Archive for the ‘Moods’ Category

What Is “Moral” To A Lion?

February 13, 2017

What Is Moral To A Chimpanzee?

What is the Origin of Human Morality?

Individual Morality May Vary, But Social Morality, Which Also Varies, Is Absolutely Dependent Upon Circumstances:

Natural scientists will say that one has to start with human ethology, the behavior of man au naturel. However, that’s a bit delicate, as there is nothing natural about man, since the genus Homo wages war and uses weapons and tools, to the point man cannot do without.

Nevertheless, morality has stabilized in the last 25 centuries in most ways (especially now that women are treated with natural equality).

The mos maiorum (“way of the elders”; plural of mos, behavior, is “mores”).  The unwritten code of the Republican Romans, comprising: Fides, Disciplina, Pietas, Gravitas, Religio, Cultus, Dignitas, Auctoritas, Virtus…  

This is where the concept of “Moral” comes from.

These behaviors, as a set, enabled the Roman Republic to survive for 5 centuries (or more, if one considers the empire and the subsequent “Christian Republic” as an extension of the Republic, as the Roman did; de facto, we are still under basic Roman secular law, 25 centuries later).

This gives a philosophical hint. Philosophy is the art of guessing what could be, may be, could well be, ought to be, etc. For morality, it is beyond a guess:    

“Mores”, “Morality” has to do with survival. Morality is the set of behaviors which insures survival. 

Temple of Baalshiman, Palmyra. Insulted by the Bible in Connection with Human Sacrifices. Its Destruction by Islamists in 2015 (right).

Temple of Baalshiman, Palmyra. Insulted by the Bible in Connection with Human Sacrifices. Its Destruction by Islamists in 2015 (right).

There is a continuum between natural and (epi-)genetic ethology, and cultural ethology: the study of chimpanzees shows this. The very Christian Jane Goodall found, to her dismay, that the chimpanzees she studied made, over many years, a systematic war of extermination against another group of chimps.

The origin of morality is survival. The set of all moral behaviors (“mores”) is the set which enables survival. Survival of the individual, the group, a society, even a civilization.

Carthage was, in its times, 25 centuries ago, one of the most advanced societies. Its sailors captured gorillas, and circumnavigated Africa. Trading with Black Africa for fish was intense. Carthaginian agriculture in semidesertic conditions was so advanced, Roman preserved the book (while destroying all others). However, Carthage practiced childhood sacrifices extensively and routinely (archeologists seem to have demonstrated, confirming the stories already found in the Bible, Leviticus).

Another example: Polynesian societies needed to corral strongly behaviors and human population on their delicate islands. Hence taboos (don’t fish there, don’t go into that valley, etc.) and cannibalism (often entangled with religion, as Captain Cook experienced).

The Aztecs, deprived of massive proteins aside from a giant salamander (differently from other civilizations around Mexico, which had access to large quantities of fish). The Aztecs made a religion centered on human butchery, up to thousands eaten in a few days… (This made the Aztecs unpopular in Mesoamerica, and enabled Cortez to rise an army of 80,000 natives to fight the Aztecs, enormously amplifying his very small army of few thousands Spaniards).

Astrophysics professor, and proud principal investigator Coel Hellier states:  If “it is morally good” doesn’t mean “I approve of it” then what does it mean? When Stephen Law says that science cannot tell us “what one ought or ought not to do”, what does the phrase “ought to do”, as used there, actually mean? These are fun questions to ask a moral realist. We ought to do it because it is morally good … and it is morally good because we ought to do it, and … but so far I’ve never come across an actual answer.”

A society determines what it ought to do to survive, and derives a morality from it, that all individuals “ought” to obey (“mores”, social morality). However, to survive, or lessen pain, a given crazed, or, simply, distressed, individual may well decide that she/he needs to violate the social morality, and follow her/his own ways of doing things.

Hence morality is relative between societies, and between individuals and society. However, given a long-established society, morality is absolute.

Roman Republican morality cracked around 150 BCE, due to Roman globalocracy (which enabled Roman plutocrats to come into existence, and ever grow in power). The collapse of that morality proximally brought the non-enforcement of anti-plutocratic laws (although the assassinated Gracchi tried to reinforce them). Soon plutocrats were at each others’ throats, as they dominated the Roman world (contemplate the situation today!). Massive and continuous civil wars ensued, followed by Augustus’ Principate in 27 BCE, as that wily youngster was able to muster the declining strength of the moribund Republica to his command.

