Archive for the ‘Systems Of Thought’ Category

Better Rationality Forces “Irrational” Jumps

May 15, 2019

It’s reasonable to expect people to NOT behave reasonably. Especially innovators.” Discuss.

This essay below is a set of trivial remarks, however, they apparently need to be made. It is standard to oppose and contrast “reason” and “irrationality“. The idea, the hidden axiom in this, classically taken for granted since the so-called Enlightenment, is that the two domains, reason and unreason, are mutually exclusive. However, that’s not correct: reason and unreason are entangled. One doesn’t go without the other. Indeed, the elaboration of any new logic requires to break or supercede the preceding logic. Thus the act of creation of significantly new logic can always be called irrational… from the preceding logic’s reference frame.

Any logic L1 is derived from a finite number of axioms. Any discovery, itself factual, emotional or… logical, if not a consequence of these preceding axioms will require another logic L2. Going from L1 to L2 is only logical in a Meta Logic, LM. In any case L2 and LM are NOT rational in L1. That means irrationality is what feeds rationality!

Thus one sees that one needs irrationality to perfect new, better, improved rationality. Hence, one can see that any better system of thought is going to be attacked as irrational… Because, in a sense, the old sense, it always is so. One may even say that any major advance in understanding, a change of paradigm, will be characterized as not just appearing, but being “irrational“. [1]

Suppose a logic L1 is found to have just ONE flawed axiom. Then one needs to change the axiomatics of L1, and a completely new logic is born, L2. It may, or may not, contain the logic L1. The nature of the change is decided by the application of still another logic, a metalogic, LM.

The jump from L1 to another logic L2 should be called “well ordered” when L2 contains L1. For example turning Newtonian style gravitation into a field theory (a turn initiated I think by Laplace, and fully exploited by Einstein and company), created a theory with a finite interaction speed which contains Newton’s theory. (Well ordering corresponds to L1 being a subcategory of L2…)

By the way, Sub Quantic Physical Reality, my own SQPR, does exactly this finite interaction speed trick to Quantum Theory (L1), and Dark Matter pops out… To use set theory symbolic: QM C SQPR, so the logical switch is well-ordered… (On the other hand, MOND theories, which have been proposed to dispel DM, are not well ordered with Newton gravitation…)

The  shock from L1 to L2 can be brutal, especially when L1 contains blatant lies, or, even worse, excruciating stupidities. An example is the creation of the world according to Jesus and company: creating all the world 6,000 years ago was immensely stupid. Indeed, it used to be well known that animals evolved, since domestication exists (the last 10,000 years in the most advanced parts). A mix of human and natural selection was practiced in ancient Greece, 25 centuries ago to breed world famous superior cattle…. Switching from “God” having created all the species 6,000 years ago to what people have practiced for 10,000 years required more than recognizing one’s naivety. Those who believed in the 6,000 year old magic (that included Newton, it is said…) found very hard to switch to the obvious, as they had to admit they were idiots, to have believed in a stupid theory… Or as it compromised the Christian church and its associated fascist imperialism. For example, Napoleon threatened Lamarck in various ways, as Napoleon was keen to show his attachment to the Christian view of the world.

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck handing the book ‘Zoological Philosophy’ to Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, 1920 (pastel on paper) by Ezuchevsky, Mikhail Dmitrievich (1880-1928); State Darwin Museum, Moscow.  The French naturalist research professor at the prestigious Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, Lamarck (1744-1829) published ‘Philosophie zoologique’ in 1809. In it, Lamarck outlined two new mechanisms to fosters evolution (which he had demonstrated on mollusk fossils). One corresponds to present day epigenetics… The other is probably true, as a consequence of Quantum Theory (to be demonstrated in the future)… Lamarck, having demonstrated evolution scientifically, as a process over millions of years, was hated by the Christian Church… and thus Napoleon. Lamarck is wearing the costume of a member of the Institut de France. Lamarck had become a member of the French Academy of Sciences in 1779, 30 years exactly before his confrontation with Napoleon. Anglo-Saxon ideology dislikes Lamarck, as he was outlawed in English universities. Lyell and Darwin were instructed in his science at Edinburgh, Scotland, more than a decade after the scene above.

Another example: I believe there is only a finite number of numbers, and probably most people who know mathematics will accuse me to be crass ignorant as they would (erroneously) believe in the simple, elementary school 3,000 year old demonstration of infinity… which I can demonstrate is false, and then, rendered perfectly mad by the fact they didn’t see something obvious would scream I deny calculus too (no, calculus works in computers, and computers use only a finite number of operations).

We are in times, and in a situation, where an unimaginable catastrophe is upon us. We need new ideas, new emotions, completely new logic. We will be called names and threatened as we propose them. My daughter’s elementary school proposed to install a gigantic, very expensive ($200,000) artificial grass cum artificial toxic soil, field containing at least three different products know by the State of California to cause cancer (that’s “California Proposition 65“): urethane, (artificial) silica sand, polyurethane… As my spouse pointed this out to the school administration, our daughter, the best student, overall, at her grade level (nota bene), was threatened with immediate expulsion, if we talk to ANYONE about this, through “ANY medium”, and “similar activities”. Somebody is getting something out of this, and we don’t know what it is… But they are really angry about it.

That, while the Secretary of the United Nations just declared war on plastics… Sure enough, the USA was one of a few nations, in contrast to 187, which refused to sign an amendment to the Basel Convention on pollution addressing plastic [2]. Since I don’t like increased plastic usage, either, it makes sense that my daughter be threatened with expulsion.

So you see, any change, even something as simple as any proposition to keep natural grass, is hard, and can involve unforeseen dangers, and punishment with outrageous injustice… and threats against children are an old stand-by: how can the little ones defend themselves?

Changes of logics are hard, so everybody prefer to defend their own turf. All too many ecologists hate nuclear: that’s so simple. Never mind that nuclear gives us life, in more than one way… Right now, 93% of the energy created in 2019 (“primary energy production”) is from MAKING CO2. To diminish this only a massive effort on the three forms of nuclear energy (fission, thorium, fusion) and hydrogen (for storage of renewable energy) can work. Solar is not enough.

What human beings do best, is changing logics. This is also most expensive, and thus what they hate, & resist most fiercely: their advantage, or their survival, is at stake. It’s all about turf. Logical turf in the situations we consider. You see, there is only a limited amount of turf available, mental or physical. To avoid having too much people on a single piece of turf, the species has evolved to engage into violence against each other. That makes the stakes of human logical evolution quite high: those who don’t think correctly are threatened with extinction. In real life. Just as species are extinguished if they are not fit enough, in real life.

All this is very practical: it explains a lot of the hatred around. it is also crucial for advancing science at the highest level. Newton famously debated these questions extensively, modifying the editions of his Principia accordingly, and hiding carefully the existence of a meta logic which had driven him, as he admitted in previous editions! Du Chatelet, writing a bit later was much better on all this, but she was a woman… So only Newton left his mark, all too long…

All this to say that, to think anew is to suffer… if not between the ears, certainly, from others…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Kuhn may, or may not, have said this, in his famous book on the “Structure of Scientific Revolutions“.

***

[2] The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal, which is backed by 187 countries excluding the U.S…

Roasting Shakespeare and Rousseau… As FADS Corrupting The Youth.

April 24, 2019

Maybe many people are stupid and base because, while young and naive, they were ordered to read stupid, base stories and obligated to find them smart, elevated. That inversion of all clear values surely would cause TDS (Total Derangement Syndrome, in particular, the Trump obsession). That would be particularly true if focusing on literature too much: science. being a description of truth, can’t be stupid, not base, it’s just reality.

Jean Jacques Rousseau is particularly famous, a reference on property:

Was there anything ever written more stupid than that? Yes. But not as famous and respected.

Rousseau never heard of chimps’ behavior, and didn’t have the slightest sense of ecology, let alone common sense. But his ignorance was most seductive to those who are ignorant… or wanted to promote ignorance, so as to better exploit “fellow” men. And exploit women, as JJ Rousseau did!

[After reading the first version of this essay, my most voracious reader told me ferociously that I completely misunderstood the statement of Rousseau above. According to that vision, Rousseau agreed with me, and simply insisted that the first to stake a land grab claim was the founder of civil society… Something Rousseau approved. Instead I persist and sign that Rousseau didn’t understand that, to be an agriculturist, one needs to take care of a particular piece of land, and defend it against others, including all sorts of pests and vermin, such as insects, rats, birds, etc. This defense is called “ownership”.]

In truth, the Earth belongs to us all. It’s our common wealth, and we can destroy Her. Or more exactly, we are presently destroying the biosphere, which we threaten, relatively short-term with a stupendous rise of temperature of 14 degrees Celsius (first 6 degrees, then clouds will disappear, computer model made in 2019 show, explaining a few temperature jumps which happened in the last 300 million years). Then only the poles will be livable… Baring spectacular jumps in science and technology enabling us to terraform Earth Herself….

No, civilization is not just that. It also enabled Rousseau to write, created Paris, Geneva… Bread. No wonder we got Hitler from this sort of wormich thinking.

Another adulated author, among the great traditionals, is Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet is probably his most famous work. Here what friend John Michael Gartland thinks of it:

Romeo and Juliet is not a Love story. It’s a 3-day relationship between a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old that caused 6 deaths. The six people who die in Shakespeare’s romantic bloodbath Romeo and Juliet:

1. Tybalt killed Mercutio because Lover boy Romeo wouldn’t fight, so Mercutio dies.

2. Romeo cowboys up and kills Tybalt because Romeo wanted revenge, blood lust.

3. Insane killer boy Romeo kills Paris because Paris was trying to stop him. (Well…that escalated fast).

4. Romeo kills himself because he thought Juliet was dead. Fake news.

5. Juliet killed herself because Romeo was dead). Romeo Derangement Syndrome, get a grip girl, it was a one night stand and we are now finding out that the blood-thirsty boy has a nasty temper).

6. Lady Montague (Romeo’s mom) died of a heart attack because of the grief over her son Romeo. (Really sad )

Sex gives love a bad rap…

Excellent analysis, JMG! More generally, one may wonder why people love murder, horror and deranged stories so much… While claiming to be all about the opposite. Aren’t these same people claiming they are good and wholesome, indeed? What’s so fascinating to them about madness, that one should glorify it? And claim the description of particularly insane and base forms of it to be the greatest works of writing there is? What’s so inspiring there? What is the hope, the vision, the encouragement to greater goodness or more profound thinking?

