afford to buy a decent home, if that interested him. But living in a van — a custom-outfitted van, in his case, with a kitchenette and cabinets full of energy bars and climbing equipment — represents freedom. It also represents a commitment to the nomadic climber’s ideal of the “dirtbag,” the purist so devoted to climbing that he avoids any entanglement that might interfere… When he’s not climbing overseas in places like Patagonia, France or Morocco, he lives an endless road trip through the Southwestern desert, Yosemite Valley, British Columbia and points between. Along the way, he has turned himself into the greatest living free-soloist, meaning that he climbs without ropes, alone.

Unroped climbing is, of course, the oldest kind, but ropes and hardware can provide such a reliable safety net that nearly all climbers now use them. This is typically done in pairs, with one climber tied to each end of the rope…”

What happens then is that, if one climber falls, but the rope has been put around prominences, or through safety equipment that the lead climber may have installed (“nuts” or camming device, or ice screw) or found (bolts or pins), then, hopefully, the rope will not break, and the fall not be so long that death or injury will occur.

Sometimes, everything fail, and both climbers fall to death (although this is rarer on harder rock walls). Sometimes the rope fails, sometimes some pieces fall out, and the tumbling leader is gravely injured and the other climber has to go alone for rescue (something that happened to me).

Dan pursues:

“But using gear slows progress. A roped pair, taking turns climbing and fussing with all that equipment, might spend six hours on a climb that a free-soloist floats up in 30 minutes — focusing purely on the pleasure of movement, the tactile sensation of hands on rock. Free-soloing also carries the mystique of self-reliance in the face of extreme risk: On cliffs where even elite climbers employ complicated rope systems, the free-soloist wears only shorts, a T-shirt, a pair of climbing shoes and a bag of gymnast’s chalk to keep the hands dry. Honnold has free-soloed the longest, most challenging climbs ever, including the 2,500-foot northwest face of Half Dome in Yosemite Valley, where some of the handholds are so small that no average climber could cling for an instant, roped or otherwise. Most peculiar of all, even to elite rock climbers, Honnold does this without apparent fear, as if falling were not possible.” “Peculiar” is the word. Some people have defects in their agmydala. Or they just have no culture: the most famous soloists died, soloing.

I sent the following comment:

***

If everybody tried to live like him, nobody would.

That’s the problem.

It’s not a morality, it’s a lethality.

I have climbed my entire life. Much more years that the gentleman. However, there were many close calls. Some from avalanches, including rock avalanches. My closest friends died in the mountain. They were top professionals of climbing, having achieved the highest guiding status in existence. Higher than Mr. Honnold. And one of them soloed at a higher level (he died from an avalanche).

This last friend, Damien Charignon, kept most of his 5-13+ soloing secret. Not to worry his family. And he knew it was amoral. So he did not do it much. I tried to discourage him as much as I could. Because soloing is amoral.

All serious mountaineers have to solo at one point or another. Soloing is not really a choice.

But it should stay an exception. Flaunting it will just bring more death. I have on sighted, roped, including in Yosemite, pitches where famous soloists fell off. And I did not fall (although I was much less of a climber than them).

So what to say? Those with a moral soul will not flaunt soloing. Doing so leads other young, impressionable people to try it, and they would surely die. This has happened many times in the past.

A devil may care attitude is not exactly something to encourage for humanity at large nowadays. There is already much too much of it… Under the sponsoring of corporations determined to instill in all the feeling of playing around with life.

Another example: a French “reality show” called, appropriately enough, “Dropped”.

Ten people died, most of them French, including three celebrities, last week in Argentina, when their helicopters collided.

Some will whine that I am unfair.

Not so. The Argentinian pilots were experienced, the French crafts brand new. The cause of death was clear: even experienced pilots are not trained for formation flying, something very special, and that the military trains for specially. Especially with helicopters, which can rob, each other air, so to speak. “Reality TV” shows love formation flying, and they don’t worry so much human life: celebritism is more important.

Patrice Ayme’

Sometimes ALL YOU NEED IS WAR: West Country Men & The Like

“All You Need Is Love” is worse than hypocrisy. It is the wrong strategy, especially in the worst cases:

War is not fashionable among moral exhibitionists. However, as the Romans noticed more than 2,000 years ago, those who really love peace, prepare for war (Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum).

After the dictatorship of Kaiser Wilhelm II suddenly attacked the world on August 1, 1914, Earl Grey the British Foreign Minister, went to the Commons, and made an excellent speech about joining the war to defend civilization. Bertrand Russell, the philosopher, understood none of it (because like Keynes, or the Kaiser, Russell was on the plutocratic side).

