Archive for the ‘Systems Of Moods’ Category

Relativistic Philosophy Beyond Consensus

August 4, 2017

It’s good to focus on “General Relativity” and Cosmology without the cloak of mathematics gone wild and unsupervised, indeed.

Anything having to do with “General Relativity” has a lot of extremely debatable philosophy hidden below a thick carpet of computations. Abuse of philosophically unsupervised spacetime leads one to believe in time machines, wormholes, and similar absurdities. A recent discovery such as Dark Energy (ever expanding space faster than previously anticipated), and a not so recent one, Dark Matter, show one has to be extremely careful.

Einstein equation of “General Relativity” (GR) is basically Curvature = Mass-Energy. Einstein long observed that the left hand side of the equation was built of mathematical beauty, and the right hand side of a murky mud of a mess. The discovery of Dark Matter proved him prophetic about that. (BTW, I know perfectly well that, stricto sensu, it’s the Ricci tensor, derived from the full Curvature tensor on the left…)

First a philosophical trap: “General Relativity” (GR) is a misnomer. It’s not clear what’s being generalized. GR is certainly a theory of the relationship between gravity and local space-times (the Theory of Relativity of space and time which Poincaré named that way in 1904).

Einstein was initially motivated to explain inertia according to the Newton-Mach observation that the distant stars seemed to endow matter with inertia (because if matter rotates relative to distant stars, a centrifugal force appears).

That way, he failed, as Kurt Goedel produced spacetime models which rotated wildly without local consequences. Frame dragging exists nevertheless, and is crucial to GPS. So GR has local consequences.

Neither Poincaré nor Einstein liked the concept of “spacetime”.

There are massive galaxy cluster, such as Abell 370 (shown here). They can be made up of thousands of Milky Way-sized galaxies. This is beyond anything we can presently have a feeling for. The space inside this cluster is not expanding, that’s a fact, but the space between this cluster and other, unbound, galaxies and clusters, is viewed by today’s Main Stream Cosmology, as expanding. I’m robustly skeptical. Image credit: NASA, ESA/Hubble, HST Frontier Fields.

A question has naturally come up: if space expands, how come we don’t? An answer to this has been the raisin bread model of the expanding universe.

As Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist in Quantum Gravity and High energy physics  puts it: “In cosmology, too, it helps to first clarify what it is we measure. We don’t measure the size of space between galaxies — how would we do that? We measure the light that comes from distant galaxies. And it turns out to be systematically red-shifted regardless of where we look. A simple way to describe this — a space-time slicing that makes calculations and interpretations easy — is that space between the galaxies expands.”

However, the entire area is contentious. The usual snap-back of haughty physicist keen to deny any brains worth noticing to the Commons, is to say that all those who don’t understand the mathematics at hand should shut up.

That’s a disingenuous answer, as NOBODY understands fully the mathematics at hand (those with snappy rejoinders know this, but they enjoy their power maliciously).

An example of the non-universality of the notion of expanding space is the following exact quote from Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, author, among many other things, such as the Weinberg-Salam model of the electroweak interaction, of the most famous textbook on the subject, “Gravitation and Cosmology”: “…how is it possible for space, which is utterly empty, to expand? How can nothing expand? The answer is: space does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space, but they should know better”

Well, they don’t.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/raisin-bread-model-of-space-time.901290/

Personally, I think that both space and time are local concepts (as long as one does not add to consideration the Quantum theory, as it was created, post 1923, by De Broglie, and after 1924, by the Copenhagen School). Local space and local time are united by the speed of light, c, through naturally ubiquitous light clocks. Space and time are measured locally (although Poincaré proposed a slow motion to move synchronized clocks around, and Einstein copied and published that mechanism, verbatim, as he had with E = m c²).

It has been proposed that the redshift of cosmological photons, and its attribution, 100%, to the expansion of spacetime, is a proof of the expanding “spacetime”. One must say that this statement is the core of present cosmology. And anybody looking down on the idea will not be viewed as serious by famous physicists. However just saying something does not prove it. Especially when the conclusion seems to be the hypothesis.

Lorentz- Poincaré Local Space and Time theory was experimentally provable (electromagnetism proved it).

But where is the proof that the universe is like an expanding dough, spacetime, with galactic raisin grains in it? Just waving the notion that the atomic force is 10⁴⁰ the gravitation force at a small scale does not seem compelling to me. It’s rather a question of range: gravitation is much longer range, although, much weaker. Thus the geodesic deviations due to gravitation show up at a very great distance, whereas those due to atomic and molecular force cause enormous geodesic deviations, but only at very short range. We are these enormous local deviations, larger by 10⁴⁰ locally.

Yet, even this more precise argument smacks of hand waving.  Why? Because a theory of local forces as curvatures, although posited by Riemann in 1865, and the foundation of GR, still does not exist (that’s one thing string theory was trying to achieve, and failed). Gravitation remains the only force that is tautologically equivalent to a curved space theory.

Quantum Physics has provided that theoretical spacetime with a nonlocal causal architecture (through Quantum Entanglement). However that “causality” although geometric, is non metric (and thus manifests itself with no geodesic deviation, no force).

Einstein, after a debate on nonlocality imparted by the Quantum, with the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, attracted the world’s attention on that problem in 1935, with his famous EPR paper. There Einstein denounced the way the “spooky action at a distance” affected distant “elements of reality”. Since then, the spookiness at a distance has been amply confirmed (and enables to encrypt space communications while knowing 100% whether they have been breached, as a Chinese satellite recently showed). Nonlocal effects show unambiguously that the metric (of “spacetime”) does not capture all the geometry (an notion which may surprise physicists, but not those mathematicians who have studied the foundations of their field).

This Quantum architecture has led, so far, to no prophecy, let alone theory, by established physicist. Entangled Quantum architecture is actually not part of the General Relativistic raisin cake model (or any GR model). However, I will venture to say one can view it as predicting Dark matter, at the very least. It’s just a question of baking something more sophisticated than raisin bread.

Patrice Ayme

Advertisements

All We Need Is Truth

July 30, 2017

People are simple. And love to be simple. That’s why, for most of them, aside from their profession, all they know is “sports”, and it’s a new religion. Being complicated is expensive.

One commenter on my site, Benign, apparently obfuscated by my broadside against the delirious sexism of past and present Catholicism, called me deluded to think that “rationality” even exists. Evolution does not “progress.” The Soviets “rationally” outlawed marriage from ~1918 to the 1940s, before realizing that this “rational” decision didn’t work.”

The USSR outlawed marriage???????? Same source which saw them drinking blood of “capitalists”? Logic is easy, truth is hard.

Modernist, Postmodernist, Metamodernist Jargon Is Jargon, and jargon ain’t truth! “Meta”, though, is a serious operation we all practice. See “Mind From Meta“.

Marriage is a fact of human ethology, the natural behavior of humans. To outlaw it would not have been irrational, because reason can always be found, but futile, as going against marriage goes against human nature. This is exactly why the Soviets didn’t outlaw marriage: they were not that dumb.

By the late 1920s, Soviet adults had been made more responsible for the care of their children, and common-law marriage had been given equal legal status with civil marriage. Is that what Benign alludes to? By 1944, the Soviets went back, and recognized only legal civil marriage, to encourage more steady families.

Rationality exists, but as I have emphasized in the past, as a constant rolling of the drums, a logic can be anything. That evolution “progresses” is a battle from 1800 CE, when Lamarck asserted this thesis. It’s correct: clearly some of today’s lifeforms are the most complex ever.  Some day all biologists will proudly view Lamarck as right, and their predecessors of the 1960s, who were fanatically anti-Lamarck, as deluded bigots.

How do I know Lamarck was right? Tons of knowledge that those who scream Lamarck was a maniac (following the slave master Napoleon) never heard of these tons, they are children.

To see evolution’s progress, don’t look at sharks, or oysters, and other animals in evolutionary stasis. Instead, look at Blue Rorquals, most massive animals ever, & look at us, most clever. The most advanced animals are the most complex, and they are complex in ways beyond what we understand of genetics.

Beatles sang: “All You Need Is Love!”. Silly stuff: we all got love, otherwise we won’t exist. We have all the logics, at our disposal, and all the love we got as children.

To order and discipline our logic, and even our loves, most of what we need is truth

“Postmodernism” was the realization that many ideologies were the fruit of tribalism, not truth (as they malevolently claimed). This is not really new. See  vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà de Pascal (a thought unpublished in his lifetime: truth before the Pyrénées, error beyond them)..