My own mom, who just passed away, used to tell me that she prefered facts to fiction. Thus, she preferred to read about science, history, geography, real people. She read continually. She also read novels, but not as much. Indeed, the real world is big enough… and disheartening enough, all too much: who needs meek human imagination? Yes, sometimes imagination soars, but only if it is exceptional. Why to love so much to wallop in hopeless misery? Why to embrace gloom and doom novels full of human madness?… And no, this is not an attack against Les Miserables and, or Hugo. Hugo gave a message of hope, in often unparalleled prose… And his description of reality was also often mesmerizing and instructive.

I am not advocating not to read Shakespeare or Rousseau. But they are among the great classics, like Hegel and Kant… Or Freud for that matter, or Marx, thinkers whose reputation is overdone, while deeper thinkers are scrupulously ignored… and some of these ignored, deeper, thinkers are women; ignoring women thinkers, especially if deep, is a must in fascist society.

A good example of an ignored thinker is Jean Meslier, an 18th-century French Catholic priest who was discovered, upon his death, to have written a book promoting atheism, while attacking Christianism with rarely seen before realistic ferocity. Voltaire acquired, to great cost, an original copy of Meslier’s work. Then he proceeded to steal and distort his work.

For that matter, what about reading about the Cathars? The Cathars has many observations which should seem cogent today….

Let’s fight FADS… Famous Authors Derangement Syndrome!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: Ignoring deeper thinkers is particularly dramatic in science, and extends from science to the natural evolution of systems of thought, which it mangles to the point the latter stops being instructive. A lot of it results from an anti-French Anglo-Saxon bias, the real history of thinking in the last millennium… Starting with free-thinkers in the Eleventh Century (predecessors of Meslier, just as extreme, a bit more polite, yet not waiting to reveal their work after their death). Going on with Buridan (Copernicus just read Buridan), Du Chatelet (a woman discovered energy, etc….), Poincaré his E= mcc, and his Relativity…

Can Youth Handle Logic More Than Three Words Long?

April 22, 2019

Some US friends on the Internet regretted Notre Dame didn’t burn to the ground. Seduced by hatred, all too many nowadays loudly claim to prefer ashes to civilization. Are they now applauding the hundreds assassinated in Sri Lanka by anti-Christian, anti-tourist terrorists? (The 2019 Easter Sunday attacks there are now above 800 casualties, including 300 dead!)

A great source of gleeful anger among those who love to hate, was Donald Trump who boldly went where no US bigot is supposed to go: I offered the help of our great experts on renovation and construction as I did in my conversation yesterday with President Emmanuel Macron of France.”

BBC “science” journalist Erin Biba, known for accusing others to insult exactly as she does, with a following I can only dream of, reacted by saying: “Notre Dame has already received… an offer of help from the U.S government but it’s only just now — years late — that Flint is getting the necessary funding. Our priorities are fucked.”

What’s “fucked” is her bimbo logic: water experts and cathedral experts are not the same, they don’t exist in the same space, they don’t make a zero sum game. But don’t worry: Erin Biba started at “Wired Magazine”, and was told that no science nor understanding of scientific topics was needed: only “excitement” was needed. Truly, excitement has replaced logic. (Hyena laughter may help…)

An even more deplorable reaction from a nephew of mine (I have problems with more than one nephew; in common, forms of violence):

It’s nice to see our country’s priorities still lie with only helping the whites.

East end of Notre Dame burning. Heaven and Hell sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble.

One approving comment to the racist assertion prior consisted in a so-called “GIF” a micro movie showing somebody saying: “No, No, Bad!” to Trump. Bad because Trump was sending all this money to Notre Dame, allegedly (except he didn’t). The skin color declaration parroted the racism of a Pluto media called “The Root” [1] which opined that: White People Don’t Live in Flint or Puerto Rico, So President Sends Aid to France.”

This is not what Trump implied, or did. As White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders put it, the U.S. will offer “assistance in the rehabilitation of this irreplaceable symbol of Western civilization.

On the same day, word came in that the city of Flint, Michigan, was receiving a remaining $77.7 million in federal funding to assist in that community now almost five-year-long battle to again have clean water flowing through its taps. So what about bimbo Biba’ smartassology? [2] It’s not the same experts, not the same budget. Experts in building restoration have to keep exerting their trade. One can’t put them along a river and suddenly they purify water. Expertise has to be kept alive, thus, experts have to be kept busy.

***

Another commenter on my site, Cory Francis, a tough ex-Marine, and author, suggested the “cathedral should have burned because of all the children molested there”. That is not cogent: as a maximally public monument for 856 years, Notre Dame was no place for molestation, quite the opposite.

What about the allegations of racism? Does Trump prefers Notre Dame because France is full of “whites”? Instead Trump said he loved Notre Dame because, as the hundreds of millions who have visited the cathedral, he was stunned by its beauty and the inspiration it shared.

France is officially not made of “whites”. Indeed, to have “whites” in France, one would have to identify those “whites”… That can’t be done in France. It’s explicitly against French law to categorize people according to origins, skin color, ethnicity, religion.

It’s possible to categorize, and thus, discriminate, among people according to their origin, in the USA. Because the USA is an officially racist country, where people are asked to flaunt their race, all too often, and declare it in all sorts of official documents. Whereas in France the protection against stigmatization by origins is as old as Carolingian law… five centuries older than Notre Dame [3]. The non official existence of “races” in France, and of religious characterization enabled to save most Jews in France. Nearly all French-born Jews and most refugee Jews; by contrast, the Netherlands, where religious characterization was entrusted to the US technology monopoly IBM:

https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/netherlands-greatest-number-jewish-victims-western-europe/

France is the original melting pot, the USA is a pale imitation which still has a lot to learn from the original. It is difficult for young US citizens not to think racially, opposing the “whites” and the (presumably) “colored”. They can’t break out of it, they use their very racism to criticize the (alleged) racism of Trump. Let me repeat this explicitly: who distinguishes the “whites” from others is a racist. Trump has not done this, to my knowledge, so is less of a racist.

***

So what is Trump proposing for Notre Dame? France has the greatest number of restauration workers in the world. However, independent opinions are important. Flying a few US experts to Paris for second opinion will not hurt. Just the opposite. Would it help only the French? Oh, no. US experts will profit from working on this gigantic, primordial project. And, looking forward, there could be some day millions of homes to repair, from a massive quake, or nuclear strikes.

US experts in cathedral restoration got active in 2011, when an earthquake damaged the Washington National Cathedral. The work is still going on. Such experts in building restoration, don’t repair electric grids on hurricane damaged islands, like Puerto Rico . It’s a different job. [4]   

However, those with Trump Derangement Syndrome do not understand, or do not want to understand, what “expertise” means. All they want is to exhibit their hatred for Trump: it helps the careers of the youth,as plutocrats know that those with TDS aspire to be sheep [5].

***

Fundamental questions to all of civilization: where do you come from? And why? From the jungles of Amazonia or the Congo? Do you come from the Shariah? Or do you come from struggling for the honor of the human spirit? The latter, obviously. And that was done on Montagne Sainte-Geneviève, not in the steppes of Central Asia…however valuable the latter are. The holy alliance between secular quest for iconoclastic knowledge and the soaring of the human spirit deified and feminized, this is what we honor in Notre Dame.

And the racism, the skin color, Notre Dame never saw. So why does today’s youth sees it so much everywhere?

It requires more than three word logic to find out.

Meanwhile, the architect in charge of Notre Dame from 2000 to 2013 is formal: “That type of wood would not have burned so easily, if the fire had been accidental.” [6] I was personally struck by the fact the fire progressed quickly, in the exact direction opposed to the strong wind. I can’t envision which sort of weird aerodynamics could have brought such an effect.

But, once again, this is more than three word logic which bring to the logical conclusion.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] The Root was founded by Graham, a Pluto who used to publish the Washington Post and is a “lead” (whatever that means) director of Facebook (since 2009). It calls itself “Afro”, like in Africa, but “Afro-American” has little to do with Africa, but rather the opposite, I can tell you, as an African.

***

[2]The concept of “smartasslogy” introduced above is central to the Internet civilization as it is. Logic has been replaced by smartassology, the incapacity of thinking beyond the sort of mentality characterizing rattlesnakes.  

***

[3] There was occasional discrimination against the Jews; however, the one under Saint Louis, was not acted upon. The worst holocaust was against the Cathars, as Notre Dame was going up. The aim was the capture of the County of Toulouse, de facto a quasi republic, wealthy and very large… by King Philippe Auguste, the first one to call himself king of France (instead of king of the Franks). Prior to that, he defeated an all-Europe coalition in 1204 CE at Bouvines.  Killing 5 million Cathars set on fire the entire Christian Greco-Roman empire or civilization, from France to the Orient.

***

[4] Force 5 hurricane Maria killed nearly 3,000 people in Puerto Rico.

***

[5] Employers check social media. And the apparently genuinely anti-Trump youth know this. So, actually, they are applying for jobs, while chanting against Trump. If those officers of the Pluto system find a high degree of Trump Derangement Syndrome in an applicant, the belief that all US evil comes from the satanic messiah, Trump His Name, potential employers recognize in that this particular youth is someone who claims to have understood nothing about how the plutocratic system works. In other words, an obedient servant of plutocracy. Thus that youth will make an excellent servant, or henchman… just like Obama.

***

[6] The architect-engineer, who was in charge of Notre Dame during 13 years, from 2000 until 2013 is astounded by the fire: how so, and how could it have gone so fast? He calls this “incomprehensible… very old oak, and one gets the impression it burned like matchsticks” The architect says that this sort of wood would never have burned so easily if the fire was accidental.

All the security was remade and the fire alarm system, and the electric installation at a higher level than state of the art, in 2010, and 2 employees were in charge of this, 24/7. The architect is adamant no fire could start, as the oak was so old and tough. and especially not propagate that fast. No fire during the 13 years he was at the helm.
Mr. Mouton says that an accidental fire was not possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RLtMZGm_Sk

 

The Greater The Height, The Harder the Fall: Humanity Towering Above The Abyss

April 18, 2019

Humanity is basking blissfully on the vast beach of possibilities now uncovered by the tide of progress. Comfort rules: the classic pitfall. It was famously observed, even at the imperial Roman court, in the Second Century, that everything was great, but a sentiment of doom and gloom nevertheless was present. And rightly so: the empire would start unravelling under Marcus Aurelius, a few years later. Now we don’t have that luxury: clearly, the biosphere as civilization always knew it, is coming to an end, in front of our very eyes. But still, most are in denial, and clinging to their creatures’ comfort… and the going is still good, better than it ever was.