However, the basic Roman Republican morality was embodied by Republican Roman law, whose basic framework survived even the Christo-fascism of the Fourth Century. Roman secular law was refurbished under Roman emperor Justinian (529 CE to 565 CE), and separated from Christian Sharia. Roman secular law was transmitted by the Imperium Francorum: it fit well with the Salic Law of the Franks. Roman secular law survives to this day as the basic legal framework of the present civilization. (This partly explains why the present civilization is not Christian: it does not fllow Christian law, but Ethological Law, also known as Roman Law.)

That morality is time-tested. It’s also the morality closest to natural ethology. So it’s not relative. It’s pretty much absolute. Hence a very good foundation on which to wage war in its defense.

Patrice Ayme’

The rights and wrongs of hunting!

January 10, 2017

The Great Spirit Was A Hunter, And Will Always Be A Hunter. Hunting For Ideas, Is Not Just A Metaphor, Not Just Our Fate, But The Only Way To Have A Superior Mind.

Once, well above timber-line, with the sun low on the horizon, an antelope came my way, running passed me. I was running the other way, and the quadruped rushed, close enough to touch. As I turned the corner, a couple of seconds later, full of wonder, I found myself face to face with an enormous wolf charging my way. We looked at each other, not even three meters away… I will always remember that moment. The intelligence obvious in the yellow eyes of the wolf brought to my mind the look of a primate, not just a canid. It was a late evening in late spring, when days are very long. I could read the majestic creature’s quasi-human surprise:’What is a human doing here at this time of the day?’

Hunting had made his kind smart over the eons. He could have dispatched me to another world in seconds, but he knew what humans were. We recognized each others’ supreme intelligence, an identity of spirits. Two hunters on top of the world. He went his way, I went mine, both owners of the universe, and having recognized the other as such.

The essay reproduced below was penned by a baby philosopher, and tends to philosophy by enumeration, an honorable method, reminiscent of FOX News’ approach to debate. With a silly (anti-hunting) bias not so well hidden. However I agree with it in some ways, with what the author wrote, about the so-called “confirmation bias”. Let me explain by considering the conclusion of the author:
“If your interlocutor objects to hunting, try to discover the basis for their objection. And I believe you should keep nature out of it.

Finally, try to argue with someone who takes a fundamentally different view. Confirmation bias – the unintentional act of confirming the beliefs we already have – is hard to overcome. The only antidote I know of is rational discourse with people whose confirmation bias runs contrary to my own.”

I agree with the method proposed to deal with “confirmation bias” (= “intellectual fascism”, “group think”). However, the sentence “I believe you should keep nature out of it”, is downright silly. The author is part of nature, should he keep himself “out of it”? Whatever “out” is?

I am both for and against hunting. It all depends upon who is hunting what, when, how, why? Hunting with stones, or arrows is one thing, wolves hunting their prey, another. To want wolves living somewhere free, but wolves who are not hunting, but devouring protein pills, would be akin to wanting the biosphere, albeit, without biology.

Let’s not forget civilization was founded by the genus Homo, fundamentally a hunting species, the greatest hunting genus of all times. Hunting is especially the genius of Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. When Homo Erectus got to Georgia, two million years ago, it survived the cold winters, because it was dressed in animal furs.

Fundamentally, hunting is about domination, and especially total domination of the better ideas. Predators tend to be smarter than prey (they tend to have bigger brains, overall: there has been a brain arm race between predator and prey, at least on land… with few exceptions, like crocodiles). Hence the mood fundamental to hunting (I am smarter than you, so I completely dominate and own you) is also the mood most conducive to civilization.

Hunting has been so central to the evolution of our genus that to be rabidly against it, is to be rabidly against humanity, and even worse against the idea that there are better ideas which can own and dominate.

The central idea is that nature needs hunting and nature is about hunting. Even human nature is about hunting and contemplating hunting means contemplating nature.

Overall, one has to dominate the debate. The crux we presently face, is the preservation of the biosphere. Genuine hunters want this, so that they can hunt. Actually many species were saved by hunters who had established preserves for them. So genuine preservationists want to preserve the biosphere. So they should cooperate.