“Deconstruction” consisted in finding out where things came from. It’s not conceptually different from analysis (a unloosening), a concept found in Aristotle, and obvious centuries before him.

All this is to say that those who have pretended to introduce new ways of thinking about thinking have eschewed the truth: there is no truth, but truth, and, in the human species, it’s as old as dinner . There is no truth, but truth! In the human species, truth is as old as dinner. No truth, no dinner for the human, but one for the lion. The truth was in the dinner. In how to get dinner!

Right, truth is dangerous, because some claim to have it, and they don’t. But they always have, and always will. The Wise can’t go around, claiming they don’t have the truth, as Socrates did, or, worse, as Socrates claimed again and again, and the self-declared “post-modernists” parroted, that there is no truth… Because if they do that, they do exactly what German Jews (among others) did with Hitler and his Nazis: leave a wide open field for infamy to proclaim its own version of truth. And everybody, or, at least, most Germans, believed them. And others, like most Americans, pretended that it was OK with them.

The scientific method does NOT opposes the notion of truth, as those who have only a shallow knowledge of pop science are all too often led to believe. It’s exactly the opposite. Euclid’s theorem or the classical laws of optics are still true… They are actually more true than ever. In their domain of application. They are more true than ever, precisely because now we know where their domain of application came from. In other words, we control their meta-logic. We know where their truth come from, and where it’s located. And how to control it.

There is no logic without a metalogic, establishing therein, a notion of truth. Thinking is, and always was, an experimental process.

All we need is truth. But it’s the hardest thing. Truth never was, nor will ever be, a safe place. But it’s the safest place.

Patrice Ayme’

Trump, Macron Don’t Understand The First Thing

July 25, 2017

Trump, Macron Didn’t Understand the First Thing these times need: the right emotions, moods, ideas. And those can only spring from democracy. But what contemporaries call democracy, isn’t democratic enough to ripe the fruits of the democratic process. PR. Public Relations, is PC, Politically Correct, but not brainy enough.

Who are these arrogant would-be alpha apes who claim, to themselves, and to us, as loudly as they can, that they can lead humanity? OK, the Constitutions say so. But doesn’t that mean they should be changed? Apparently, the alpha males in a rut, have a large following in the USA and France. The French Army Chief of Staff resigned: he said no man should be followed blindly.

That provision was finally installed in the Bundeswehr’s Constitution. German soldiers’ obedience is now to the Constitution, not the “leader” (guide, Führer…) the same should be made clear to US soldiers.

Trump and Macron have huge military power at their disposal. No single man should have such powers.

What is the country spending the most on the military? The USA, in part by cheating on what “deficit” means (or, to put it milder, by defining the “deficit” completely differently from the way the European Union does. France spends more on the military than Russia, but still it’s not enough: at this point on France rests the defense of the entire European continent from Africa and the Middle East, where a religion has made the place so bad, nobody wants to live there anymore. Much better to bring the mess to Europe, where it’s still clean.

The way for France to pay for it’s military is to do like the USA: with a colossal deficit (no, not the one they talk about, the other one!)

In some ways, Macron is the French Trump. In other ways, Macron is the French Obama: he met with singer Bono yesterday, and is exchanging educational tips with Rihanna, a pseudo-singer, or pseudo-thinker (about how others hold her hips), famous for holding her chest in place during “music” videos, and other Crazy Horse Saloon antics… No activity is ridiculous enough to prevent Macron to luridly engage in it. 

Indeed a French Trump: consider the banking connection. Macron came out of nowhere, to be showered with money, many millions of dollars,  even housing, by bankers.  Trump came out of his father’s wealth to become much more, thanks to bankers, who showered him with money.

The global plutocratic elite “hates” Trump because Trump is a loud mouth, an elephant in a porcelain store. The elite is deadly afraid that Trump will make global plutocracy obvious. Thus the global plutocratic elite much prefer Macron: Macron looks like a meritocrat, when, actually, his main merit was to become the man of plutocrats and bankers, who see in him a new Jesus. 

The Economist has found a watchdog it loves. Unfortunately, the way Macron is going, that won’t last… He walks on water, but will finish like May (the leopard shoes sticking out in the background).

France’s military chief of staff,  five-star general General Pierre De Villiers, quit, in a loud and very public spat. Emmanuel Macron had declared that defense spending would go down 850 million Euros, after making a campaign where he claimed he would augment military spending by a considerable 12%.

The French Republic is at war in Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Syria, Iraq. In the last 40 years, the French military was deployed in 70 combat operations.

Macron didn’t say to the French military:”I am your leader”, as The Economist pretends he did, by mis-translating “chef”. Macron said:”Je suis votre chef” (“I am your CHIEF”).  Do we need a tribal chief, millennia after tribes were rejected as optimal governance?

Macron clearly lied: he said he would augment military spending. As clearly needed, right way. Instead he slashed the military budget. It looks like the screwing of someone who likes to screw people. (Since then the military budget would have been re-established, and then some; a good way to economize would be to withdraw the French military from its operation inside France, which is costly and ridiculous; outlawing nasty Salafist Islam is the way to go.)

This incident also denotes that Macron has understood nothing. Nothing at all. Macron understood nothing at all of what ails the West most. The lack of democracy.

What ails the West most is the lack of democracy. One can’t have democracy, when inequality is too great. Clearly, little chief Macron intents to magnify said inequality further. Usually, when people talk inequality, they evoke the number of the wealthiest versus the number of the poorest, and how far they are. But the ancient Greeks would have looked at something else when quantifying democracy: the lack of isegoria (lack of equality in publicly addressing the People’s Assembly, the Ecclesia). The lack of isegoria would have been viewed as part of a more general lack of isonomy (equality management). In any case, No isegoria, no democracy.

Lack of democracy has led our world to disastrous decisions in economic and sociological matters. It has also led to massive, runaway inequality. Macron was brought to power by the explicit intervention of “adoptive fathers”, such as David Rothschild, who indirectly gave Macron millions, while another plutocrats (lent and) gave him a million Euro apartment in Paris, when Macon was basically a babe. But a babe who had direct oversight on taxing the plutocrats, including Banque Rothschild, which then employed Emmanuel Macron.

Obama didn’t do much, if anything, of what he claimed he would do. Instead, his tenure served the plutocrats. And the proof is that inequality has never been so great in the USA. The case of Macron is clearer: he clearly became “chief” as an instrument of the wealthiest, dirtiest few who have fed him like a hungry baby crocodile. When voters realize the  crocodile is just that, a crocodile, growing fast claiming he leads humanity, they will see only barbarity in his whole tenure. Fear the streets. And the army will not rush to Macron’s rescue.

We don’t need to be led by self-aggrandizing psychopaths. We need to be led by the best emotions, moods, and ideas. Clearly, having Macron or Trump as “chiefs” to obey blindly is not one of them.

Everything is wrong with civilization nowadays: the poles are melting, and fast (ice VOLUME is collapsing in the Arctic; some will scoff; however I was evacuated from my house by a giant fire, this essay is written under mental distress, knowing landscapes I loved just burned out to a crisp… the fire is still going on: “austerity” made it so that there were not enough anti-fire planes…). Our great leaders organized all that.

Common people pay lots of taxes, so that, and because, billionaires pay none. Some then sung: all you need is love, all important things in the world are free. Right. Until you realize this: Macron’s educational adviser is Rihanna, the one who holds her chest, as a new form of dancing with self.

The wealthiest people in the world have so much money, so so much power, that they have made, and are making ever more, most people so incredibly stupid, they have no idea what’s going on. They are like bleating sheep going to slaughter. Watch those lesser beings get so thrilled about “sports”, namely tribal frenzies.

Common people pay lots of taxes, so that, and because, billionaires tell them how to think, how not to think, and even how to feel. This is not 1984 anymore, it’s worse.

Patrice Ayme’

The Letter & The RE-ENTRANT MIND

July 19, 2017

Yesterday I got a letter from Barack Obama.

This gracious gesture left a lasting impression. This real fact in the real world, brought my mind to create, all on its own, a reality that had never been before. And will ever last, as far as I am concerned. It’s not just the multiverse, it’s the private multiverse.

Before you think that I am, at last, humbling admitting I am nuts, let me perfidiously add that we all do this, I am just ahead of my time, in observing it, as Nietzsche would modestly point out, if he was writing on my behalf. A core way in which wisdom progresses is by introspection. Introspection: one does not get more core than that. Deeper, more penetrating introspection is future civilization. Perceiving more correctly what perception is was central to the Quantum revolution. Don’t laugh, the inventors of Quantum Mechanics analyzed in-depth what to “experience” meant; an indignant Einstein was reminded by Heisenberg that he and his colleagues were just following the general philosophical principles set by Einstein of considering carefully what was experimentally perceived.   