Those tourists enjoyed the low tide, but may have known enough to realize this was a tidal wave coming, but faster than they thought possible. So it is now for humanity at large. For the great wave to come, the great beach needs to be uncovered. Finally panic will come… too late for many. That wave, when it reached the shore (in the back of the cameraman), was 30 meters in places, hundreds were killed, in this spot alone.

So it always was: the worst of all possible worlds is introduced by the best of all possible worlds, which gives it all the impact it needs. As we confront the Sixth, and First Man-Made Extinction, a possible shutdown of the food and oxygen supply looms:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/global-hypoxia/

Agreed, that’s the worst possible case. So precisely we have to prepare for it, instead of waiting for all to burn… we have to confront how people think.

That was not supposed to happen, because it didn’t happen before. But so it always is, with the greatest catastrophes.

So how do people think? Well, first humans think as scientists. Humans are naturally born scientists. Thus, to understand how humans think, a detailed case is provided by the case of science, or, more exactly, diverse aspects of science, and how they evolved.   

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a book by Thomas Kuhn, asserted that the deepest science advanced by shattering the preceding systems of thought. By opposition to gradualism. Kuhn listed a number of reasons for this… But forgot the most important ones. And these same reasons preside over the thinking of most people (including our dreadful leaders-into-oblivion).

Some famous academics, such as Steven Pinker and the Plutos financing him (Gates) believe we are living in an excellent world, better than any before. That’s entirely correct. But, since 2014, 17,000 illegal immigrants have been known to have drowned in the Mediterranean. This is very telling: it means the post colonial order is worse than the colonial order. Meanwhile some obsess with Trump wanting to complete the wall that the Democrats erected.

A red herring, one more: illegal immigrants arrests are the highest in a decade.

Per capita, Germany and Japan emits more than twice the CO2 of France. And the USA, nearly four times. The UK is closer to France than to Germany-Japan. Those who focus on the morality of completing “the Wall” should focus on CO2 instead.

It’s the CO2 that will bring Armageddon. Therein the abyss, the countdown to ecological unsustainability. And yes, the collapse of the Roman state was preceded by a similar effect. Not CO2, but exhaustion of natural resources… And mental resources (for the exhaustion of these metal resources, contemplate Notre Dame burning: French leaders now are not up to Middle Ages expertise!) On a much smaller scale, obviously, but still enough to kill the golden goose.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: Lamarck and Cuvier were both research professors at Museum of Natural History, circa 1800. They both believed in biological evolution, and taught it. However, they were great enemies. Lamarck believed in gradualism: biological evolution was caused by a number of forces which acted day in, day out. Cuvier, instead believed in catastrophism… for example all dinosaurs go extinct in a catastrophe and mammals then appeared. They were both right.

The same sort of think happens in scientific, and, more generally, mental revolutions. Gradualism everyday, but great lurches forward, sometimes. A major stabilization force is what I call the ANTI-IDEA. On this, more soon, barring some new catastrophe not seen in 856 years…

Against powerful stupidity, the most subtle intelligence contends in vain.  

March 23, 2019

Why so much blocking of the truth? Latest grotesque example: The New York Times just censored my observation that the right to exist of Israel came from its own long-term history, and that the destruction of Israel by the Romans had been illegal according to Roman law itself. … and that the Romans themselves found that out, and tried to correct it… (But fate, and red-hot fanatical imperial, tyrannical, lethal Catholicism intervened, re-establishing the horror… all the way to Auschwitz…)

The NYT is generally viewed as pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, etc. so, when someone provides them generously with a sophisticated, cogent and deep argument supporting their general somewhat Zionist position, one would guess they would be enthusiastic. Instead, they sent my long comment to Hades, as if it were a piece of Nazi propaganda. Stupidity has no bounds, even self-preservation doesn’t get in the way of reasoned idiocy. Better die content and stupid, than sad and smart, say the chicken and they cackle, self-admiring.

One is reminded of this happy period when prominent German Jews signed petitions to support the anti-Jewish policies of the German Chancellor cum President, the Guide, Adolf Hitler himself…. (Hannah Arendt fustigated the Judenraten, the Jewish Councils for that 20 years later, and was ostracized in turn. I don’t have a problem there as ostracism is a good thing for the wise to look for… As wisdom, and nothing but wisdom is plenty for a lover of wisdom, and stinging critters can get in the way, if one has to apply too much repellent)  

Friend John Michael Gartland intervened: “Stupidity seems to be contagious if you aren’t careful.

Patrice Ayme: Indeed. Stupidity is certainly contagious, because the most energy laden activity is creative thinking. Thus, the most efficient way to save energy is by thinking as the sheep does, that is by pure duplication: follow the leader, typically another sheep, or then a meat-eating sheperd. Not following the rest of the sheep is not just energy expensive, it is uncomfortable, scary and dangerous. Only fools or philosophers will engage in it. Paradoxically, those obsessed by self-care should opine that, to think like a sheep is superior. Superior thinking is often just about superiority, not care.

Polish NAZI salute,

AUSCHWITZ 

 … the ultimate insanity. These three blonde idiots, teenagers from Poland, don’t even know that, according to Nazi doctrine, they were (probably) subhuman Slavs, and that Auschwitz was actually initially created to mass destroy Poles. There was a deliberate Polish extermination program, launched as early as Fall 1939. The extermination of the Jews was launched much later (after the Fall of France). Thousands of dark-haired Nazis assassinated hundreds of thousands of blonde Slavs, French and Jews… Officially from their self-contradictory racism, but truly from their fully unhinged Darkest Side.

The official Polish government report on war damages prepared in 1947 put Poland’s war dead at 6,028,000; 3.0 million so-called ethnic Poles and 3.0 million Poles who happened to be Jewish too, not including losses of Polish citizens from the Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnic groups. (Depending upon chosen borders, some scholars put the numbers slightly lower now.)

Meanwhile, the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum has just implored visitors to respect the memories of the 1.1 million people who were killed at the extermination camp — and not to balance on the train tracks, being pictured with beaming smile and two thumbs up at the entrance of the extermination camp, etc..

Decency and respect are in short supply nowadays. It’s as if these notions ceased to exist. Instead snowflakes cry as soon as the heat of critique shines upon them. Considering Nazism for what it was, a monstrous infamy, not a joke, is a duty, to be accomplished with thorough respect to the victims. Engaging in lack of respect for the victims is exactly repeating how the Nazis launched themselves, mimicking exactly what the Nazis did!

Stupidity by mimicking the herd doesn’t just economize effort. Stupidity is also selfish in other ways than plain brain economics. Stupidity by following the herd’s moods, emotions and ideas is also the key to power. Power sharing. One charging buffalo amounts to little; a herd of charging buffaloes is everything.

Thus a key to truly modern morality and probity is to refuse to follow the herd, as a matter of principle, in first approximation. Instead the mood of old fashion education has been the exact opposite, as youth is driven, like cattle, through a succession of rituals to pound into their thick skulls how they are supposed to behave, feel, and think.

Why? Old fashion education was made to support empire, empire the old fashion way, the gun boat style, or Kaiser style, or Lenin-Stalin way. Old fashion imperialism needed minds fit for that mission, minds all made in the same way. Minds who know how to go to the ball, get drunk, and don’t think too deep.

The requirements of civilization are now the exact opposite. The danger now is that as never before have the mental requirement been higher, because the Sixth Mass Extinction is fully engaged, and the thermonuclear gods are watching.

Young people should ask themselves why they are asked to do what they are asked to do. Starting with vaping, dating, celebrities, posing, prancing around, and believing goofing around in a socially acceptable way is the ultimate. Go to Auschwitz, you the naive and ignorant and learn that considering Hitler and his 80 million cretinous, vicious followers unbeknownst to themselves, is an excellent beginning of the conversation of humanity as it is, with itself.

Patrice Ayme

 

To Understand Nazi Germany Well, Understand Twentieth Century USA

January 21, 2019

Why did the German army fight to the bitter end in World War 2?

Patrice Ayme

Truly the world war launched by Germany in 1914 (and plotted in a conspiracy as early as 1912), finished in May 1945. As soon as WWI was put in limbo (“armistice” of November 11, 1918), Germany prepared the next round, training its tanks secretly in… the USSR, of all places (hence the German delusion of knowing the Soviets well enough to defeat them).

One has to realize that Germany was at war again by 1936… In Spain… where its engagement was crucial to enable the fascists to win (the Luftwaffe carried the rebel army to Spain from Africa, among other things… thanks to US oil, from Texaco…) That is 18 years after the defeat of 1914–1918, Germany was at war again, with full US plutocratic help (the rebel army in Spain was completely US equipped, the equipment generously lent by crafty US plutocrats). (This Nazi war started in 1936 made the Wehrmacht fully trained, and thus it gave it a huge advantage for the crucial week after May 10, in 1940: by the time the French and British learned to sort out the crucial details, it was too late… The Battle of France, and its three million casualties had been lost. )

World War One, started by the fascist German Second Reich, nearly finished in tragedy for the invaders, after the tremendous French counterattack of the First Battle of Marne (5 weeks after the initial invasion). Then the Western front stayed static and hopeless, until the Second Battle of the Marne. By then the US had stopped sending ammunition material to Germany (the US had broken the Franco-British blockade, through the Netherlands!) By 1918, the French were outgunning the Germans something like one German shell to thirty French shells. The Germans were rolled back under tremendous French artillery fire… And then US troops got engaged, soon even accompanied by French tanks… 

French city of Saint Lo, Destroyed by US Bombardment, night of June 6 to 7, 1944. There were much more US bombardments in WWII destroying France than the Nazis ever did. By orders of magnitude. Some of those bombardments clearly targeted the French industrial base… and the presence of Nazis was just a pretext! (Not exactly the case of Saint Lo which suffered more than 11,000 US casualties: those Nazis could be hard to kill…)

By November 1918, the German army was finished, overwhelmed by tanks, shells and even Allied planes. All it could do was destroy and devastate north-east France as it retreated. Then came the armistice. The Germans had fought in the lands they had invaded… not in Germany itself.

The Kaiser quit, the German Fleet self-destroyed at Scapa Flow, but otherwise little changed. Germany was not invaded. Germany refused to pay French reparations (parts of France are still destroyed and forbidden, a century later!)