Hunting teaches a meta-morality about the animal conditions which pre-Neolithic people understood very well: hunting was part of the digestion of the Great Spirit, so to speak. Hunting was a process consubstantial with the universe itself. This viewpoint, no doubt held for millions of years, is entirely correct.

By contrast, denying that hunting is central to the universe is in not just unreal, it violates the very idea of having a spirit. Wanting to protect the universe from hunting is to try to build a god that would be like a dog, something mastered, with no supremacy of its own, but for blind love.

Maybe we should grow up instead, and join the Great Spirit, in its full spirit? If we want the better spirit, we cannot just be prisoners of love. What we need, instead, to save the biosphere, is the greatest spirit. We won’t save the spirit if our only guide is to spare the pain. Quite the opposite.

Learning from Dogs

The philosophy of hunting in terms of it being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

Anyone who comes here for more than a couple of visits will know that both Jean and I are opposed to hunting completely. Period!

That’s not surprising as there have been a number of posts over the years describing how we feed the wild deer. Here’s three more photographs that haven’t previously been shared with you.



p1150179But, of course, the opinions of Jean and me are not, and should not be, the rule for the wider population of this part of Oregon.

All I would ask is that there is a proper, mature discussion as to the pros and cons of hunting wild animals in this, the twenty-first century.

All of which leads me to a recent essay posted on The Conversation site and republished here within the terms of that site.


Is hunting moral?…

View original post 1,373 more words

Mentality Trumps Logic

November 30, 2016

Mental States Trump (Local Linear) Logic

TRUMP MADNESS MENTALLY ENLIGHTENING, thank you, all of you, clueless fanatics, for providing us with not just entertainment, but insights on how insects think.

How do people think? When thinking about thinking, intellectuals tend to go back to Plato describing the mythical Socrates ponderously going from a) to c) because a) implied b) and b) implied c). Well, this is NOT how the brain works. The brain has basically two systems: Local Linear Logic, and Topological Logic (TL = emotion, so we will call it ES, the Emotional System). LLL and ES are entangled. For example, ES, the Emotion System, shuts off, and opens, various sub-systems in the brain. Moreover the ES directs consciousness into these subsystems. Each of these systems comes with its own logic. So there is no such a thing as “logic” per se. 

Actually modern axiomatics in logic considers that any Logic L comes with its own Universe U (in which it sits, so to speak). Varying U varies L. Thus a Logic L in the brain, sitting in subsystem S1 will be different from one sitting in subsystem S2, because they constitute different universes U. (An aspect of that was long known, as thinkers argued that various drugs, from alcohol to THC enabled them to reach various stages of consciousness…)

Thus what Plato talked about is basically irrelevant to foster wisdom. What is relevant is mental subsystems selection, how, and why. And even subsystem management. Instead, Plato explores logic, LLL. And recent events have been enlightening: LLL is mostly secondary for directing people’s behavior. 

I think, Therefore I sting. At Least, Sometimes, I Feel That Way.

I Think, Therefore I Sting. At Least, Sometimes, I Feel That Way.

By “Trump Madness” I do not mean Trump is mad, far from it: after all, he is the next president, and already causing more change than Obama did in 8 years (see Europe dumping “austerity” within 30 hours of Trump’s election). Clearly, there was a very smart method to Trump’s madness, and it was highly successful for him, as he obtained the loftiest job in the world (at least as far as conventional wisdom has it; in truth the loftiest job is mine, but never mind…). Thus “Trump madness” was anything except madness, on the part of Trump… Or his supporters (who also got what they wanted).

The real madness has been the flow of insults and indiscriminate violence on the part of “Clinton” supporters. Innocent thinkers were called “unscholarly, uncouth, anti-semitic, racist, xenophobic, judged to have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder,  and compulsive liars”. This was just a sampler of the most polite insults directed at me… by “friends”… and I am NOT a Trump supporter. Just thought to be so, because I rolled out all sorts of graphs depicting demoncracy (from inequality, to incarceration, rate, to life expectancy, to government investment, etc.).

Never mind that this was all for positions I held sometimes for decades, they are all extremely progressive, and I am just culprit of having Trump embracing them.