Last night, I had many dreams, on many things, but in one of them, pretty short, figured Barack Obama, sleeping like a babe, on a makeshift black leather couch system. A running commentary said he was sharing the (very large) room with the US military chief of staff. I was milling around. Something tense about the state of the world was coming down…

After I woke up, I remembered the dream as if it had really happened. So now in my memory system, there is a vivid picture of Obama sleeping as described above. Although it never happened. (I never met Obama in such circumstances.) 

We mostly perceive… what we think. Thus the world as we perceive it, is the exact opposite of what the ancients imagined it to be.

So there was a part of my history, relative to someone else, created by my own mind in the context of the relationship with that person. And it’s pure fiction as a historical fact outside of me, yet, a historical fact as far as my neurocircuitry is concerned.

Plato never talked about such things, nor the parrots who repeated that tyrant lover, ad nauseam.

Plato’s Cave is a rather stupid, certainly very condescending picture of the universe. Moreover, it misunderstands the wall of the cave: it’s actually the universe itself, a universe we partly created ourselves, the universe of our minds, and it’s much richer than the outside world, which only excites, entices, encourages our perception further along.  

This sort of self-made movies does not pertain to my fertile imagination alone. Everybody does it, although the degree of awareness of its genesis varies. From the real world input of sensations and experiences, human minds create a much more complex world amplifying that input in special ways pertaining to their own history. It’s Plato’s cave, in reverse, with much added.

***

Sad was my mood:

What happened is that, after I got the letter yesterday, I had a poignant feeling of what a waste my friend’s presidency has been. Nothing that the innocence of sleep can ever repair, however strong we imagine differently. I remembered the spark of hope, ten years ago. True, a few things were achieved by his presidency (the fact that health insurance companies can’t deny from pre-existing conditions). But much was lost too (inequality has never been so great, and Obama has his name written all over that, including the unresisted and wildly encouraged rise of tech monopolies and the demolition of the Patent System). Pluto-Democrats devoured it all…

***

While my guitar gently weeps…

Patrice Ayme’

Arranging History To Suit Plutocracy: French, Jews, Nazis, & Vel D’Hiv

July 17, 2017

Consider this: French president Macron declared that: “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism”. A friend of mine asked me what I thought of that idea. I said the obvious. First “antisemitism” is a lie:”antisemitism” as Macron uses it means “antijudaism”. Palestinians are semite, still they tend to be anti-Israel, which, according to Macron, would make them “antisemite”, thus being one thing and its opposite.

Sheer madness. But no accident: an aim of the present world leadership is MAD, not just in the sense of Mutually Assured Destruction, but in the sense that, once we are mad, we won’t make sense, thus they will keep on overwhelming us, because they, and the masters they serve, know very well where they are heading: towards inflicting ever more abuse. Abuse is its own deliriously satisfying power satisfaction.  (A little secret official humanists do not reveal as most of those with power partake in it!)

In green the parts of Europe and Africa under direct German military and government command. What The Vicious (?) Idiots (??) Who Claim France Ordered The Vel D’Hiv Deportation Pretend NOT to understand: Paris was under direct German Third Reich Administration, Subjugation, Enslavement, etc… It was NOT under Vichy putsch regime command (that’s in blue, early in 1942; later the Nazis overtook the entire metropolitan France).

Consider this: the preceding friend, a very educated, multilingual, upper class US citizen, told by me that the USA waited for Hitler to declare war, even after Pearl Harbor, reflectively replied:”Yes, but France had this Vichy government side with the Nazis against the Jews first.”

That is 100% false in several dimensions, each. Yet that several ways grievously erroneous opinion is pretty much ubiquitous in much of the world, inverting the basic facts of France and Nazism. The result being that the country which promulgated Human Rights the most, especially after 1789, is widely perceived as racist and vicious. Guess who profits from this? Global plutocracy, the global enemy of human rights. And who are the paymasters of our global leadership? Global plutocrats.

How did one get there? By myths promulgated by the French authorities themselves, in recent years. And why did those think it was so smart? Because all politicians, worldwide follow the smell of money, just as a viper follows the smell of the mice it just stung.

This would bring us to the touchy subject of who gave Macron the money to buy a one million Euro apartment when he was 25 years old (hint: not his parents, but some very wealthy people). It’s so touchy, I will leave it alone. As my mom said: ”Macron is president, and that’s it.”

Macron just tweeted: Emmanuel Macron‏Verified account: “Je crois à la logique de la confiance…” “I believe in the logic of trust”. Yes, how can one trust France which, according to its president “organized… the death of 13,152 [Jewish] persons”?

Let me reassure you right away: “France” did NOT organize said death of 13,152 persons. Under direct, nearly explicitly lethal, if disobeyed, Nazi orders, French police organized the arrest of (more or less then) illegal foreigners and refugees on Nazi occupied French soil. Not glorious, but the alternative was death at Nazis’ hands for disobedient police (of which there were plenty; ultimately Parisian police would rise in armed rebellion against the Nazis, two years later, when said rebellion was not just suicide). Our great leaders tend to take so many short circuits with truth that their logics blow up, in the maw of reality. This enable them to zap us. Inurement to blowing up of the logics we are submitted and accustomed to, enables our leaders to zap us further.

Thus reality is neither what our great “chiefs” sell, or buy. Madness is more like it.

(An example is the vaunted “Two States solution” in Israel-Palestine which is neither a state, nor a solution.)

***

Mythomania, or how to manipulate We the Peoples:

A head of state is at the head of myths. A head of state speaks with acts. The head of state speaks, even with silence. A head of state can speak with courage. Or cowardice. Or reason, or, even, to future history with future conspiracies, to be unveiled some day.

Except when they are raw truth, those myths are made to manipulate people. The more distant from truth the myth are, the more manipulative. I am a partisan of raw truth. I have found it the best fuel for human destiny.

Hitler described and used what he called the Big Lie technique. There are other methods, though, more akin to the “esprit de finesse” extolled by Macron, the French President. Basic dynamics help to understand what is going on. One Big Lie is the equivalent of a high acceleration: after it, one goes far, fast. But a succession of little lies equivalent to a sum of little accelerations will get you even further, because little lies are harder to detect, and one may be left with dozens of them in just one system of thought, after neutralizing a few. Instead, Nazism rested on less than half a dozen Big Lies.

***

I will illustrate in a further essay how approximations and liberties taken with history can sum up as giant lies, with the case of macron and the Vel d’Hiv. Such lies deserve it, the planet shares them all, and they are used as an excuse to ditch the Enlightenment.

Meanwhile one can read: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/vel-dhiv-roundup-ordered-by-the-german-nazis-not-france/

The enemies  of France love to confuse the French and the (German!) Nazis. That the latest self-described “chief” of France deems important to promote that identification is an indication of how rotten the head of civilization has become.

Tell me Macron, why is it so crucially important to tell the world that France went “Heil Hitler!” in 1942? Blaming the victim is real foremost? Just a month after Bir Hakiem, when a small French army removed the last hope the Nazis had to win the Second World War?

At Bir Hakeim, the French army of general Marie-Pierre Kœnig delayed by several weeks one of these sickle move of general Edwin Rommel was expert at. Rommel was going to encircle the defeated and retreating British Eighth Army, the only anti-Nazi significant military force between  England and India (with 110,000 soldiers, 850 tanks). Rommel knew that, as he put it “the fate of my army was at stake“. Actually Rommel knew all too well that the fate of the Reich was at stake. 

The Nazi plan was to seize Egypt, then kill all the Jews of Israel, and capture Iraqi oil, desperately needed by the Nazi war machine. In the aftermath of the Nazi defeat at Bir Hakeim, Hitler declared to his cabinet that the French were indeed the world’s best soldiers with his own Nazi soldiers. He added that, thus that’s why exactly Nazi-occupied France had to be completely destroyed, so she couldn’t never rise again.

Bir Hakeim should be as, or more famous than Thermopylae. There 300 Spartans delayed the Persian juggernaut invading Greece by three days. They all died in combat, refusing to surrender. At Bir Hakeim, the French army delayed the Nazi-Italian fascist juggernaut by three weeks. Officially, the French had 141 killed in combat at Bir Hakeim. However, out of 3,700 French soldiers fighting, more than 1,500 disappeared one way or another (many died in the desert during confused night action; the French would burrow in the day, counterattack at night).  