Germany even formally stayed the “Second Reich” (“Weimar Republic” was not the official term). The Germans behind the 1914 attack became partisans of what became the Nazi Party, and they invented the Nazi spirit: all what happened to Germany was other people’s fault (the “Slavs”, the French, the Jews, Versailles, Communists, and others who “stabbed the German army in the back”…)

The “stabbing in the back” myth was particularly strong. The theme was that the German army had not been defeated by the Allies, but by traitors inside Germany: so traitors were shot, starting in 1919. “Stabbing in the back” was scathingly suggested by a British general in jest to generalissimo Ludendorff (Ludendorff had claimed as much, that victory had been around the corner… but those pesky German traitors). Ludendorff, who was in the Nazi Party before Hitler, ran away with the concept.

German corpse at Toulon, August 1944. 16,000 French troops attacked, 17,000 Germans surrendered… And 8,000 Germans were killed… In total, more than 5.3 million German soldiers (including SS) died in combat. Most of them after, clearly, the war was certain to be lost, and the cause abominable…

So come 1945, no decent German wanted to surrender. The notion of decency in Germany had become indecent. All the more as the Germans knew, deep down inside, that they had committed crimes against humanity against Soviets and Jews, and others.

In 1919, German crimes against humanity had been ignored, because the USA wanted to own Germany, not punish it.

Instead, the French Republic, under no illusion that the German racist mass homicidal madness had been cured, wanted to defang Germany, rendering it incapable of another attack against the world and civilization…

However, another indecent, racist, mass homicidal German attack is exactly what the smartest, racist and most cruel Anglosphere influencers wanted. Hence top diplomat Lord Keynes (British) wrote that racist pamphlet: “The Economic Consequences of Peace…”… which inspired the Nazis in turn, one more reason to make them believe that the Anglo-Saxon elite had their back… just as their predecessors had believed the same about the USA in June 1914… Or they themselves had believed in 1933–1940… when the US favored the Nazis and opposed the French.

Hitler and a few others remembered that Frederick II of Prussia, faced by an enormous coalition of superpowers (France, Austria, Russia) was miraculously saved from extinction at the last moment…

First Bombing of Berlin Was By The French in 1940 (in retaliation for bombing of French cities…). Thereafter British Night Bombing started. This is how it looked in 1945…

In the end, Hitler, maybe realizing he had been a pawn of “US plutocrats” (a notion he used) hoped that, at the last moment, the Western Allies would regain their senses, make a unilateral ceasefire with the Nazis, and sweep away the Stalinian Soviets. That’s indeed what Patton obviously thought… So he pointed out his Third Army could be in Berlin before the Soviets.

And Patton was right. Zhukov and his armies around Berlin had only 200 tanks still functioning by May 1, 1945. Moreover, Zhukov, had he wanted to do so, could have easily made a coup against Stalin.

Many in the Nazi elite had been more than chummy with the Americans: Henry Ford financed Hitler massively, even before 1923. US plutocrats, through their ownership of the Hamburg Amerika Line armed the Nazis with contraband weapons in 1932. The civil war then allowed the nazis to kill 10,000 of their enemies inside Germany. A Nazi minister commented a bit later:”When I hear the word “culture” I pull out my Browning.” Indeed, the Nazis were armed with contraband US Browning pistols… The Nazi economic miracle was a US economic miracle. The Nazi economy and society was entangled with the USA (from IBM, which had a Nazi monopoly, to Harvard songs, recycled by the Nazis…)

Thus, in top Nazi circles, the hope was strong that the USA would turn around at the last moment. The Nazis had understood nothing, and in particular they had not understood why the USA had let them be.

What the top Nazis didn’t realize is that they had been played, all along: US plutocrats wanted the world, and the Nazis, and the Soviets, were their tools. That meant US plutocrats and their servants wanted half of Europe occupied by the Soviets.

General Eisenhower was on the plot. Patton, his old professor, who finished WWI as a colonel wounded in a tank attack, was not. So Patton went to the press, saying the five million men strong, superbly equipped Allied army, with its air dominance, could occupy all of Germany. In retort, Eisenhower wrote directly to Stalin, to reassure the latter that he would have half of Europe. (Notice that Eisenhower was far from the top: there were supposedly two layers of command between him and the heads of states of the West… Clearly Eisenhower knew something not yet in history books!)

Stalin occupying half of Europe justified the occupation of the other half of Europe by US forces…. Thus the USA was quickly able to seize all European empires, worldwide (so-called “decolonization” and the triumph of the “American Century” and “Neoliberalism”).

Trying to understand Nazism without understanding the racist, greedy US elite, which suggested, enabled and financed it, is like hoping to understand a world conquering carriage by interviewing the ass pulling it… instead of the driver directing it.

Patrice Ayme

 

CAN’T MAKE LOVE? There Is ALWAYS WAR, Or Plain Old DANGER: WISDOM KNOWS MANY TRICKS; Humanity’s Dirtiest, Greatest Secret

December 16, 2018

TIME TO SHAPE UP ON WHAT WISDOM IS REALLY CAPABLE OF: ANYTHING EXCITING. Neurology Is A Moral System, But It’s Not Found In Books… Yet.

[Future and necessary wisdom: fasten seat belts and read at your own risk…]

Humanity’s definition? Thinking better. That’s reflected in the name “Sapiens” (from sapere “to taste, have taste, be wise,”… there is no wisdom, or intelligence, without perception). It turns out that, to think better, one needs lots of neural connections (axons, dendrites), and those in turn grow from emotional topology, aka emotional logic.

So far, so good.

Thus, the greater the passions, the greater the ability to shake up the old connections, the old brain geometry, and build a new, better brain, that is more fitting to reality. Hence passions, strong emotions, help steer that pot known as the brain. That is why some think afresh while walking (it happens even to physicists; that idea that walking helps is so old, a philosophical school, the Peripatetic, founded by Aristotle, was built around it). That’s also hard sports, and more generally a dangerous life foster more brazen thinking. Advanced thinkers, throughout the ages, have tended to end badly. It’s not just because new, correct thinking messes up conventional brains made of concrete common wisdom. It’s also because advanced thinkers need the passions that danger provide with…    

Passions often invoked positively are “love”, “compassion”, “mercy”, “generosity”, etc Also positive, but often dangerous, controversial, “sex”, “curiosity”, the spirit of inquiry… And then there are passions viewed generally negatively, like “anger” (although found in Christ, Muhammad besides all revolutionaries worth the label)… Or, even more negative, “hatred” (often alleged by the eyes of others, those observing the beholder). And of course jealousy, greed, etc.

However… Let’s consider lions fighting, fangs and claws out. How do humans fight?

Lions Fighting, Woman Involved lurks behind (of course). Humans fight mostly with thoughts, though, not tooth and claw. So human fighting fosters more advanced human thinking…. Which is all very humanistic. Another serious twist on moronic conventional humanism… Talk about fight club! Brawling lions in a serious fight because one horny lion got interrupted during a steamy morning romp. The frisky lion and his mate were not happy at being disturbed during their raunchy session. The king of the jungle launched a brutal attack as he chased the intermeddler away before picking up where he left off. The fierce lions launched at each other during the ten minute scuffle, roaring aggressively as they fought it out over who gets the girl. [Photographer Johan Pieter Meiring, from Port Elizabeth, South Africa, captured the scene at Kruger National Parks…]

However, passions, emotions, plain neurohormonal, not to say chemical, agitation create new associations, new thoughts, because they, and potentially only them, entice the making of new connections (axons), or near-connections (dendrites). Although still science fiction at this point, it’s pretty sure neurohormonal gradients are implicated. That there is such a thing as a “good” neurohormones or a “bad” one is more than debatable: it’s probably the sort of “moral” judgement which don’t apply to chemistry. (What we now, all too often, have called) “Bad” neurohormones have enabled struggles to death in the past, and we are here, because our ancestors won them. We stand on the corpses of trillions of enemies, red in tooth and claw. To spite, or deny, this prehistoric holocaust, is to spite, or deny, ourselves.

Such a negationist attitude about ourselves insures we can’t understand anything important, looking forward.

Once a friend of mine, an emergency MD,  told me all this may all be true, but we have to forget it now, all this prehistoric way of thinking, as we are in a world too evolved for this embarrassing heritage of ours. What I know, instead is that there is no thinking, but prehistoric thinking. Sorry, folks, we, you can’t get out of ourselves. Maybe sad to some, but it’s a fact. Losing track of this sorry state of affairs brings mayhem… because then we, and history, forsake the drastic precautions which need to be taken! 

What I see, then, is a world so evolved it’s bringing its own demise, and not evolved enough to survive it.  And the major problem has been, as with many of my friends, all too often ex-friends, that they were not passionate enough to pay attention to the evil mechanisms at play (fortunately Trump Derangement Syndrome has extracted many a fake liberal out of his or her self-satisfied torpor).

And there comes the twist. Human beings have been evolutionarily selected as the best thinking machines (by the holocaust alluded to above). So the pressure to think better (that is more fitting to the world as it is) is extreme, overwhelming, the main driver of human psychology (and not reproduction as the naive believe, confusing humans and rabbits).

And how does one think better, that is, continually afresh?

With more passions.

So, right, populations where passions are allowed to flow, everything else being equal, will be more mentally creative.

But not just that.

Suppose the positive passions can’t be deployed (say no love object, everybody hates you, etc.; not far-fetched, that was pretty much the situation of the Jews in a sea of hateful Catholics, after Roman emperor Theodosius I decided to “punish” heretics, around 380 CE… and again, after the hiatus of 5 centuries of Frankish tolerance came to an end; countless minorities found themselves in that situation, most minorities so excluded and hated are not around anymore to speak about it; some barely cling by: the 2018 Peace Nobel was awarded to a Yazidi lady, after Islam Fundamentalists tried to kill them all in the last few years)

So suppose no love is forthcoming, nor could ever come. What’s the next best thing to steer the mental pot in one’s head? Hatred. 

Ridiculously, conventional “humanism”, not too human, has ignored this.

“Best” and “Worst” as moral categories are not logical categories, only truth determines the latter [Chad Gold Picture, thanks!]

Hence, don’t love them at your own risk. They may hate you back. Just because they want to satisfy that most primordial of human instinct, thinking.

And what if objects of passion are not readily available?

There is simple way out, coming to the rescue: danger. Danger itself. Danger should in little time brings passions back up, thus thinking afresh. Thereof the fascination of human beings with risk taking: it’s more than a thought adjuvant, it’s a thought creator (another uncomfortable fact for Conventional Wisdom and Conventional Humanism).