Insults directed at Trump were often obviously more insane than grievous. Trump was called “xenophobic” (the evidence is, the exact opposite, that is, Trump is an extreme xenoPHILE). Trump was called “anti-semitic” (his beloved and trusted son-in-law is an observant Jew). Trump was called a business failure (he grew his “organization”, now in 60 countries, from 17 million dollar to somewhere around ten billion…)

How come Clinton supporters became so abusive? OK, they were surprised. Not just because people were scared to reveal in the polls that they would vote for Trump, skewing polls (pollster Nate Silver discovered this a week or two before the vote, so he “unskewed” the polls, and revealed the chances of Trump were significant; I knew for months, just talking to people, that people were hiding their Trump preferences).

Clinton supporters did not turn abusive and insulting just because what they worry about turns out not to be what most of the country worries about. But, mostly, they hated, because it turned out that they had become strangers to themselves, and the world. Part of them rose in fury, and took over their persona, because they wanted to lash out, so great was the pain that uncomprehension caused..

The Clinton supporters had no idea how neurohormonally entangled with (their idea of) their candidate. Precisely because they were deliberately ignored the (left, leftist, liberal, progressive) case I have made for more than eight years (with all those graphs), they had turned into fanatics, Jihadists, because they had rejected (the unsavory) reality.

The mental order in the brains of these self-described progressives, supposed to address politics, had become hopelessly disconnected from reality. For example, in judging Obama, they judged his brown skin, but not the fact Obama was led by the nose by Lawrence Summers, the Harvard-Goldman Sachs surrogate who had dismantled, under Bill Clinton, the Banking Act of 1933 (“G-S”). And this, seven months before Obama reigned. And they ignored hundreds of other indicators which were flashing way more right, and corporate fascism, than any other president before.

Thus the mental subsystems Clinton supporters activated over the years made them not just unreal, but incapable of activating anything else. One of my prefered game these days is to question Clinton-Obama fanatics about Quantitative Easing. I generally draw a blank. The self-perceived) most clever ones tell me it was a good thing. So here you have so-called progressives saying that giving more than ten trillion dollars to the world richest, most corrupt people and institutions was… a good thing.

Guess what, you dummies? It was a good thing only for plutocracy, also known as demoncracy. The only person who could understand what I was talking about, and agreed with me, before meeting me, is Senior VP in a major bank.

People think first with their neurohormones. Tell me their neurohormones most active, and I can tell you where their Local Linear Logic delves. Obsessions leads and localizes reflection.

Is there experimental evidence for the preceding? Yes, there is, from… insects. The theory of consciousness is starting to rise. It involves making flies play videogames, or seeing if, like American students, they can get scared. Flies can be put in a state of “scariness” and wanting to get to a “safe space”.

Insects have a rudimentary ego, though very different from Narcissus or classical literature would have it. Insect ego appears as the ability to act and mentally concentrate on certain environmental cues thus ignoring others. “They don’t pay attention to all sensory input equally,” cognitive scientist Andrew Barron of Australia’s Macquarie University declared.

When you and I are hungry, we don’t just move towards food, as bacteria do. Our hunger creates a particular feeling (an emotion) which, in turn rearrange which subsystems are activated in our brain. Such a state is called a “subjective experience” in traditional philosophy. Do insects have the same? Obviously they do (I can say from anecdotes, and thus as a philosopher; scientists will verify and make sure).

Insects can be led into mental states which do not fit reality. So can humans (humans even do this deliberately, when they play or make jokes). Once in such a state, a particular logic, the universe of which is that precise mental state, flows. That Local Linear Logic is particular, yet it leaves (neural) connections behind. If suddenly precipitated, for real, in a situation calling for that mental state, the LLL is ready to kick in. That’s why humans play, and make jokes.

This election was a joke. So were the mental states most citizens put themselves, or let themselves been put, in the last few decades. Time to wake up.

And time to wake up to the reality that it is moods which create logic, even more than it is logic which creates moods.

Patrice Ayme’

Why Giving So Much Space To Nazis?

October 19, 2016

For Evil To Rule, Give The People Evil Heroes To Look Up To: Their Tolerance For Pluto Will Be Heightened

The following is on the borderline of subconscious theory applied to the collective (more on the subconscious, pretty soon). Psychological analysis, without sex, but full of rockets. I explore why the US gave such a prominent place to Nazi scientists after World War Two. The probable explanation is not obvious. And it is not pretty, and has a bearing on the subsequent US subconscious, that we are enjoying, to this day. Yes, because there is something as the national subconscious, and yes, the masters of a nation know how to make it their nest. It is in part because top Nazis were promoted as great minds in the 1950s, that we now enjoy ever worse political choices, as our masters succeeded to change our very values deep down inside.