Bir Hakeim forced the Nazis to make an all-out assault towards the Caucasus, to get its oil, which they desperately needed, and, to protect their flank they had to seize the military-industrial city of Stalingrad (although they faced enormous Soviet forces on the way there). That was extremely risky, and the Nazi army was encircled many times in its desperate assault towards Stalingrad (where it would be, unsurprisingly, annihilated).

The highest Nazis (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich…) had to make the other top Nazi leaders understand, at the Wannsee conference on January 20, 1942, in Berlin, 6 months before the Vel d’Hiv, that they should not stand in the way of the “final solution”.  

But all Macron wants children of the world to learn from history is that:  “France organized… the death of 13,152 [Jewish] persons”? With “chiefs” like that, who needs suicide?

Patrice Ayme’

Why The Crusades Were Lost: Saint Louis’ Racism Against The Mongols!

July 9, 2017

Islam came to near annihilation in the Thirteenth Century as Franks and Mongols unified and took the Islamist capitals, Baghdad and Damascus. A little known episode. At the time, the overall Mongol Khan was a woman (another little known episode!) But she didn’t cause the problem. Instead Saint Louis’ jealous racism, and unbounded hatred of “infidels” made the difference.

Richard the Lionheart lived in France, where he was supposedly vassal to the king of France, Philip II Augustus his companion in arms (who left the so-called “Holy land” after a while, leaving his soul mate Richard, in charge). Richard may not have lost major battles. But, a century later, Saint Louis, Louis IX of France, did, and ruined France in the process.

It became clear nothing good was achieved by all this crusading. On top of that, the climate started to wobble. Instead, the French switched to the trading model with Islam (rendered possible by treaties consecutive to the Crusades). Immense fortunes were made (Jacques Coeur, born a commoner, became the richest man in France by trading with the Levant in the fifteenth century, and soon, master of the mint, and a most important European diplomat).

Arab chroniclers used the correct term, “Franki” (Franks) to qualify the Europeans trying to (re)conquer the Middle East from the religion of Islam, which had smothered it.

By the time the Crusades were launched, direct Muslim aggression against Europe has been continuous since 715 CE, a full four centuries (the word “Europe” was used first by the Franks in the context of the Muslim invasions). This continual Muslim attack was viewed, correctly, by all concerned, as the continuation of the war of Islam against Rome. (Naturally so, as the Franks so themselves as “Rome”. By 800 CE, the Franks had officially “renovated”, as they put it, the Roman empire…)

Painted in 1337 CE. Notice that the Franks are covered in armor, and the Muslims are not. Obvious technological superiority. The Romans already bought light steel helmets in Gaul! Muslim tech superiority is a lie. In plain view.

There is plenty of evidence that the Franks were more advanced than the Muslims in crucial military technology, as early as 715 CE. How could they not be? The Muslims were just coming out of savage Arabia, all the technology they had, was stolen, or, let’s say, adopted from others.

Four terracotta hand grenades, with “Greek Fire” inside, used by the defenders of Constantinople against the Turks. Greek Fire had many variants, some secret to this day. The Chinese developed dry versions, with salpeter, which turned into black powder later.

The Franks, who had been the crack troops of the Roman empire, as early as 311 CE, had better steel, better armor, better steel weapons, and giant war horses capable of wearing armor themselves. That’s why the Franks were able to defeat the Muslims, overall, in the first phase of the war with Islam, which was in Europe (711 CE, attack on Spain, until the counterattack on Jerusalem, 1099 CE).

This European technological superiority was obvious during the Spanish reconquista. An armored Spanish horse was like an intelligent, indomitable battle tank, which would charge again and again, rarely seriously wounded. By contrast, Muslim cavaliers wore little armor, their relatively small Arab horses were excellent but all too little (I used to ride my own very combative Arab stallion in Africa, which nobody else would, or could, ride… Its name, appropriately chosen, was Napoleon…).

Horse archers were not effective against heavily armored cavalry. They could bother it, but not defeat it. This is why the Mongols decided wisely not to attack the Franks again, after invading, suffering huge losses, Hungary, and Croatia. The Mongols debated what had happened to their ancestors the Huns, eight centuries earlier, in France (annihilation spared only political decision). The Mongols used rocket artillery.

Noah Smith wroteWhy Did Europe Lose the Crusades?“. Said he: “A little while ago, I started to wonder about a historical question: Why did Europe lose the Crusades? The conventional wisdom, at least as I’ve always understood it, is that Europe was simply weaker and less advanced than the Islamic Middle Eastern powers defending the Holy Land. Movies about the Crusades tend to feature the Islamic armies deploying fearsome weapons – titanic trebuchets, or even gunpowder. This is consistent with the broad historical narrative of a civilizational “reversal of fortunes” – the notion that Islamic civilization was much more highly advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages. Also, there’s the obvious fact that the Middle East is pretty far from France, Germany, and England, leading to the obvious suspicion that the Middle East was just too far away for medieval power projection.

Anyway, I decided to answer this question by…reading stuff about the Crusades. I read all the Wikipedia pages for the various crusades, and then read a book – Thomas Asbridge’s “The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land“. Given that even these basic histories contain tons of uncertainty, we’ll never really know why the Crusades turned out the way they did. But after reading up a bit, here are my takes on the main candidate explanations for why Europe ultimately lost.”

He pursue by fingering “lack of motivation” as the main cause of the loss of the Crusades. That is true, in part: Europe opened to the ocean. However, the Crusades won in important ways (opening up trade). But the Europeans also really lost, when it would have been easy to win.

Noah Smith’s analysis focuses only on the English (so to speak) aspect of the Crusades. He does not quite say that a rogue frankish army seized Constantinople in 1204 CE. And then he omits completely what happened in the Thirteenth Century (because Richard Lionhearted was then dead, and history is all about the Anglois?).

For politically correct reasons, some of them ten centuries old, some more voguish, allegations have been made of the superiority of Islam (or China, for that matter). These (often self-serving from racist self-declared anti-racists) assertions are not grounded in fact.

By 1000 CE, the Franks had the highest GDP per capita in the world, and its history. European technology was, overall, the most advanced. Europeans were stunned by how little the Chinese used machines and animals.  

The Arabic numbers were Greek numbers perfected in India, where the full zero was invented, and were reintroduced through central Asia. Out of the 160 major work of Antiquity we have, 150 survived in European monasteries, the universities of the time (and the ten remaining were saved by the Persians, initially).

The Middle East, long the cradle of most invention, has been clearly a shadow of its former self, ever since Islam established its dictator, intolerance and war friendly terrorizing culture of god obsession.

Crusades in the Middle east until 1204; The image Noah Smith uses, which misinforms the reality of what happened…

Europe didn’t “lose the Crusades”. Saint Louis did. Europe didn’t just decide the Middle East was hopeless, in all sorts of ways. Europe had got reopening of the Silk Roads from Saladin. Meanwhile in 1244, the Khwarezmians, recently pushed out by the advance of the Mongols, took Jerusalem on their way to ally with the Egyptian Mamluks. Europe shrugged (by then “Roman” emperors such as Frederick I Barbarossa had used a Muslim company of bodyguards… So there was strictly no anti-Muslim hatred and racism… contrarily to what happened with the Mongols, see below…) 

It is also true that Saint Louis, a weird mix of a dangerous religious fanatic of the worst type, and a modern, enlightened king, lost its entire army (to a woman, the only female leader Islam ever had!) in Egypt. Saint Louis was taken captive at the Battle of Fariskur where his army was annihilated. He nearly died, was saved from dysentery by an Arab physician (impressed Arabs offered for him to rule them). A huge ransom had to be paid, comparable to the French budget. Then Saint Louis died in front of Tunis, in another ridiculous crusade (1270 CE).  Louis fell ill with dysentery, and was cured by an Arab physician

The Seventh and Eight Crusades were disastrous military defeats

Saint Louis, a racist, was the direct cause of the survival of Islam. The Mongols, allied to local Franks had destroyed Baghdad (siege of the Abbasid Caliphate) and Damascus (siege of the Umayyad). The Mongols asked respectfully to make an official alliance with Christianity, and eradicate Islam.

Instead the Pope called Nestorian Christian Mongols heathens, and him and Saint Louis promised excommunication to all and any Frank joining the Mongols in war. Thus the Mongols attacked Egypt without Frankish help, and were defeated by the Mamluks Turks.