Verily, wisdom is the most complicated thing… Understanding how wisdom works is crucial to predicting the future, and optimizing it (because if the good doesn’t develop new, more powerful wisdom, the bad and the ugly will). I emote, thus I think creatively, hence I am a human being in full…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: a professional philosopher, MP, told me haughtily that there was no such thing as “emotional logic”. He had read that in textbooks. Right. Creators of ideas don’t get them in textbooks.

***

Note 2: The Yellow Jackets in France have pivoted to fight for RICs (Referendums Initiative Citizens). As the two honest to goodness RIChest states, California and Suisse already have (not coincidentally: RIC make RICH). This is going to be a tremendous fight for improving civilization., mobilizing the collective debating power, hence intelligence humanity needs to survive. Officially six Yellow Jackets have died from their protest (latest was a French protester crushed by a Polish truck driver, who was arrested…) The Yellow Jackets need lots of war hormones, as they fight the huge forces of established evil, sucking at the teat of an exhausted planet…

***

Note 3: Yes, today, I went down a wind slab (although I was on the lookout to avoid them). I had missed the rocky ridge further east, which was safe (when I realized it I was too lazy and getting too cold to go back up; anyway when one is on the slab, it’s already too late). It was probably way too thin to be dangerous, but, still, I was distinctly not amused, and used special tricks I evolved in such cases (go straight down the anchor points, not where the snow is thickest). Doing a wind slab every few years: nothing like it to realize what the human brain is really for….

***

Note 4: Yes, hatred can be a very good thing: watch these millions of rabid Trump haters, foaming at the mouth. Five years ago, they couldn’t give a hoot about politics, and talking to them was like talking to fishes in aquariums. They aren’t yet intelligent, but, at least, less boring.

Now, propelled by their need to hate, they love (hating) Trump so much, politics is all they think they do. Let them hate away! They have now become politically receptive, however naive and ignorant they may still be… Passion is there at least, serious thinking may start, anytime…

***

Note 5: An example of new, more powerful wisdom, has been the idea of “not leaving our children with debts”, used massively to justify crazy European economic policies impoverishing, often to the point of famine, most Europeans. This is fake wisdom, but the bad and the ugly plutocrats of Europe have used it with a vengeance.

***

Note 6: The fascination with risk taking was no doubt a factor, when Nazi collaborator De Beauvoir & Nazi entertainer Sartre practiced “contingent relationships”, leaving a  trail of tears, depression (and official sanctions) behind them. Beauvoir ended at Radio Vichy… in 1944 from being dismissed of her job for seducing a child. 1944? That’s when the Nazis were sure to lose, so either Beauvoir was super arrogant from her relationships, or she enjoyed the obvious risk… If risk entices intellectualization, as I claim, this is explains it… Neurohormones: serious, so is sex…

How And Why The Rebellion In France Is Depicted As Nasty And Venomous, By Its Enemy, Global Plutocracy

December 13, 2018

“GILETS JAUNES”: CARE AND EMERGENCY (France). “YELLOW JACKETS”: CLEVER, VENOMOUS INSECTS (Global Plutocratic Media).

The rebels  in France call themselves “gilets jaunes”. A “gilet jaune” is the sort of reflecting yellow vest used by personnel rescuing or repairing, and is also worn, in France, by automobilists in distress (it’s mandatory to have one in each car in France). So the feeling conveyed by “gilet jaune” in France, and in French, is care, distress, accident, rescue.

Amusingly, “gilet jaune” got mistranslated in English as “yellow jacket”, true on the face of it, but also the common descriptive of wasps. So the feeling conveyed when considering “gilet jaune” in English is that of a venomous insect potentially deadly (by 12/13/18, after 4 weeks of the rebellion, 6 “yellow jackets” have been killed, typically in collision with irate automobilists).

The symbolism of gilet jaune is about care and love, the symbolism of yellow jackets is about venom and hatred.

A revolution led by those who usually never rebel: elder, lower middle class citizens with jobs… and senior citizens who had voted for the traitor.

Amusing to call “gilet jaunes” “yellow jackets”? Not only: also viciously underhanded. English speaking media plutocracy wants to emotionally paint the “gilet jaunes” as nasty (‘emergency jackets’ would have been more correct and reflective of the intended meaning). Why the hostility?

Do I need to ask? Global plutocracy wants slaves everywhere. A big country with an attitude like France, where We The People has not realize it should shut up and work ever harder, for ever less, is a major problem. So such a rebellious country needs to be completely unpowered. Here comes Macron, thereafter to be named according to the way he acted, Manu I, elected king of France. Manu I was central to this (although he is probably not aware of what he is exactly doing; I give him that). Manu I was brought to the finance and economy ministry to do this, unpowering France (Manu, a merger banker, replaced the social-nationalist Montebourg, a lawyer). There Manu didn’t disappoint the global financial establishment which had sent him, and he became the enabler of global plutocracy, in France.

The violence was not started by the rebels, but by the traitors who lead France in the name of global plutocracy.

Well, Manu I, the elected French dictator, was well on his way to destroy the French social model: said French social model is the great fear of the global plutocracy… Is there anything more frightening to global plutocrats than “Medicare For ALL” spreading to the USA?

When Macron was savagely interrupted by those “yellow jackets”, his work of destruction met an unexpected resistance. In the USA, starting during the last years in care of Obama, the social decomposition was so deep, that US life expectancy started to go down. The controlling class was all for it, just as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement died innocuously, this decrease of life expectancy stayed hidden by lots of talk about grotesque Obamacare.

Destroying the French social model is a must for the global plutocracy. Should social models survive in France or the USA, historically the two leading republics, it would be a terrible example for the rest of the world.

Trump, although he said he would do so, is not taxing the GAFAM much… For US leaders, taxing the GAFAM is taxing a US world superiority tool. It’s taxing a US comparative advantage. No wonder there is no motivation to do so. Trump is forced to be nice to Bezos, head of Amazon, because Trump is a US nationalist, and US nationalism has no weapon more formidable than Amazon. 

However France, as a nation, gets no advantage from being submitted to the GAFAM: it’s the opposite, France gets a comparative disadvantage. As French engineering built, industrially the first transistors, the first CPU and the first personal computer (in two ways, as Pascal did so already in the 17th Century!), France is perfectly capable of fabricating, inside France,, everything that the GAFAM does. France is still capable (but maybe for not much longer… if things keep on heading where they are…) But France doesn’t anymore have the will to be at the forefront of technological progress. Or at least its leaders don’t. 

Why? Because the elite has been sold on the global plutocracy dream, an attempt to build a new world “aristocracy”, centered around said “elite”. Thus Manu I, elected king of France, burnished his credentials relative to the global plutocracy, prior to his election, when he gave Alstom, a unique heavy industry company in France, to its US competitor, General Electric. General Electric used US public money (previously given by Obama) to “buy” Alstom: the US generates public money at will, whereas France doesn’t anymore (thanks to the EU plutocratic system).   

When the US owns the major French heavy industry, that can be dismantled, weakening French power, hence the French social model, by as much. Now the Manu’s government minsters go around saying France can’t afford Chinese made solar panels… Why not French made? What happened to import taxes on strategic materials? Why not 25% importation tax, as the USA is doing?

Because it would reinforce France, hence her social model, hence be a violence against global plutocracy, the unsaid emotions looming in the backgrounds of the souls of our corrupt “leaders”?

Weakening the French social model goes with calling French rebels nasty names, such as “yellow jackets”. Thus it makes the rebellion in France an object of fear and spite. Emotionally speaking, that is, at the deepest logical level.

Well, let’s embrace the notion. You want us nasty? Let’s welcome the notion. As US president Roosevelt said of banks:”I welcome their hatred!

Revolutions are there, they exist to kill old worlds, old establishments, old emotions. Yellow jackets can kill, indeed. What needs to be killed, is the social model proposed to us by global plutocracy: slaves everywhere, plutocrats to the stars…

Patrice Ayme.

***

***

P/S: [By 2019, eight weeks into the movement, much Anglo-Saxon media switched to “Yellow Vests” instead of the more picturesque “Yellow Jackets”… Making one of the themes above obsolete… Yet the nasty sting against the amply justified French rebellion should persist…]

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Politically Correct Famous Democratic Economist Admits To Treachery of Political Leaders After 2007. Good. Yet, Why Just 2007? To Laud Plutocratic Clintonism?

November 6, 2018

It seems obvious to me that the official economic doctrine is the theoretical justification of plutocracy. Roman emperor Constantine used what he called Catholicism, his invention, to justify his increasing plutocracy. Nowadays, plutocracy is haughtily brandishing the philosophy of “economic science”. Now a famous economist looks at that, and blames everybody else. Mr. Delong is a friend and colleague of Krugman, and their ilk. We are talking here of the mainstream ideology of the self-declared “left”… Which is just stealth plutocracy: a definition of plutocracy is inequality. Inequality increased under Obama, when it reached its highest level ever (as measured by looking at the top 1%, or top .1%, etc.) Right, it’s probably getting worse under Trump… But Trump never claimed to be “left”.

***

Inequality augmented under Obama. Here is the slice 2013 until 2016. This was caused by the fact Obama helped most the bankers, hence the wealthiest…

Blame the Economists?

Nov 1, 2018 J. Bradford Delong

Ever since the 2008 financial crash and subsequent recession, economists have been pilloried for failing to foresee the crisis, and for not convincing policymakers of what needed to be done to address it. But the upheavals of the past decade were more a product of historical contingency than technocratic failure.

BERKELEY – Now that we are witnessing what looks like the historic decline of the West, it is worth asking what role economists might have played in the disasters of the past decade.”

Unsurprisingly, famous economists protect Clinton from any blame. When, in truth, Clinton demolished the New Deal most effectively. Learning from Goldman Sachs, even before he was elected president, that, if he wanted to be re-elected he would have to do as he was ordered to, by the wealthiest men, Clinton told Robert Rubin Goldman CEO:”You are telling me by reelection depends upon fuckin bnd traders?” (Nowadays, the once famous quote has disappeared from search engines: no accident.)