Space And The Nazis:

The Saturn V program made the Apollo landings possible. The head of the program was Von Braun. The program could have been led by a born US citizen, educated in the USA. Instead, top Nazis were chosen in a leading role, and it was known with 100% certainty, as early as Spring 1945, that those individuals were major criminals

SS-Sturmbannführer (Major) Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun was a Prussian aristocrat (as the “Freiherr Von” label indicates). Most Prussian aristocrats did not like the Nazis, and very few enrolled in the SS. Yes, less than one million individuals served in the SS. The SS was recognized, after the war, by the Allies, as a criminal organization. In the state of Alabama alone, at least 118 top US space program engineers were Nazis. Many of them, as Von Braun, in the SS. They directed personally the extermination of dozens of thousands of slave laborers (in their drive to build “revenge weapons”).

Right, the Nazi, Russian, US, French Chinese rocket programs were developed for military reason (after 1942, rockets had been brutally efficient in WWII, against ships, planes and troops; it became clear that top military needed the best rockets). However, the usage of rocketry in the military happened thanks to the Mongols, even before the inventions of field guns by southern French.

The State Of The Art French Vulcain Hydrogen-Oxygen Engine Lifting This Ariane V, And Actually The Entire Rocket, Was Developed Without Any Nazi Help

The State Of The Art French Vulcain Hydrogen-Oxygen Engine Lifting This Ariane V, And Actually The Entire Rocket, Was Developed Without Any Nazi Help


Von Braun developed the V2.

The first V2s were fired on Paris (some hours later by some hit London). The V2 was the first ballistic missile. It could get out of the atmosphere, and reach Mach 5. Von Braun had pushed for a rocket to bomb New York with, and sang of the charms of orbital warfare (the US Space Shuttle had huge wings to go sideways and help wage nuclear war).

Several French slave-prisoners testified that they witnessed Von Braun’s personally oversight the abuse, torture, terrorization, and the extermination of dozens of thousands of slave workers. The Dark Side was strong in the “charismatic” Von Braun. (An Internet lie is that von Braun donned his black death head SS uniform just once. Not so, said former colleagues and witnesses.).

In a just world, and for future reference, Von Braun should have been executed 100 times. Instead his agents went to the moon. And his face to Time magazine’s cover. He rose to the top of NASA, and got the National Medal of Science (although rocket “science” is not really “science”, but technology). 

A Hero For Our Times. SS Major Von Braun On Cover, 12 Years After He Commanded the Extermination of Dozens of Thousands Of Slaves

A Hero For Our Times. SS Major Von Braun On Cover, 12 Years After He Commanded the Extermination of Dozens of Thousands Of Slaves

Thus a main motivation of the space program was by and from the Dark Side. It is neither bad, nor good. Just a fact to keep front and central: it plays in all ways.

Admittedly, not having enough of the Dark Side can lead to slumber. The Ariane V rocket was developed by Europe (mostly France and Germany). It is human rated (that is safe enough for launching people). However the European (mostly French Dassault) shuttle, the Hermes, was never launched. Why? Europe does not have enough of the Dark Side (differently from Brexiting Britain, the US, Russia, or the PRC).  

The USA tends to be motivated by war best (because, historically, war has been a mostly win-win proposition for the English colony in North America) . After getting to the Moon, beating the USSR (whose Big Rocket exploded spectacularly), the US public did not find space exploration appealing. It did not help that the McCarthyist Nixon, then president, selected the incomparably dumb Space Shuttle as the new US space effort.


Was It Technologically Necessary To Involve The Nazis In The US Space Program? No!

The involvement of Nazis in the US space program was opportunistic, but it could have been avoided. Indeed the top expert of liquid fuel rocketry was not German, but a US citizen, American physicist Robert H. Goddard.

Before 1939, German engineers and rocket scientists contacted Goddard directly with technical questions. As Von Braun said in 1963: His rockets … may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.”. Von Braun used Goddard’s plans from various journals and incorporated them into the building of the Aggregat (A) series of rockets.