Dejected, the Mongols decided that they were Muslims (Islam has no pope, and the Caliphate had been destroyed by the Franco-Mongol alliance ) Under Timor Lame, they would carve a giant Mongol-Muslim empire all the way into India.

This is just a fraction of the common operations of the Franks and Mongols, when they were allied against the Muslims, destroying Baghdad, seizing Damascus. Saint Louis and his pet the Pope saved Islam by calling a halt to the cooperation. Mongols and Franks actually took Damascus together, and the commanders entered the conquered city, side by side…

The Spanish were more serious. They, Isabella, Ferdinand and their advisers, planned to pursue the reconquista by extirpating Islam from North Africa and the Middle East.

The extremely well-trained, battle hardened army was prepared, but then the Americas had just been discovered, and war with France for the control of the world in general and Italy in particular, became everything. Spain engaged in a war with France it took nearly two centuries to lose. The conquest of the Americas changed the world, though. The reconquest of the Christian empire from the Muslims was given up…

It could have been done: the Spanish occupied many cities of North Africa, including Algiers and Oran. Power was divided between Ottoman pirates (“Barbarossas”) and the kingdom of Tlemcen. In any case, in 1525 CE, while Cortez was conquering Central America, defeating among others, the Aztecs, pirates retook Algiers in the name of the Turk Selim 1. At the same time, Selim defeated the Egyptian Mamluks, taking control of the Levant, Mecca, and Egypt.

Islam, a pretty deleterious religion in its literal, Salafist form, survived. North Africa and the Middle East, previously long the world’s wealthiest place, is now the poorest and most war-ridden…

And the war goes on, the ideology of Salafist, literal Islam, being fundamentally antagonistic to civilization.

For the USA, the Iraq war has been an enormous victory: it boosted the price of oil for a decade, enabling the massive deployment of US fracking. Now the USA is again the world’s number one fossil fuel producer. Also French and US military forces are fighting from Mali to Afghanistan, maintaining economic and military control over an area still crucial for energy production (although it will soon become economically irrelevant, from renewable energy).  

All the regimes from Mali to Afghanistan, are, officially, friendly to civilization. So why does the war goes on? Because the ideology is islam is centered on Jihad, no holds barred. Thus Islam gives a ready ideology to those who want to make no holds barred. This is why the Turks converted to islam. Within a generation, they had invaded a huge swathe of Central Asia, and overran very old civilization: Georgia, Armenia, and the Oriental Romans (“Constantinople”).

Then Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem were massacred (up to 10,000 at one time) by various Muslim potentates. Constantinople, having lost half of its territory, to the recently converted, ferociously invading Turks, asked the “Occidental” Roman empire to come to the rescue.   

In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military intervention for the so-called Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed desperately to stop the westward invasion of the migrating Turks colonising Anatolia.

Morality of all this? What people think they know about history has little to do with what really happened. The forces presently in conflict have been in conflict ever since Islam exists, as Muhammad wanted it. The Quraish, in Mecca, the dominant tribe Muhammad belonged to, didn’t trust Muhammad: he was an analphabet and an epileptic. To boot, Muhammad succeeded in life by marrying a wealthy business woman, and then switching from caravan trading, to caravan raiding.

Just before he died, Muhammad led the first attack against the Romans (who had not attacked him, and refused combat). War is the great arbiter of human destiny. The enormous Roman field army, horrendously led erroneously, was annihilated on its third day of battle at Yarmouk against the Arab Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius, a great general had not been present, he was in Alexandria.

War is a great arbiter, but it is also extremely fickle. Crucial battles are won, and lost, which should never have been won, or lost. Sometimes by sheer happenstance, sometimes from hubris, sometimes by having top generals with top armies not considering the worst imaginable case (as happened to the Romans when fighting the Arabs at Yarmouk, or with Yamamoto at Midway, or the French mid May 1940…).

To learn from history, it has to be learned in full. Civilization missed a chance to eliminate the Islamist war ideology when it aborted the natural alliance with the Mongols. But it’s not very surprising: the overall leader of Europe, then, was Saint Louis. Saint Louis invented the modern justice system, and put his mother, Blanche de castille, in charge of France for many years. So he could be viewed as non-sexist and all for justice. He is represented to this day, rendering justice below an oak. However, Saint Louis was also a savage. He really believed that unbelievers should be killed painfully. Interestingly, Saint Louis came to believe that the Muslims were believers: his fanatical rage was oriented towards Jews and those who, in Christendom, did not believe. So it’s entirely natural that, by considering the Mongols heathens, and forbidding a further alliance with them, he would, in the end, save Islam!

It’s not just that Saint Louis burned 12,000 Jewish manuscripts in Paris, in 1243 CE (5 years before he led the disastrous Seventh Crusade). Saint Louis wrote abominable descriptions of the atrocious ways in which he would kill infidels (I read it in the original texts long ago; however, I was unable to find a source today…)

We have Jihadists around, ready to kill the innocent nowadays, because Saint Louis was actually one of them!

Patrice Ayme’

NO BEAUTY, NO IDEA!

July 3, 2017

Does creative thinking have to do with beauty? Yes it does. Mathematicians often say this, that equations, or a theory, are beautiful. But I have never come across any attempt at an explanation of why it is so. I provide the missing link here: rarity, preciousness!

Beauty Versus The Viciously Stupid Beasts:

Let me tell you a little story: for thirty years I watched four rare and endangered trees grow in a park where various animals roam (deer, raccoon, skunk, various large birds of prey, etc. A Mountain Lion was observed a kilometer away, among houses!). One of these endangered trees was a Monterey Cypress (a local, but rare tree, named after Monterey, California), another was a Yew tree (even more precious), still another a rare cedar, and another a native, but very rare now, in that area, Douglas Fir.

All those special trees had self-planted, or been planted by birds and grew on a hill next door overrun by (non-native) Blue Gum Eucalyptus and a few (non native) Monterey pines (Monterey in Mexico, not Monterey in California). I used to look at the growing Yew tree and the Monterey Cypress, and the rare cedar everyday. The city of Berkeley, which is politically correct, judged that the rare trees could only be “invasive”. They looked funny, different from Poison Oak and Eucalyptus, so they had to be invaders. 

The Yew Tree Destroyed By the PC Savages Was A Smaller, Younger Version Of That One. Beauty Shall Be Killed So Stupidity Can Rule, Say Plutocrats and their obnoxiously obsequious servants...

Poison Oak, for those who don’t know, is a plant with many different aspects, often forming impenetrable thickets, laden with the most acute carcinogen found in nature. It causes agonizing inflammation, burns readily, and inhaling its smoke, kills. Poison Oak also loves human destruction and is more present than at anytime in the Native American past. Instead of destroying endangered Yew Trees, one should destroy the square miles of Poison Oak in Berkeley…

In any case, the Politically Correct city send crews to search and destroy the four trees (located in four different places, hundreds of meters distant). They left the hundreds of Blue Gum Eucalyptus (originally from Tasmania) alone, and targeted the rare and precious conifers. Those trees were my friends.

But I shouldn’t not have been too surprised my friends got destroyed. I talked in the past with crews cutting trees, and they are so incredibly ignorant, I could bore readers with a long list of their absurdities. They view endangered trees as dangerous aliens.

While some were destroying some trees they viewed as invasive once, I asked them why they didn’t plant sequoias. They told me sequoias didn’t grow in the sun (false).

This tree cutting mania is grave: as fire chiefs point out, it augments considerably the risk of fire, as trees get replaced by chaparral.  In coastal California, trees catch fog and make rain, especially conifers. But PC cities keep on cutting. Just like they keep on calling themselves “Sanctuary Cities” when all they are, to tell the truth,  “Slave Cities”, where terrorized unlawful immigrants work quasi for free.

***

Do they hate Trump so much because, deep down inside, they’re so much like him?

This tree annihilation by the PC crowd made me reflect on the Trump hatred. Many friends I used to have make hysterically hateful discourses against Trump, and, often said even worse things against me. When I asked them why the hatred, they tended to redouble their insults and “block” me.

In retrospect, I had problems with them well before Trump appeared on their radar (Trump had been on my radar for decades, and I viewed him as the poster boy of what was wrong with US banking; I still do).

Attributing all the violence of US society to Trump is beyond ridiculous. It is beyond ridiculous, but it’s efficient, because it’s a cover-up. The violence of anti-Trump protesters is an attempt for them to pretend that they disagree with a system they profit from so much that they don’t intent to change it.

How do I know they don’t intent to change it? Because they propose nothing new. (For example Obamacare does not work, but democrats don’t have a replacement plan; result: Republicans argue among themselves!)