Brad Delong: “From the end of World War II until 2007, Western political leaders at least acted as if they were interested in achieving full employment, price stability, an acceptably fair distribution of income and wealth, and an open international order in which all countries would benefit from trade and finance”

Patrice Ayme: Not true: Clinton, a so-called “Democrat” ruined the separation of banking and speculation (installed by president Roosevelt and Congress in 1933). Instead of serving all, banks were reset to serve mostly the wealthiest. Moreover Clinton enabled so-called “financial derivatives” with total free rein. Even more serving of the wealthiest, enabling them to leverage themselves tremendously. That led to the 2008 crisis, when a bank dealing mostly in US Treasury Bonds and an insurer, AIG, got acutely bankrupt from derivatives… with nearly all other major banks, just as bad. Bush, in accord with Obama, and then Obama alone sent to the banks all the money they needed and some.

Brad De Long: “Then came 2008, when everything changed. The goal of full employment dropped off Western leaders’ radar, even though there was neither a threat of inflation nor additional benefits to be gained from increased openness. Likewise, the goal of creating an international order that serves everyone was summarily abandoned. Both objectives were sacrificed in the interest of restoring the fortunes of the super-rich, perhaps with a distant hope that the wealth would “trickle down” someday.”

PA: Right. So why do we still call individuals like Obama, “Democrat”, and act as if they were,  when all they did was to serve the wealthiest, the plutocrats (feeding them ever since)?

De Long: “Others, like me, understood that expansionary monetary policies would not be enough; but, because we had looked at global imbalances the wrong way, we missed the principal source of risk – US financial mis-regulation.”

PA: One reform is necessary: banks are there to serve We The People and the real economy serving We The People. Banks should not serve speculation to make the wealthiest wealthier. Plutocrats hate it, so so-called “economists” can’t understand its utility (to themselves!)

De Long: “Between the financial crisis of 2008 and the political crisis of 2016 came the presidency of Barack Obama. In 2004, when he was still a rising star in the Senate, Obama had warned that failing to build a “purple America” that supports the working and middle classes would lead to nativism and political breakdown.

Yet, after the crash, the Obama administration had little stomach for the medicine that former President Franklin D. Roosevelt had prescribed to address problems of such magnitude. “The country needs…bold persistent experimentation,” Roosevelt said in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression. “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

The fact that Obama failed to take aggressive action… With policymaking having been subjected to the malign influence of a rising plutocracy, economists calling for “bold persistent experimentation” were swimming against the tide – even though well-founded economic theories justified precisely that course of action.”

PA: Need one say more? Delong congratulates himself with the present state of affairs. But actually US society became much more unequal under Obama. Rising inequality brings the collapse of civilization: such is the lesson of history. One can’t get a worse result than collapse. Time to redefine “left” in light of increasing potential collapse..

That collapse didn’t happen yet is why we can still talk about it.

But never, in the history of humanity, has collapse seemed more likely, long-term. In no small measure, because of the cecity of official economy, which is more focused in increasing inequality than in realizing that this is another name for rising plutocracy.

Economists, like most of those working in the media, are just employees of the world’s wealthiest men. Directly, or indirectly through plutocratic universities. Plutocratic universities are not universal.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/plutocratic-universities-are-not-universal/

Nor is the present economic theory resting on a universal foundation: it rests only on pleasing plutocracy. Economy will become universal when it rests on energy itself, more exactly, Absolute Worth Energy.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/energy-is-the-fundamental-unit-of-economics/

Meanwhile, let those who managed the increase of inequality under Clinton, Bush and Obama blame others: that’s what they do best.

Patrice Ayme

We’re (Potential) CANNIBALS: LACK Of CANNIBALISM Is EVIDENCE OF PROGRESS. Montaigne’s Erroneous Multiculturalism Denied This

November 4, 2018

MONTAIGNE’S INVENTION OF THE GOOD SAVAGE was naive, anti-progress, anti-civilizational. To put it in one word: nihilistic. Dismantling Montaigne’s offensive credulity exposes the rotten roots of  grotesquely erroneous, extreme, indiscriminate so-called multiculturalism.

Abstract: Cannibalism was probably the environment in which humanity evolved, in excess of 99% of the time (see the scientific evidence below). Cannibalism was common in the Neolithic, and everywhere regulated. The discovery of cannibalism in the Americas contributed to demolish the Christian mindset. Montaigne, in particular, drew an erroneous conclusion. That error justifies today’s excessive cultural relativism (so-called “multiculturalism”), and an excuse for (“Neo”) liberalization, plutocratic globalization, and it’s little helper, Islamization (now that Christianization is collapsing, so the sheep are thinking too free and too much).

I demolish here Montaigne’s injurious, naive and unimaginative assertion that barbarity is just what we don’t do. So doing I demolish naive, unimaginative cultural relativism, re-establishing the concept of progress, and of the best of all possible civilizations (not what we have, but it could be worse).

***

Montaigne’s Extreme Cultural Relativism: Barbarians Are US:

Legend has it that Rousseau invented the lamentably unreal myth of the “Good Savage”. Reading the original writing, I just realized he may not have… Instead, it’s wise old Montaigne who invented the error of the Bon Sauvage. This monstrosity, the Good Savage, is of some consequence, as the Essays are generally viewed as an epitome of wisdom (Montaigne’s influence was enormous, for the better, on Henri III, IV and his wife, Queen Marguerite de Valois, féministe extraordinaire (among other things), and thereafter, as that good Catholic, crucially, yet unwittingly crucially helped to dismantle Christian terror; paradoxically the error I criticize today, helped to do so; by claiming everybody was a barbarian, Montaigne undermined moral religious superiority… perhaps, although Catholic that’s what he wanted).

Smart, but not that smart. And preaching this extreme multiculturalism had dreadful totalitarian consequences. Stalinism and Nazism among them. And now multiculturalism has been the main tool of global plutocratization.

Seeing Montaigne throwing overboard the concept of progress overboard came as a shock to me. The evidence can’t be denied, as it is blatant in the essay on “The Cannibals: ”we call barbarian what is not of our usage”. No, Michel, no, no, you got it all too grotesquely simplistic! And, Michel, you got it very dangerous: after all, following the erroneous Michel de Montaigne, the Nazis could call the Jews “barbarian” because, after all, they didn’t follow what the Nazis could call proper German usage…

Now, agreed “The Cannibals” was written seven years after the mad civil war of the Saint Barthelemy, ordered by the crowned plutocrats sitting pretty in the Louvres (which was crisscrossed by assassins that night). (The Duke of Sully, who barely escaped alive, esteemed 70,000 had been killed; people of Arles, down the Rhone from Lyon couldn’t drink the Rhone’s water for three months, from all the rotting corpses… the philosopher Petrus Ramus, and in Lyon the composer Claude Goudimel, among other intellectuals were killed.)

So Montaigne had good reason to be indignant, and suffer a momentary lapse of reason. Even more: all the Dark Ages was a direct consequence of that monstrous thought system, Christianism. Montaigne couldn’t say that. Very close friends and associates of Rabelais had been burned alive, just for printing books: the French plutocracy was that enlightened (Rabelais himself, an ex-Franciscan and ex-Benedictin, and a famous physician, and high level magistrate with highest level connections, including cardinals, escaped to the republic of Metz, the condemnation of the University of Paris. Others were not so favored).

I am even more of a cultural relativist than Montaigne. But I do not claim all cultures are equivalent. Far from it. Even a despicable culture can contain gems (this goes even for the Sharia!) Cultural traits, ideas and feeling can be picked and chosen, among all and any cultures, real, and imagined, to bring in nutrients into the salad of thoughts we need to forge forward into the richest world of possibilities Earthly intelligence has ever faced

***

Progress, which progress? Could Renaissance thinkers say:

Progress was hard to ascertain: the instigation of the Dark Ages by the civilizationally deranged Christians shook the very foundations of human reason. Burning nearly all books & intellectuals made it more irrecoverable.

When we look way back, now that we can reconstitute civilization through the fog of the immense destruction by the sexually deranged Christian Jihadists, we discover that the Greco-Roman empire was immensely advanced (and that empire extended well beyond direct political control: the Celts used the Greek alphabet and deities, centuries before the conquest of Gallia by the unifying Roman brutes).

23 centuries ago, around 330 BCE, the Greek scientist Pytheas headed an expedition by the Marseilles empire. Pytheas circumnavigated Britain, and  discovered the mysterious Thule: Iceland, or at least Norway, and certainly the polar circle and sea ice (his ship couldn’t advance anymore). Pytheas also discovered the method to measure the spherical Earth within 1% (often attributed to Eratosthenes, but the latter came a century later). Don’t ask today’s ignorant French: they may know what PC, but they don’t know the history of the place now known as France.

Other Marseilles’ expeditions went to Senegal, while Carthaginians captured gorillas, went around Africa, and traded with subsaharan Africa.

***

Native Americans Followed the Wrong Strategy With The Viking, Whereas Carolingian Franks Did it Right:

A thousand years ago, after following Irish monks to Iceland, the Vikings discovered a huge part of North America. The Viking were unable to hold North America militarily, though, as the Natives proved hostile, and uncontrollably so. Thus, ironically enough, American Natives organized their own demise, long-term… If the American Indians had invited the Viking in, Native Americans would have become civilizationally, militarily and biologically stronger, and could have endured!

By the way, by inviting the Viking to stay and colonize, what came to known as Normandy, the Franks put an end to their (more than a) century long war with the Scandinavians: the French were smarter than the Native Americans… Normandy also became arguably the world’s most mentally advanced place by the Eleventh Century: watch the Duke of Normandy casually tell dinners that the Earth turned around the Sun, or Berangarius de Tours,  a church authority, claiming all the god we needed was reason. Berengar was in turn discreetly protected by the Duke…

Experts may moan that the Franks got the war started by addressing ultimata to the Danes regarding Saxon refugees (in the Eighth Century)… So it was natural that after 900 CE they extend an olive branch. Yes, maybe. But it remains that the Native Americans were certainly stupid not to welcome and embrace the Vikings… And the massacre of Columbus’ men was more of the same. It’s not smart for savages to attack the gods, just after they showed up.

***

America, A Discovery Whose Time Had Come Through General Scientific Enlightenment:

But the discovery of North America was kept hushed, although maps went around, just as the existence of Inuits, one of whom paddled all the way to Scotland during the beginning of the Little Ice Age. The rich cod fishing off Cape Cod was also kept secret.

Various Portuguese sailors had determined that there was a continent west of the Azores, for example by recovering wood sculpted, but not by iron instrument, and also various trees of non-European origin, and even corpses of American natives, carried from the west by the mighty wind and currents Columbus would use to return in just 31 days.  