War can be a horrible thing. Even for warriors:

HMS Queen Mary Exploding @ Jutland Battle. Traumatizing Churchill?

[Explosion of the British battle cruiser “HMS Queen Mary” during the Battle of Jutland on 31 May 1916. Of the 1,266 crew members, only 20 were rescued. Several British capital ships exploded within minutes during a formidable artillery exchange; the top British admiral in the leading battleship quipped: “Something seems to be wrong with our bloody ships, today.” However, the Royal Navy prevailed, and the German Navy never confronted it again in force.]

Churchill was a serious warrior. It’s not just that he had an anchor tattooed on his arm. He was involved in the Boer War, and was Lord Of the Admiralty (head of the Royal Navy) in World War One. The short of it: fiercely led by Winston, the Royal Navy kept the Kaiser’s Fleet bottled in Germany, and when it tried to come out, it was defeated.

That strangled the Prussian fascists’ war economy, although our frienemies the plutocrats of the USA sold, for a good price, all sorts of war materials to the world conquering Kaiser, through the hypocritically “neutral” Netherlands.

France and Britain were furious, but could not do anything, as the largest ethnic group in the USA was that of Americans of German descent (there are more of them than people of partly sub-Saharan descent, to this day, about 50 million).

France and Britain were not too sure what fancy would catch next their rogue child the USA. After campaigning on the theme “All We Need Is Peace”, president Wilson, ex from Princeton University, apparently felt declaring war to fascism was a better deal, and duly came to the rescue of victory, so it could be stolen from those who had fought the war.

***

WORLD WAR ONE: A PYRRHIC VICTORY FOR FRANCE AND BRITAIN:

Pyrrhus was an Hellenistic adventurer, a plutocrat, a self-styled king, whose services, as an excellent general, complete with an army, were for sale. The Greek cities of Southern Italy got the bad idea to recruit him (it was a bad idea, because the better idea would have been to negotiate with the Roman Republic).

Pyrrhus used elephants and the best professionally trained army, He won his battles against Rome. However, he noticed (paraphrasing):’A few more victories like that, and I will have lost the war’.

The USA won World War One. Nobody else did.

Both France and Britain came out exhausted from World War One. About half of French men had been killed or wounded. 27% of the 18 to 28 year old French were killed in combat. France suffered the highest proportion of dead and wounded of all the powers involved. (Except for Serbia, which lost 33% of its entire population, after the Austro-Hungarian army surged back and forth through Serbia, like a tsunami.)

The British upper class, which leads the country, was full of contradictions: after all the Kaiser, just having fled to its accomplice the Netherlands (naturally) was the grandson of Queen Victoria.

Lord Keynes, a top British diplomat, and money shuffler, came out with a piece of racist trash, “The Economic Consequences of Peace”, which argued that, considering what he viewed as the inferior racial status of Poles, dismembering the imperial exploitation-occupation system set-up by German plutocracy would have an adverse effect on economic activity. (an argument ignorant intellectuals of Jewish descent such as Paul Krugman keep on brainlessly repeating, not knowing they approve Auschwitz, doing so!)

The French leadership was cynical. Blocked by the Anglo-Americans, the French Republic could not obtain the guarantees it needed.

All France got was part of her property on the left bank of the Rhine, and the heart of France (on the grandest historical scale, the entire west bank of the Rhine was Gallic, or, and Frankish; the various partitioning of the left bank were just tricks to enfeeble mighty Francia: even now, with the entire left bank, France would be 100 million strong…)

So France came out of WWI not sure of her allies, and Britain not sure of herself. Only the USA was doing great, guided by pragmatic deal making, and disposing of Germany as if it was its private reserve.

Dr. Schacht, who could be viewed as an agent of JP Morgan (not just the bank, but the man), launched the “Second Reich” (“Weimar”, not really a republic) into hyper-inflation, to pursue war against France by other means. The French reacted by invading (something Krugman, the Jew who has learned nothing important, still finds “unbelievable”). Etc.

***

ANGLO-AMERICAN COLLABORATION WITH NAZISM:

Churchill himself changed enormously. Churchill was pro-Nazi to the point of threatening the French Republic in 1929 with the… Royal Air Force… If the French kept of harassing Germany’s Second Reich (official name of ‘Weimar’!) about its secret re-armament, which violated the Versailles Treaty.

To avoid French eyes, Germany had been re-arming using not just British pets such as Portugal, but even the… Soviet Union; this sorts of situation puts to rest the theory that all there was wrong about Germany was Nazism: at the time, in 1929, the Nazis were not important as a party… But Nazi MENTALITY was already ruling. Actually it had started to rule, even before Hitler was born, as reading Nietzsche’s cogent critiques show all too well…

Churchill himself was Anglo-American (one of his parent was American, the other British).