***

NO BEAUTY, NO IDEA:

The violence perpetrated against beautiful trees by Politically Correct cities in parks which are supposed to be natural is a tell tale sign. Anybody with a sane mind would stop before destroying obviously rare trees. But not here: they are searched, and destroyed. What is the mood behind that?

Is there in the USA, more of a desire to search for beauty, and destroy it, than, say in more civilized places? Could it be that this is related to the fact that the US enjoys an extremely ugly healthcare system, an even uglier tax system, the highest incarceration rate, and the highest birth death rate among advanced countries?

Could that also be related to the fact so many of my friends turn against me well before they became conscious of Trump? After all, like those trees, I was different. So I had to be cut down.

How could this psychological mechanism work exactly? Anything beautiful is beautiful because it’s rare. Anything rare does not belong in the herd, except if it is the leader. But, in some countries, herd following is valued more than in others. Now here is the rub: any really new thought is initially not just rare, but infuriating to those who didn’t think of it first.

Hence any society which does not have a great sense and appreciation of beauty, of what is rare, does not have a great sense and appreciation of the human spirit.

***

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer, Ein USA!

In many ways, the USA is the world’s most conservative country: Trump is no accident, but a system. US has led on CO2 pollution since ever. The USA clings, alone in the world, to obsolete units of measurements from the Middle Ages. But, most of all, among advanced countries, it clings to the idea of “leaders”. European… leaders were a bit taken aback when they went to Camp David, and Obama and his goons referred to them as “leaders”, in an obsessive manner. “Leader”. Shall we translate “Leader” in German?

Leader (ˈliːdəʳ  ) noun

  1. Führer m (Führerin) (f)
    1. [of union, party] Vorsitzende m f (Vorsitzender) (m adj)
      1. (military) Befehlshaber m (Befehlshaberin) (f)
    2. [of gang, rebels] Anführer m (Anführerin) (f)
    3. [of expedition, project, choir] Leiter m (Leiterin) (f)
      1. (sport, in league) Tabellenführer m

The USA is Führer obsessed. Young people in the USA, in the Space cadet mentality, better take a leadership school if they want to be esteemed by all sorts of authorities. Outward Bounds, Scouts, NOLS (National Outdoors Leadership School), etc

Here is Zuck, the Facebook Führer. Zuck says: Facebook is new church where “Leaders set the culture, inspire us, give us a safety net, and look out for us.”

Facebook will give people a sense that they are part of “something bigger than ourselves” akin to a religion. A religion where the showing of the human female breast brings exclusion. As I said, the US is a very conservative country. And Zuck Zuck his prophet. Zuck Zuck has beaucoup brains, he looks out for us:

As I’ve traveled around and learned about different places, one theme is clear: Every great community has great leaders. Think about it. A church doesn’t just come together. It has a pastor who cares for the well-being of their congregation, makes sure they have food and shelter.”

Amen, Zuck Zuck. (Because he pays little taxes, Zuck Zuck is a very great man working for CIA, so as we wait for him to become also president as another great CIA puppet-men did, one gives hospitals his name…)

This is all pretty ugly, and it’s no wonder that, of all countries, since 1990, the USA has been the most ardent defender of fossil fuels. Because getting rid of fossil fuels was a new idea… And great undermining great US superiority. (Add the college dropouts.)

***

The idea that we need leaders to think, get inspired and see is the very crux of the plutocratic mood: 

Zuck Zuck Zuckerberg is not just a parody, he is a paradigm. Only leaders can provide with the culture, the inspiration, the safety, and looking out for us. Because, presumably, we have no eyes to look out with.

This means that a few college dropouts like Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Branson (recently hosting Obama on one of his private islands), Ellison (Oracle, owner of the sixth largest island in the Hawai’i archipelago), Dell, Ted Turner, the first of all the Rothschild never went to school. Such ignoramuses are supposed to lead the world. And lead they do, and did. College dropout and Nazi startup genius, Henry Ford, was the first, and crucial financier of the Nazi Party…Hitler owed Ford everything, and let it be known.

The whole strength of democracy is that ideas come from the multitude, all the brains in parallel. That’s what made Athens incomparable: 80,000 could debate with each other, think back and forth. The Achaemenid Persian empire, although ultramodern and remarkable in many ways, had too few thinkers and they were afraid to think aloud. China, overall, had the same problem, especially under the unifying emperor Qin, who had a liking for burning books and burying scholars.

Intellectual fascism got even worse under hyper Catholic Rome, circa 400 CE; in both cases, books were burned as if there were no tomorrow. It’s no coincidence that Rome and China got crazy roughly at the same time, in the same way (Rome knew of China very well, and we have reports of Chinese visitors singing the praises of Rome)…

Calling to be led by leaders in matter of culture, inspiration, safety and even vision, as Facebook wants to do, is as ugly as it gets, it tells people creative individual thinking is a sin. It tells them new ideas should not sprout.

***

A new idea is rare: so rare, because it never existed before. And it is precious. “Precious” comes from the latin for expensive, costly. How costly? Because the brain uses up to 43% of the energy a human being consumes. Thus a new idea, a new organization of some networks in the brain is costly in energy, it’s precious, hence beautiful…

Patrice Ayme’

We War, Or We Are Not: Chimpanzees On Patrol

June 29, 2017

WAR AS “COLLECTIVE INTENTIONALITY” IN CHIMPANZEES, And HOW:

Most advanced animals are territorial. (It’s also true at sea: that was discovered with Orcas, Killer Whales, recently: the high sea races don’t mix genetically and culturally with the land-hugging races!)

Where does this territoriality come from? Researchers have no guesses. I do: it’s as simple as supposing that animals are smart. I run through the woods all the time among dangerous animals, and I can see them thinking fast, across many species, and adjusting their attitude accordingly.

It’s easy to see why, economically speaking, territoriality should arise. Economy means: environmental management. At this point many feel like writing a few equations that would justify everything, and such equations have been written, and those who wrote them achieved fame.

Equations tie concepts together. Concepts which can be measured. However, one has to be careful. The case of gravitation is famous. The master equation, call it Einstein’s equation, says:

Curvature = Mass-Energy

As Einstein himself pointed out, the right hand-side is not well-defined. However, one can still draw non-trivial consequences from it. But do those “prove” the equation? No.

Posing With That Special Attitude Can Speak Louder Than Words!

Researchers used 20 years of data from Ngogo in Uganda to explore collective action in chimpanzees.

When male chimpanzees patrol the boundaries of their territories they walk silently in single file.

Normally chimps are noisy: it’s a deliberate tactic to scare everybody. But on patrol they’re like silent death. They sniff the ground and stop to listen for sounds. Their cortisol and testosterone levels are jacked 25 percent higher than normal. Chances of contacting conspecific enemies are high: 30 percent.

Ten percent of patrols result in violent fights where they hold victims down and bite, tear, hit, kick and stomp them to death. It has been observed that a chimpanzee tribe could completely annihilate one next door.

The result of these savage acts of war? A large, safe territory rich with food, longer lives, and new young females wandering into the group.

Territorial boundary patrolling by chimpanzees is one of the most dramatic forms of collective action in mammals. Patrolling, and killing, together benefits the group, whether individual chimps took part in the action, or not.

Some Chimps In The ASU Study, While On Patrol

A team — led by Arizona State University Assistant Professor Kevin Langergraber of the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the Institute of Human Origins — examined 20 years of data on who participated in patrols in a 200-member-strong Ngogo community of chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda.

Males joined 33 percent of patrols that occurred when they were in the group and young enough to take part. Young females have been observed to join patrols.

The behavior is evidence of what’s called group augmentation theory. What is good for the group is ultimately good for the individual. Some sacrifice from each member translates into a larger, safer group. By 2009, the Ngogo chimpanzees expanded their territory by 22 percent over the previous decade.

“Free riders may increase their short-term reproductive success by avoiding the costs of collective action,” Langergraber’s team wrote, “but they do so at the cost of decreasing the long-term survival of the group if it fails to grow or maintain its size; nonparticipants suffer this cost alongside the individuals they had cheated.”

“Cost” though, is a human concept tied to record keeping.

Chimpanzees are one of the few mammals in which inter-group warfare is a major source of mortality. Chimps in large groups have been reported to kill most or all of the males in smaller groups over periods of months or even many years, acquiring territory in the process. Territorial expansion can lead to the acquisition of females who bear multiple infants. It also increases the amount of food available to females in the winning group, increasing their fertility.