This Portuguese discretion was turned on its head in 1492 CE, when the queen of Castille decided to launch the veteran and irresistible Spanish army towards the New World (instead of liberating North Africa and the Middle East from Islam, as had been planned previously; 1492 was also when the Jews were thrown out, coincident to the day Columbus sailed away). A Portuguese sailor, Columbus’ father in law, had extensively travelled. His documents persuaded Columbus of the existence of the continent which became America… while his brother-in-law, Pedro Correa, produced more sculpted wood from the West…

Columbus informed the queen (the queen was less keen that her husband in pursuing Jews and Muslims to the ends of the world).The possibly Jewish Columbus sailed back on January 15 1493, reaching the Azores February 15 (after a terrible storm)! Columbus announced the discovery of lush and gold laden large islands, among them the enormous Cuba and Hispaniola. He brought back with him a few Natives. The 39 men Viceroy Columbus had left behind in a fort, were killed to the last man by the Natives (who were later themselves annihilated: just as with the Viking, Native Americans would have been smarter to welcome the powerful, knowledgeable strangers and insure their safety, come what may…).

By the mid sixteenth educated Europeans had fully realized that much of the world thought and lived very differently from what they called “Christendom”. No thinker viewed Europe more critically in the light of the habits of the natives of the “New World” than Michel de Montaigne. He gathered much evidence from an employee of his, a Normand who had lived ten years in Brazil among the Natives (and who was used as a translator). Montaigne describes his Normand as “un homme simple et grossier”. The Normand (and thus Montaigne) described mostly the Tupinamba of Brazil.

Here are the most famous extracts from the Essais from the essay “Des Cannibales”. After making the apology of cannibalism, Montaigne concludes:

Nous les pouvons donc bien appeler barbares, eu égard aux règles de la raison, mais non pas eu égard à nous, qui les surpassons en toute sorte de barbarie. Leur guerre est toute noble et généreuse, et a autant d’excuse et de beauté que cette maladie humaine peut en recevoir…

(Personal) Translation:

We may therefore call them barbarous, by judging them according to the rules of reason, but not relatively to ourselves, who surpass them in all sorts of barbarism. Their war is all noble and generous, and has as much excuse and beauty as this human disease can receive …

But there is worse on Montaigne’s part:

“Or je trouve, pour revenir à mon propos, qu’il n’y a rien de barbare et de sauvage en cette nation, à ce qu’on m’en a rapporté, sinon que CHACUN APPELLE BARBARIE CE QUI N’EST PAS DE SON USAGE; comme de vrai, il semble que nous n’avons autre critère (“mire”) de la vérité et de la raison que l’exemple et idée des opinions et usages du pays où nous sommes. Là est toujours la parfaite religion, le parfait gouvernement (“police”), parfait et accompli usage de toutes choses. Ils sont sauvages, de même que nous appelons sauvages les fruits que nature, de soi et de son progrès ordinaire, a produits : là où à la vérité, ce sont ceux que nous avons altérés par notre artifice et détournés de l’ordre commun, que nous devrions appeler sauvages.”

Essays, l. I, chap. XXXI, “Cannibals”,

Folio, Volume 1, Gallimard, p. 305 sq.

Now, to return to my subject, I find that there is nothing barbarous or savage in this nation, as far as I have been told, except that EVERYONE CALLS BARBARIAN WHAT IS NOT OF HIS OWN USAGE (1); in truth, it seems that we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and idea of ​​the opinions and usages of the country where we live. There, in that country of ours, is always the perfect religion, the perfect police, perfect and accomplished use of all things. They are savage, just as we call savages the fruits which nature, of itself and of its ordinary progress, has produced: where, in truth, they are those which we have altered by our artifice and diverted from the common order, that we should call savages (2).

***

Montaigne relaunched a tradition of using non-European peoples as a basis for engaging in a critique of Euro-Greco-Roman own culture. However Montaigne also went where (most) antique thinkers had not. He engaged in simplistic analysis, worthy of a 6 years old, undoubtedly in the process romanticizing what Jean-Jacques Rousseau would later celebrate. It is a theme which still appeals to many West-hating Westerners.

**************************************************************************

Montaigne:

. . . “ I do not find that there is anything barbaric or savage about this nation, according to what I’ve been told, unless we are to call barbarism whatever differs from our own customs. Indeed, we seem to have no other standard of truth and reason than the opinions and customs of our own country. There at home is always the perfect religion, the perfect legal system–the perfect and most accomplished way of doing everything.

These people are wild in the same sense that fruits are, produced by nature, alone, in her ordinary way. Indeed, in that land, it is we who refuse to alter our artificial ways and reject the common order that ought rather to be called wild, or savage.  In them the most natural virtues and abilities are alive and vigorous, whereas we have bastardized them and adopted them solely to our corrupt taste. Even so, the flavor and delicacy of some of the wild fruits from those countries is excellent, even to our taste, better than our cultivated ones. After all, it would hardly be reasonable that artificial breeding should be able to outdo our great and powerful mother, Nature. We have so burdened the beauty and richness of her works by our innovations that we have entirely stifled her. Yet whenever she shines forth in her purity she puts our vain and frivolous enterprises amazingly to shame. . . . All our efforts cannot create the nest of the tiniest bird: its structure, its beauty, or the usefulness of its form; nor can we create the web of the lowly spider. All things, said Plato are produced by nature, chance, or human skill, the greatest and most beautiful things by one of the first two, the lesser and most imperfect, by the latter. . . .

These nations seem to me, then, barbaric in that they have been little refashioned by the human mind and are still quite close to their original naivety. They are still ruled by natural laws, only slightly corrupted by ours. They are in such a state of purity that I am sometimes saddened by the thought that we did not discover them earlier, when there were people who would have known how to judge them better than we. It displeases me that Lycurgus or Plato didn’t know them, for it seems to me that these peoples surpass not only the portraits which poetry has made of the Golden Age and all the invented, imaginary notions of the ideal state of humanity, but even the conceptions and the very aims of philosophers themselves. They could not imagine such a pure and simple naivety as we encounter in them; nor would they have been able to believe that our society might be maintained with so little artifice and social structure.

***

Yes, Indeed, Cannibals Are Us, to the point we have cannibal DNA:

One thing Montaigne is right on, is to view cannibalism as nothing special. To quote Wikipedia:

Among modern humans, cannibalism has been practiced by various groups.[25] It was practiced by humans in Prehistoric Europe,[35][36] Mesoamerica[37] South America,[38]among Iroquoian peoples in North America,[39] Māori in New Zealand,[40] the Solomon Islands,[41] parts of West Africa[17] and Central Africa,[17] some of the islands of Polynesia,[17] New Guinea,[42] Sumatra,[17] and Fiji.[43] Evidence of cannibalism has been found in ruins associated with the Ancestral Puebloans of the Southwestern United States as well as (at Cowboy Wash in Colorado).[44][45][46]

Not just this: the evidence of cannibalism in humans is at least 600,000 years old. There are two reasons for it, I reckon: proteins were hard to find in the past. But not just this: by eating humans themselves, humans prevented predators to acquire a taste for human flesh, a paramount security consideration  around potentially human eating predators. Eating dead humans is then, indeed, nothing special, having two good reasons for it. What of the possibility of prion disease? (That was found in North Africa, and the Fore of New Guinea, who were too enthusiastic in eating their parents, causing the prion disease kuru).

In 2003, a publication in Science magazine suggested that prehistoric humans practiced extensive cannibalism, to the point human genetics adapted to this practice. According to this research, genetic markers commonly found in modern humans, worldwide, suggest that today many people carry a gene providing protection against the brain diseases that can be spread by consuming human brain tissue… A study of the Fore, an isolated tribe living in Papua New Guinea by Simon Mead, John Collinge and colleagues, at the MRC’s Prion Unit at University College London, found evidence that a gene variant arose in some of the Fore to protect against a deadly prion disease transmitted by their former cannibalistic habits. Prion diseases include CJD in humans and BSE – mad cow disease – in cattle.

The team found from analysing DNA samples that the same protective gene variant is common in people all over the world. This led the researchers to conclude that it evolved when cannibalism was widespread, in order to shield cannibals from prion diseases lurking in the flesh of victims.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action/

A DNA debate ensued, but my hunch is that the cannibalistic protection gene has got to exist, for the ubiquitous reasons I gave. Why New Guinea Highlanders are susceptible may have to do paradoxically with cannibalism being less practiced in that lush area since it was colonized by humans…

I suggested that cannibalism had, in part to do with not giving predators a taste for human flesh (notice the expression). Guess what? Native mammal fauna of New Guinea lacks large predators, so what I see as a main reason for cannibalism was absent in New Guinea! (Right, there are both Saltwater and Freshwater crocodiles in New Guinea, but those saurians are not smart enough to develop distinguished and cultural culinary habits, differently from felines, hyenas, canids, bears, eagles, etc.)

***

Montaigne had little imagination:

If eating dead humans is then, indeed, nothing special, having two good reasons for it, not eating humans is a deviation from normalcy. Thus, not eating humans is an indication of civilization, that most striking anomaly life ever evolved.

In the 21th Century, the Disney company has a problem: patrons spreading around the ashes of their loved ones (which they put in medication bottles as large containers are checked). Haunted houses are a preferred place. People can be weird, but there is nothing weird about cannibalism (psychiatrist associations have refused to label cannibalism a mental disease).

The word “cannibalism” is derived from Caníbales, the Spanish name for the Caribs, whom Columbus encountered. (Some say the Spaniards invented the word in analogy with the Latin “canis”, mixing it with the sound for the karina as the islanders described themselves). Dog eat dog, in other words… In any case, “cannibalism” was introduced in France in 1515 CE.  

Spanish conquistadores observed that the Carib Indians were cannibals who regularly ate roasted human flesh. There is evidence as to the taking of human trophies and the ritual cannibalism of war captives among both Carib and other Amerindian groups such as the Arawak and Tupinamba (the ones from Brazil Montaigne knew best). The Caribs themselves were invaders from South America, having arrived around 1200 and displaced the indigenous Tainos. With the Mexican Aztecs, cannibalism took industrial proportions (and turned out into their undoing).

In long prose I will not bother to reproduce here, Montaigne makes an idyllic description of cannibalism: something that happened peacefully after death. What a dearth of imagination!

Real cannibalism is something else. Did Montaigne think about the problem of indigestion? One does not want to eat too much meat at one time. How to preserve the meat, when one has no salt, no cold drying wind, no deep freezing lakes? Well, one can eat the meat, one piece at a time. Over a period of weeks.