Thus the US could have developed rockets without any Nazi help. Several important components of the US space program (such as the rockets of the Mercury and Gemini programs, which launched the first Americans in orbit) were 100% American.

Another proof that Nazis were unnecessary? The most sophisticated rocket in the West is the Ariane V (it launches most of the mass of the geostationary satellites, and is scheduled to launch NASA’s James Webb telescope, the successor of Hubble). Ariane V has mastered the very difficult  hydrogen-oxygen propulsion system (in its latest version a stop and go hydrogen engine is developed, with laser ignition).

All this state of the art French rocketry was mastered without any Nazi help.


Glorifying Nazis Like Von Braun Was Part Of The (Deliberately Subconscious) Nazification of the US:

Let’s go back to that Time cover. Why the glorification of a major Nazi criminal? I confess that I used to admire Von Braun too. I was a victim of pernicious propaganda, like hundreds of millions of others. Although coming from a family of “Justs” (de facto: saving 100 Jews qualifies in my opinion, although some official woman I wrote too told me to get lost, something I found rather strange…) on one side and an authentic anti-Nazi warrior on the other, I cannot let it pass…

So what was behind the glorification of Nazis? Well, the implicit glorification of many of Nazism ways and means. This had started by adopting the SS motto: “God With Us” (Gott Mit Uns), and morphing it into “In God we trust” (not to be confused with my personal motto: ‘In God we thrust’).

Mostly, by glorifying Von Braun, one of the most mass criminal of the major Nazis, the American Deep State, or its collective subconscious habituated the American public to overlook massive war criminality. Good things happen to plutocrats who rig the conceptual debate.

Nazification of the American psyche by mitigation of major crimes against humanity, by presenting one of the worst perpetrators as a saint for the space age would all blossom later. Not just with the Vietnam War. Not just with the will of destroying Iraq (the Bush-Clinton-Bush signature achievement).


No. In the end, what the American Deep State and its propaganda machine imprinted in the minds of the gullible was that it was OK to use some of the worst criminals ever, as long as it was opportunistic. So using hordes of Nazis provided some advantage, so let’s use them. In other words, opportunism rules, even if it means rewarding crimes against humanity.

And what was the advantage? As I said, overlooking the commission of major crimes. And even, to brandish top Nazis as great heroes, fit for unabashed worship. And this is exactly why the US presidential elections now pits a most corrupt plutocrat against a pretty stupid plutocrat.

More generally, the unabashed rule of the financial plutocracy, a form of mass criminality of the type which gives rise to massively unequal society and a new tyranny could be inaugurated under Bill Clinton (by repelling FDR’s “Banking Act of 1933”, so-called “Glass Steagall”).

To this day nobody has noticed, not any more than the colossal jump in incarceration of minorities, under Bill Clinton was noticed by the same minorities, which adore him, because he plays the saxophone with them.

Why all the blindness? People had been trained to not notice major ethical breaches. Let alone trained to expect not to see them punished. Thus, the same financial plutocracy, or at least the same mood of said financial plutocracy, which made the Nazis possible (contemplate Dr. Schacht, a creature of top world banker, JP Morgan), are now in the driver’s seat. Who said space and it rocket scientists did not impact the bottom line?

For tyrants to rule, terror and torture are not enough. One needs to control the mood of the slaves. And the way to do this can be subtle.

Michelle Obama recently said that:”If they go low, go high” (and everybody has lauded this recycling of the building principle of the European Union, which consists into “sortir par le haut”, finding a way out by going high… and which worked fine until the UK government sabotaged it). To exit by the top works, except if all values have been inverted. In particular if the notion of high is admiring some of the most cruel masters the world has ever known. Go back to that Time Magazine cover, typical of the times: the most glorious “rocket scientist” was one of the most towering criminal against humanity ever known. And that was on purpose, to make the Dark Side in its most evil aspect, most glorious.

A job obviously well done: please enjoy the present US election, where evil and infamy mock fight each other to death by hurling sex accusations, and the like. While plutocrats, the world over, enjoy caviar topped by gold leaf, silently chuckling, sailing the oceans of dark, undetectable money that their political servants made possible. It all started with flaunting major war criminals as those who incarnated the future. Here it is.

Patrice Ayme’