The researchers found no consequences for those chimpanzees that did not join patrols (but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist). Most studies have focused on short term benefits of cooperation, said lead researcher Kevin Langergraber, “but our study shows the benefit of long-term data collection, and also that we still have a lot to learn from these chimpanzees.”

Male chimpanzees remain in the group they were born in their entire lives (females wander to settle somewhere else). Because they can live for more than 50 years, patrolling when they’re young produces personal future benefits.

However, if they don’t patrol, there aren’t any consequences — no sidelong glances, snubs or being chased out of the group, claims anthropologist David Watts of Yale University, who worked with Langergraber on the study.

“We know from a lot of theoretical and empirical work in humans and in some other specialized, highly cooperative societies — like eusocial insects — that punishment by third parties can help cooperation evolve,” Watts said. “But it doesn’t seem to us that chimpanzees punish individuals who do not patrol. Sometimes individuals will be present when a patrol starts, and thus have the opportunity to join the patrol but fail to do so. As far as we can see, these individuals do not receive any sort of punishment when this occurs.”

Chimpanzees are extremely intelligent, but usually they aren’t considered to be capable of what’s called “collective intentionality,” which allows humans to have mutual understanding and agreement on social conventions and norms.

“They undoubtedly have expectations about how others will behave and, presumably, about how they should behave in particular circumstances, but these expectations presumably are on an individual basis,” Watts said. “They don’t have collectively established and agreed-on social norms.”

What Watts seems to want to say is that he didn’t see punishment. Thus, he says, there is no enforcement of norms. Thus there are no norms. Thus norms were not collectively established.

There are several problems with this reasoning. First all is not stick: there is also the carrot. A chimp may not be punished, but them he may lost opportunity. One opportunity lost? The pleasure of the hunt of the biggest game, fellow chimp, the pleasure of killing.

To expects animals establish norms as we do is, with all due respect, a bit silly. They do it, as we do when we don’t have language at our disposal.

“… this tendency of humans to cooperate in large groups and with unrelated individuals must have started somewhere,” Watts said. “The Ngogo group is very large (about 200 individuals), and the males in it are only slightly more related to one another than to the males in the groups with which they are competing. Perhaps the mechanisms that allow collective action in such circumstances among chimpanzees served as building blocks for the subsequent evolution of even more sophisticated mechanisms later in human evolution.”

Yes, sure. And what are these mechanisms? Can we imagine them?

We know how WE do it in civilization, and the million of years before that: we talk. We talk digitally, enabling us to communicate extremely precise information: this is the interest of equations.

What did we do before digital speech? Well we could whistle and do other sounds… which animals readily understand: a whining sound in humans of the sort my seven-year old daughter is expert at when she wants cake, is readily understood by a dog from 100 feet away. And by another 500 species besides.

There are other languages: action, gestures… They can vary. Most animals though, understand man is the top dog. I have been charged by bull elks, weighing 1,000 pounds, horns down, until they realized I was no mountain lion. Similarly, a bear or lion will immediately be reminded of human supremacy, from just the proper attitude. Then they instantaneously deduce they should moderate their rage, hunger, and other animals spirits inhabiting them.

The point is that they reason. They fear humans not “instinctively”, but because they were taught, by parents, or circumstances. Chimpanzees are also taught. From their first months on Earth. Then they deduce, in particular, friend from foe. Friends are in the tribe, foes are not in the tribe.

When I run in a National Park, all the dangerous animals out there, even the dangerous snakes, not just the bears, lions and various ungulates, know who I am, even before meeting me in person. They also know what a creature such as me is expected to do: left alone, I, and my ilk, will leave them alone.

So the missing link is that animals spent a lot of time thinking: their lives depend upon it.

“Collective Intentionality” results from all this collective thinking out of the same initial conditions. Chimps, from the earliest ager, learn that defending their traditional fruit trees enable them to survive, because they need to eat, to survive. And so on… It’s basic neurogenesis…

Patrice Ayme’

Two Monks And A Woman

June 24, 2017

All knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge

***

Two monks and a woman” is a well-known “Buddhist” story (although Taoists also view it as theirs). Let me recount one version of the story, and its most common explanation. Then I will add that there is much more to this version of the story than said “explanation”. The usual explanation criticizes the younger monk, whereas I will explain the older one’s motivations. Trust me to twist fairy tales into other dimensions!

Two Monks and a Woman – a Zen Lesson

A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.

Women Caused Lots Of Problems To The Wisdom Of Old

The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.

Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the woman, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his 
journey.

The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened. After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.

Two more hours passed, then three, finally the younger monk could contain himself any longer, and blurted out “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”

The older monk looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”

***

Here is the traditional pious comment on this story:

This Zen story reveals a message about living in the present moment. How often do we carry around past hurts, holding onto resentments when the only person we are really hurting is ourselves? We all go through times in life when other people say things or behave in a way that is hurtful towards us. We can chose to ruminate over past actions or events, but it will ultimately weigh us down and sap our energy. Instead we can choose to let go of what doesn’t serve us anymore and concentrate on the present moment. Until we can find a level of peace and happiness in the present circumstances of our lives, we will never be content, because ‘now’ is all we will ever have.

***

There is much more to this story than just that it feels good to let go of resentment, and thus that eschewing resentment maximizes contentment: The older monk exerts judgment. He goes meta, comes out of the box: the senior monk captures the fundamental meaning of “not touching women”. Clearly crossing a dangerous river does not engage the same neurology and neurohormones as those involved in sex and reproduction. Instead, the older monk realizes that this is all about engaging the mental machinery of survival and care, a completely different mindset, noble and human in the best way.

(The preceding, realizing which neurology is appropriate to a situation at hand, relates to the problem of US healthcare: it conflates fundamentally two opposite mentalities, two neurologies which hate each other, care and greed.)

Thus the older monk sees the higher purpose, and sets himself to accomplish it. As it has only to do with surviving a river, it’s easy to forget, when the river is long gone.

However, the mind of the younger monk focused on the woman being a woman, and what monks are not supposed to do with women, although he wants very much to do it; the junior monk does not focus on the noble observation that the woman is in danger from the river.

***

Don’t Make Fun Of War, It Will Always Win, And Some:  

One can go one step further in the meta-analysis: why should we resent resentment? Resentment is a mental agency. It’s not exactly the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, but it has a somewhat similar inner purpose, providing a motivation to find out what really is going on. As all mental agencies, resentment evolved because it responded to some purpose. Here is a little Taoist story to enlighten us here:

All the people in the world are gathered in one room, and God asks, “Who wants world peace?” Everybody raises their hand except one man. God asks, “Who wants a war?” The one man raises his hand. God points at him and says, “He wins!”

Right, mosquitoes don’t care: lack of enlightenment is only a problem to the enlightened. Mosquitoes don’t resent, either (but even flies know fear, recent stories show!)

The older monk crosses the river with a woman on his back, because he cares. Mosquitoes care only about one thing. The older monk cares about accomplishing a good action, which will make him feel good, enlightened, and light, thereafter. The younger monk cares too, but not the sort of care which is just a gift to the other.

Resentment can be good when it leads us to feel again (that’s what re-sentment means!) what the emotional landscape was, and whether it was handled optimally thereafter. Not just handled optimally by us, but by others, and by the hand of fate. Amusingly, modern neurology is on the side of resentment: most of “feelings” actually originate in re-entrant circuitry. So most perception can be looked at as resentment! (Roll over, Friedrich Nietzsche!)

Homo is a thinking being, or is not. A wise human explains things. A wise cockroach, with its million neurons takes care of number one, itself! Munching over what happened, and why, and whether it could have been different, and better, if it had been different is not necessary idle thinking, because establishing theories is what humans do, and what human culture is made of. If resentment helps, so be it. Just as, if principles obstruct higher principles, they have to make way.

Patrice Ayme’ 

Islam: Religion Of Fighting, Says Caliph!

June 10, 2017

[Those who are tired of my all too learned discourses, should go directly to the smart, yet simple, video linked below; and suffer through the first minute of half deserved “conservative” rant, before the interesting part.]

Strange Disease Of Islamophilia Condemned By Youth, At Last!

The admiration for, and lies about, Literal Islam, is the miracle which keeps on giving. To world plutocrats.

Islam took over what had been, for millennia, the richest, most innovative and most civilized part of the world, and turned it into the poorest, dumbest, and most war-torn wastes, until oil was found. Any question?