In 1910, the American anthropologist, A P Rice, described how the people of the Marquesas Islands ritualistically killed their captives.

First, they broke their legs, to stop them running away, then they broke their arms, to stop them resisting. This was an unhurried killing, because the Marquesans enjoyed observing their victim contemplating his fate. Eventually, the man would be skewered and roasted.

Nuku Hiva has a population of just over 2000 and has a history of cannibalism, but the practice was believed to have ceased. Not so sure. In any case, when battling the enemy, eating him, or her, can be viewed as the ultimate insult. So it was perceived for many cannibalisms, such as the one in New Zealand.(Dishonoring the dead is a long practice for cherished enemies: see Obama with Bin Laden.)

***

If One Really Hates Them, One May As Well, Eat Them Alive:

(No, I won’t tweet that one! Such a statement will be evilly contextualized by the ill-minded and the mentally challenged…)

Long ago, I read extensive nineteenth century description of cannibalism in Oceania (I searched but could not find references). It goes from the humoristic to the grim. On the humoristic side, that time when the British delegation to New Zealand was invited to celebrate a treaty with the Maoris, with an extensive Luau comprising many roasted Natives.

That we have so much indications of cannibalism in Oceania is per the nature of islands (small, no extensive crops to raid after killing the peasants), and the fact these were Neolithic societies, equivalent to those found in Europe before the Mesopotamian farmers and their intensive agriculture crops colonized Europe, 7,000 years ago… (So, it’s not anti-Pacific Islander racism; actually the ethnicities of those islanders vary a lot, between Filipino derived and Melanesian… History is complicated, and not PC, as the case of New Zealand shows…)

One grim truth is that, in hot tropical climate, without refrigeration, some captives were eaten, ALIVE,  piece by piece over a period of days, or even weeks (not to say that Europeans wouldn’t do such a thing: the assassin of one of the “Orange” leaders of the Netherlands, William the Silent, was publicly tortured to death over several days).

The necessity to eat some people alive, under some circumstances, illustrates clearly that cannibalism, or the absence thereof, is dependent upon the environment and technology, not just the “mores”: there are widespread rumors that the Wehrmacht resorted to cannibalism in Stalingrad (in any case, the Wehrmacht’s Sixth Army resorted to practices, like torture to death, which are fully documented, in Poland, France, and Russia…)

***

Conclusion: As an indication of barbarity, eating people is neither here, nor there. Eating corpses when there is no other choice, is viewed as correct, even in the most conservative societies. The real barbarity is to set-up, or contribute to set-up, or tolerate situations where cannibalism would be a natural outcome. It goes without saying that, in a world of 8 billion people highly dependent on international trade to feed themselves (most energy is traded, at this point), a serious war would disrupt trade, and invite cannibalism.

Montaigne, by claiming that what we do not practice we view as barbaric, and, by claiming implicitly that this was legitimate, or by transmogrifying cannibalism into something nice, voided the concept of barbarity from any content.

To stay attached to the notion of progress, we have to be able to distinguish between what is bad and what is better. For example, having a situation where one has to eat one’s enemy alive is bad, and a situation in which we have no enemy is better.

Montaigne, dejected by the Saint Bartholomew massacre launched by his Catholic party was led to hint that Catholics viewed Protestants as barbaric, just because of their different ways (“usage”). Understood. However, the concept that barbarity is entirely relative has since taken a life of its own: one can see it loud and clear in Nazism (Himmler recommended to his men, after their daily massacres, of civilians, women and children, to immerse themselves to eternal German culture, complete with soothing classical music).

Cultural multiculturalism, in its extreme contemporary form, claims we can’t judge other cultures. Or even other cultures’ ideas and practices. If religiously endowed, the more horrendous practices, sexual mutilations or executions, are tolerated.

For example, Pakistan’s court condemned a young Christian woman, Asia Noreen – commonly known as Asia Bibi, to be executed for allegedly insulting Islam during a dispute with neighbors (she already spent eight years on death row). The Pakistan Supreme Court ordered her freed in November 2018, but she was left in prison as the Islamists called for her death. Her senior male lawyer, saying he regretted nothing, fled Pakistan.

Such behaviors from powers in Pakistan depict barbarity unchained: in the place known as Pakistan, at some point Jihadists invaded, and imposed their barbarity (centuries after Christianism peacefully seduced Pakistanis). That Islamists use terror doesn’t make terror any less barbaric. Michel de Montaigne would have us believe that, because terror is a usage of Jihadists, we shouldn’t call it barbaric, as they use it, and we, the secular civilians, don’t. Well, that’s swine level reasoning.

We can only love those we can debate, as, at worst, they provide us with the occasion to prove them wrong. At best, they make us more intelligent, wiser and knowledgeable, making us stronger. So I love Montaigne more than ever, even though my esteem for him went down a lot, while Rousseau’s, to my dismay, went up.

I am a real multicultural, multilingual, even multi continental fanatic. I even call Chinese history home, although I grew up (mostly) in Africa. Good multiculturalism is to pick and choose particular elements of the hundreds of culture we have at our disposal, and reject others we find horrid. I understand what Native North Americans were up to, with their tortures to death. I also understand and appreciate the psychology and traditions which motivated the “47 Ronins. I know very well that some Africans traits viewed as primitive, are actually more advanced. But in all this there is one meta principles: some ideas and feelings are more advanced than others. Comparing, or accepting, cultures wholesale is naive, even criminal.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Notes:

  1. Parroted by Levi Strauss in Race et Histoire, Unesco, 1952, pp. 19 sq.

“Dans les Grandes Antilles, quelques années après la découverte de l’Amérique, pendant que les Espagnols envoyaient des commissions d’enquête pour rechercher si les indigènes possédaient ou non une âme, ces derniers s’employaient à immerger des blancs prisonniers afin de vérifier par une surveillance prolongée si leur cadavre était ou non, sujet à la putréfaction.

Cette anecdote à la fois baroque et tragique illustre bien le paradoxe du relativisme culturel (que nous retrouverons ailleurs sous d’autres formes) : c’est dans la mesure même où l’on prétend établir une discrimination entre les cultures et les coutumes que l’on s’identifie le plus complètement avec celles qu’on essaye de nier. En refusant l’humanité à ceux qui apparaissent comme les plus “sauvages” ou ” barbares ” de ses représentants, on ne fait que leur emprunter une de leurs attitudes typiques. Le barbare, c’est d’abord l’homme qui croit à la barbarie.”

Notice that this piece of brain-dead sophistry minded devious apology of extreme multiculturalism was published by the United Nations. Now the UN can be proud that non-Muslims get executed in Pakistan for just being non-Muslim (as many Islam texts say they should).

Translation: “In the Greater Antilles, a few years after the discovery of America, while the Spaniards sent commissions of inquiry to find out whether the natives had a soul or not, the natives were trying to immerse white prisoners to check by prolonged surveillance if their body was or was not, subject to putrefaction.

This baroque and tragic anecdote illustrates the paradox of cultural relativism (which we will find elsewhere in other forms): it is to the very extent that we claim to discriminate between cultures and customs that we identify ourselves most completely with those we try to deny. By denying humanity to those who appear to be the most “savage” or “barbarian” of its representatives, one only borrows one of their typical attitudes. The barbarian is first and foremost the man who believes in barbarism.

“The barbarian is first and foremost the man who believes in barbarism?” that’s Levi-Strauss parroting Montaigne, denying there is such a thing as barbarity. Here Levi Strauss is poorly informed, repeating mindlessly a racist insult (against Spaniards): the notion of Indians having a soul was never put in doubt by the Spaniards: that’s precisely why they tried to convert them to Catholicism, as ordered by the Pope! Thus, irony of ironies, the holier-than-thou Levi-Strauss proclaims those who believe in barbarity barbarians, while himself indulging in fake news, fake, and racially insulting data, trying to make us believe that the Conquistadors were themselves delirious stupid racist brutes (they could be as brutish as needed, but were nether racist, nor stupid: for example, Cortez’s relationship with La Malinche, a multilingual Yucatan Princess, was crucial for the conquest… He recognized the children.)

***

(2) Rousseau parroted Montaigne, but not just... It is often said that Rousseau parroted Montaigne, but, reading the originals, I didn’t find just this. Instead I found this:

Ce qu’il y a de plus cruel, encore, c’est que, tous les progrès de l’espèce humaine l’éloignant sans cesse de son état primitif, plus nous accumulons de nouvelles connaissances et plus nous nous ôtons les moyens d’acquérir la plus importante de toutes, et que c’est en un sens à force d’étudier l’homme que nous nous sommes mis hors d’état de le connaître.

“What is most cruel, still, is that, as all the progress of the human species constantly removes it ever more from its primitive state, the more we accumulate new knowledge and the more we take away from us the means to acquire the most important knowledge of all, and that it is in a sense the more we study man, the more we put ourselves out of the state necessary to know him.”

This is correct in the sense of the salons Rousseau frequented, but not in the sense of laboratories exploring dendrites and neurotransmitters. Such a quote is also extremely far from the myth of the “Bon Sauvage” attributed to Rousseau…

However it remains that Rousseau held that men in a state of nature do not know good and evil, but their independence, along with “the peacefulness of their passions, and their ignorance of vice”, keep them from doing ill (A Discourse…, 71-73). Curious that Rousseau never heard of the systematic usage of lethal, prolonged torture among North American Natives, as the way to end prisoners’ lives… That was extremely well documented and known at the time, so one can see Rousseau was extremely biased, to the point of idiocy.

I tied in Montaigne’s divagations with Jihadism. So did Rousseau, I discovered after I wrote the preceding… except that Rousseau approves of Jihadism, Christian or Islamist, and approves of burning libraries:

They say that Caliph Omar, when consulted about what had to be done with the library of Alexandria, answered as follows: ‘If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.’ Our learned men have cited this reasoning as the height of absurdity. However, suppose Gregory the Great was there instead of Omar and the Gospel instead of the Koran. The library would still have been burned, and that might well have been the finest moment in the life of this illustrious pontiff.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (1st Discourse) and Polemics

***

3) So what’s barbarian?

Barbarian is relative to the circumstances. For example, many elements of the doctrine advocated by Muhammad, in his day, and age, and place of worship, was not barbarian… but, just the opposite, progressive! However, now, it both barbarian and regressive.  

Christianism, though, is another matter. When Constantine imposed “Catholic Orthodoxy” that was definitively barbarian and regressive. It opened an anti-intellectual abyss under Greco-Roman civilization it collapsed into.

PA