***

WEST COUNTRY MEN, The Essence Of The “Anglo-Saxon” Spirit:

The exploitation spirit which reigned over Britain and the USA is very old. It was launched in full by the “WEST COUNTRY MEN” of the Elizabethan Age.

Initially Elizabeth I, fully the daughter in spirit of Ann Boleyn and Henry VIII, got the idea of endowing such men with immense powers, to go, pillage and exploit, using military might that came in handy to defeat the Gran Armada of Spain. It worked.

The same spirit, and the same immensely wealthy investors, were endowed with full powers to apply the same terrifying methods in Ireland, then North America. It worked splendidly.

The West Country men were an ensemble of wealthy individuals in Elizabethan England who advocated the English colonisation of Ireland, attacks on the Spanish Empire, and profitable overseas colonial expansion. The group included Humphrey Gilbert, Walter Raleigh, Francis Drake, John Hawkins, Richard Grenville and Ralph Lane. Several of these prominent figures originated in the far southwest of Britain known as the Westcountry, particularly associated with the sea ports of Devon including Plymouth (notice that’s where the Mayflower came from…)

***

That spirit of homicidal exploitation of the West Country Men, lives to this day: see the private armies people such as Bill Gates invest in secretly, through… Monsanto; the strategy was used in WWIII, with the Flying Tigers, in Vietnam, and recently in Iraq, by Bush, with Black Water/Xe/Academi… the private army now secretly financed by Gates).

This went on until 1936 (in 1935, the British gov. organized a “Naval Treaty” with Hitler, which violated the Versailles Treaty). Hence the fiasco of Munich in 1938, when France was made understand she had to go alone against fascist Germany and Italy (this would have allowed the plutocratic Anglosphere to accuse France again of wanting to attack Germany all the time).

***

BRITAIN UNDERSTANDS IN 1939 THAT KEYNES WAS WRONG:

The UK aligned itself behind France only in 1939, after Spain fell to Hitler’s pet, Franco, and after Hitler invaded all of Czechoslovakia (and not just the Sudeten land)…).

Churchill turned around completely by 1939… But then he became hysterical and did not want to wait for the new planes to reach mass production (he wanted to mass produce obsolete types).

However, Churchill did not allow the assassination, or, let’s say, execution, of Hitler (many top German generals would have been happy to help, and had actually contacted Brits and Americans… who then betrayed them!)

That was a moral mistake. Maybe. Although it could be argued that, differently from World War One, Germany needed a thorough spanking as a civilization, and only being completely crushed, and literally decimated in May 1945, was what the doctor ordered, to express the Nazism out…

***

ALL YOU NEED IS MIND:

“All You Need Is Love” was, with all due respect, mental masturbation of the worst type.

The Beatles (Lennon, PBUH) put “All You Need With Love”) to the sound of the Marseillaise, playing in the arms, the embrace, of the Pitts, Prime Minsters, father and son, who launched a 25 year war against “Liberty Equality Fraternity”.

The Pitts were opposed in Parliament, but their extreme anger at France carried the day, and led to a generation of wars, all around Europe, and the death of more than ten million.

So John Lennon, without knowing anything about it, sided with the enemies of the Marseillaise, and thus for the partisans of that 26 year war, which was a terrible mistake, as Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain, admitted a century later.

Lennon should have read more. Getting the Member of the British Empire medal, was not all there was (he realized this later, and returned his MBE).

Make no mistake, I love the “All You Need Is Love” song, but I despise, and condemn the message.

As I have explained in all directions, Britain was certainly at fault in 1789-1792. As the British armies and Navy, plus the Prussians, Austrians, Russians who invaded France at the call of British plutocrats, invaded France, All The French, And Humanity, needed, was the Marseillaise, and spill the blood of the invaders as happened at Valmy (September 21, 1792) and soon Toulon…

***

WANT GOODNESS? AVOID HYPOCRISY.

Everybody wants goodness to triumph, to the points that some of the greatest tyrants of history, such as Saint Louis, Luther, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, spoke of little else.

Homo is the altruistic animal.

However, it’s also the Dark Side animal. And, to a great extent, the more altruism, the greater the population, and, from this rich soil, the greater the Dark Side.

How to optimize goodness then become a logical problem, even for the most loving minded.

A good rule? Avoid hypocrisy. It gets in the way of truth, thus logic, thus efficient altruism. And make no mistake: loving plutocrats will not help. Ignoring them will not be much better, as they will not ignore you. To get out of the fall into plutocracy will require war. Jihad, as the Islamists say.

Patrice Ayme’