Well, some had questions. As the president of Senegal, Abu Diouf, said, Saudi style, Salafist Wahhabi Islam is “not my religion”. This is why 100 severely different versions of Islam were created. In opposition to Salafist Islam. However, Salafist Islam is now propelled by Arabian oil (and Wall Street, and Washington power standing behind since the 1930s: the swamp Trump talks about is full of oil…) 

The Caliph has spoken. In Some Ways, The “Islamist State” Is More Honest Than Main Stream Intellectuals In The West

A young and slick Utuber looked into ‘Avallone Hunter’,  looked into Islam, and made a good job at it. He particularly got it right on “moderate Muslims”, who, according to the Qur’an are hypocrites, thus to be killed. Anyway, the video is good, once you pass the gratuitous attack and passing conflation of “progressives” with their opposites, at the beginning of the work (I am a progressive, so I didn’t appreciate that!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d8GDo49QKY

Do not despair of youth: they learn. Showing in great numbers, contrarily to habit, and expectations, the less than 24 years old just helped Theresa May, the plutocratic fanatic UK PM, lose her majority in the UK Parliament. The youth in the UK is pro-Europe and anti-xenophobic. They know more, and have a more appropriate mood than their elders. Alleluia! Terrorism will go away, once the youth is aware of why it appeared in the first place.

The “West” by the way, is the descendant, in more ways than one, some cultural, some genetics, of that richest, most innovative, and most civilized part of the world, which I call not the Middle East, but the Middle Earth, because it is what it is.

Italians are partly, genetically, Iraqis: Mesopotamians migrated over to the north shore of the Mediterranean, with their bio-engineered grain and know-how, bringing themselves and agriculture. 5,000 years before Greek civilization. This migration was recently genetically traced through the islands of the Aegean. Much “Greek” math was Egyptian, Sumer cities, 5,000 years ago, started the alphabet, and “Europa” was a Phoenician Princess (who travelled over to present day Europe; actually she would have been kidnapped…)

Considering the logic of Islam, it’s easy to see why all the gold it touches turns to poisonous mercury. Islam is an essentially hypocritical faith, saying science has to be pursued, but then “disbelievers” have to be killed. That’s, at best, absurd: how can one develop science without disbelief? How can want to develop science without feeling that creation, as it happened, is not perfect, but, instead, requires thorough explanation?Doesn’t Islam say we should stick to revelation, as transmitted by Mr. Messenger, an epileptic analphabet hallucinating in the desert?

Islam seems to have aimed at making into a capital offense all and any behavior that would not make Muslims reproduce like rabbits, to feed those vast armies of conquerors and jihadists. So women are supposed to be baby machines, and any man not inclined to engross them, within strict guidelines, is a traitor.

This all happened in the lifetime of one person. The Ferocity Of Islam Insured Fast, Gigantic Conquests, Before Resistance Could Be Mustered. After the tremendous defeats of Islam at the hands of the Franks, Islam was broken, never to grow again until very recently… (Except for the conquest of Turkey, and the slow drip into Africa…)

Islam is the war religion par excellence, and Adolf Hitler admired it for that.

The irony, of course, is that the Islam superstition, by separating men and women, is intrinsically homosexual: after, men are supposed to be with men, and women, with women. Actually, it’s even better than that:  women are supposed to be out of sight. So Muslim men intrinsically only love to have around other men, they have androphilia (men loving men).

The ferocity with which homosexuals are killed in Islam is precisely because Islam is so homosexual. It’s both a lie and a lifeline. An attempt to disguise what is going while avoiding the accusation of sodomy by the West which helped to destroy the Aztecs.

Violence in Islam is no accident, coincidence or consequence. It’s intrinsic. Violence, the violence of armies, is what made Islam possible. In a few years, Islam conquered the largest empire the world had ever known. Precisely because those who (claim to) die for Allah are promised paradise.

The question then becomes: why did such a monster superstition become an object of adoration on the part of so many intellectuals in the West?

Because many intellectuals in the West developed a hatred for civilization, shortly before or coincident and causally related to Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism and Maoism… Much of the anti-colonialist struggle, however justified, resorted to hating civilization all together… Although it’s civilization which had made it possible in the first place!

Many intellectuals became rich, powerful and influential this way. Hating civilization became their business model. And in Islam they found an ideology which had been created to hate the “West”, the Greco-Roman empire, and also the other civilization, the Persian Sassanid empire. Muhammad led the first attack against Rome. Within ten years, Persia was destroyed and the richest parts of the Roman empire had been conquered by the Islamists.

Muhammad didn’t see it: he died by surprise, in great pain, screaming on his deathbed in Mecca, for days, that he had been poisoned. By fellow Muslims.

That’s the drawback of a lethal, dictator friendly religion: it kills a lot.

So many Western intellectuals loved Islam, because Islam hated the “West”, and they, themselves, made a (dishonest) profession of hating the “West” (which fed them so well). The hater of my enemy is my friend, some say, forgetting about crocodiles, which show that the eater of their enemy is not really friendly. So did Hitler love Islam, and hate the “West”. In general, plutocrats hate civilization, so they are natural enemies of Islam.

The Qur’an orders to follow dictators as if they were god, as long as they are Muslims… Consider:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/god-hates-democracy/

US oilmen and sneaky British imperialists saw, as early as the 1930s, that they would gain by instrumentalizing Islam. So here we are. All Islam propaganda goes through Western fibers and satellites.

The problem of Islam is thus way larger than just Islam. Yes, Islam is the religion of desert raiding, it was established that way by a caravan raider. Yes, Islam is ideal for brutal military conquerors, and dictators, thus many of these, from the Turks to the Mongols, adopted it. But Islam is more than that. Islam is an ideology, one of many, of the sort which serve a much bigger species of monsters, always devouring civilizations. Islam is the tool of something maximally monstrous: unchained, free ranging plutocracy.  

Let’s finish on a lighter, enlightening note on how public opinion gets durably molded. I just saw a Suisse Romande report on what happened in 1971, when six high level reporters and producers were fired from TSR (called RTS now), the state (and only) French-speaking TV in Switzerland.

The present Swiss TV, RTS was able to access the documentation of the time, and interviewed both the leftists and the police officers, or their superiors, involved at the time. Basically what happened is that there was a “political police” in Switzerland (it was secret that there was a political police). So important TV personalities and producers were followed by the secret police and information was gathered anonymously (as Google, Facebook and company are doing now). Patterns were established: some were living with someone else while not married, some were heard saying things which were deemed to be revolutionary. In the end the secret police sent a list of six persons, asking them to be fired. The TV TSR did so. TSR accused the six of “subversion and sabotage“. It was alleged that they had relations with foreign powers (Cuba).

The six fired alleged defamation (in truth they were simple middle class, with nearly no rebellious spirit about them, and no connection with organizations or foreign powers). There was a trial for defamation; the chief of the federal police (equivalent to the FBI) came and said the TSR was justified, so the judges sided with the TV channel. All of this happened because those six wrote TV shows disturbing to the political class. (They more or less won in appeal, because the Federal police chief was unwilling to reveal a secret police was spying on the citizenry). However those six and others connected to them were excluded from TV, and thus wide influence, for the next thirty years… These sorts of manipulations is happening all over the world, making sure that We The People think and feels just what the ascending plutocracy cares about (like sport teams scores).

To this day, one of two principals in this affair, Rene’ Schenker, says that he cannot tell what happened, because if he did, justice would have to re-open an inquiry. The other principal obeying orders from above says that: “Yes, we fired with canon at flies“.  This is still happening. Look at the New York Times: it bans all my comments, one of many media to do so. The idea is that my ideas and observations should not be known. Probably thousands of others are in the same situation (interesting commenters have disappeared at the NYT). However, the New York Times enjoys privileges (say sits in attendance at the White House). Thus a propaganda system is established: Islamophobia is racism, Obama is a great progressive, etc… If Islamophobia is racist, any analysis of why Islam, that enemy of the Middle Earth, re-appeared, coincident with the supremacy of oil and Wall Street, and the discussion of the deal with Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1945, is excluded. And so on.

Last week, I read some extracts of the Qur’an to good, left, progressive, socialist, rabidly pro-Clinton voters, sensitive souls who cried when Trump got elected instead. It was a little experiment, but I was surprised by their overwhelming incredulity. They were astounded, they were aghast, they couldn’t believe it, their gaping mouths went into huge Os. They were so astounded, they thought I was making it up, and they came over to read the Qur’an by themselves. They had never did it before, but they though they knew Islam… Strange times, indeed… All too many people do not even know what it is to know. They feel they know, what they couldn’t possibly know… except if they believed fully whatever the authorities want them to believe.

Patrice Ayme’

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