Archive for the ‘Tribalism’ Category

Globalocracy, Obama, Trump, High Water

November 15, 2016

A week ago today, Trump was sure to lose, the globalocrats were saying from every roof. A week ago today, the plutocracy owned media was red-hot hysterical against Trump, a lonely guy, while Hollywood was surrounding Clinton, singing, praising, celebrating her, insulting him. Bruce Springsteen made a long speech before a concert, psychoanalyzing Trump, telling us what a pervert egoistic psychopath he was (I am sure horny Bruce is trying to be invited at the White House now).

A week ago, the establishments, from dumb academia to corrupt Main Stream Media, were sure that my year old prediction that Trump would beat Clinton was assuredly madness. Intellectually corrupt Krugman was filling up pages of crooked polls supposed to demonstrate Clinton’s intrinsic superiority and manifest destiny (as if how well one polled had anything to do with ideas, and was of any bearing! But that is what one expects from dumb people grasping at straws). 

A week later, the fascist corporations which profited so much from Obama’s rule are down 10% on the stock market. The aghast Googles, Booked Faces, Bad Apples, Tax Cheating, Ruthless Amazons, & their captive or capture media, Corrupt Electrifying Generals, Micro Softs in the head, etc. They had a good deal with the Deep State: pay no tax, then expand on the empire worldwide, using corrupt justice and corrupt political leaders, worldwide…Trump was very clear he was not going to persist with that deal, thus joining Snowden, Wikileaks and yours truly.

Having Discovered The Wall Already Exists, Trump Concedes that "a fence will be enough in some places". Existing Wall Between USA and Mexico.

Having Discovered The Wall Already Exists, Trump Concedes that “a fence will be enough in some places”. Existing Wall Between USA and Mexico. Notice there is also a fence. And two patrolling roads.

Idiots will bemoan the collapse of corrupt technological monopolies doubling as spy agencies. The opposite is true. Those giant fascist corporate monopolies of the global corruptocracy have ruined technology and the Patent System, in particular.

Obama gave a press conference. Obama was subdued, meditative. Trump’s election has made him much more reflective. One should say: philosophical. Politics is practical philosophy. In substance Obama said: People have spoken D T will be the next president. That’s how democracy works. It takes a while for people to reconcile themselves with that new reality. We differ on a  whole bunch of issues so I am concerned, yet the office of the president changes the office holder, including his/her mood.

Obama praised Trump for his connection with the American People. He said that Trump saw some things others had not seen, and created a movement. Indeed, he did: the post-election analysis is out, and the results are shattering. Compared to Romney, Trump gained 8% on Hispanics (so Clinton touring with a would-be murderess once promoted by Trump, did not turn out as well as expected, surprise, surprise…)

One thing I disagreed with was Obama drinking from a styrofoam cup. What about one of these nice White House embossed ceramic, re-usable cups? Styrofoam, and no-use plastic things are going to be outlawed. Show us the way, Barry!

Obama legitimately said that his was the most ethical administration. Yes. And well, no: Obama did not control to lobbying mood. High level officials left his administration early, to go out and earn multi-million dollars incomes. The way out of that is to outlaw lobbying for years after leaving government (Trump has suggested a lobbying block of five years; I would make it ten years against income, five, free of charge).  

On the globalocracy, Obama said correct things. Finally. But he was not very clear that globalocracy should never, ever, contradict local democracy (except when it is a war authorization, as the French Republic got from the United Nations before striking in Libya to save Benghazi.

By the way, on Syria, Obama said the situation was now a mess, and there is nothing obvious one can do. Right. That’s why Assad, and his closest entourage, should have struck down, when France was ready to go it alone with the USA. Nothing wrong about the two top military powers of the West striking together a rogue, mass murdering dictator. Rogue, mass murdering dictators should always be struck. First, because of the danger of contagion through example. 

My idea was just to replace him with some other Alawite general. On Libya, the ball was dropped. Now it has to be picked up again. An empire has to be extended.

Obama was asked what he thought of Trump, after talking to him one on one for 90 minutes; he called Trump “pragmatic”. Trump will need pragmatism to sail the Acqua Alta. Here is a picture of Venice, November 2016:

Flooding, Worldwide, Is Accelerating. As Expected. Trump Has Already Made Noises That Renewables Are An Economic Asset of the USA.

Flooding, Worldwide, Is Accelerating. As Expected. Trump Has Already Made Noises That Renewables Are An Economic Asset of the USA.

I think that the interdiction of being elected more than twice in a row is correct, but somebody like Obama should be able to run again, sometimes in the future. So an advice to Obama: get your loud mouth, smart ass wife in politics. She would make a good president, sometimes in the future, come to think of it.  

Trump spent 90 minutes talking one on one with Obama. In a tight schedule, the meeting was supposed to last only 15 minutes. None of this is demanded by the US Constitution. And some transitions, even modern ones, have been extremely nasty, complete with ripped phones. Trump talking about Obama:“I told him I will look at his suggestions, and out of respect, I will do that.” Trump said he also looked forward meeting with Obama many times in the future, apparently to profit from this well of wisdom.

Meanwhile Trump was interviewed, and was boringly reasonable all over. Yes, the Wall with Mexico could just be a fence in some places. On hundreds of miles, the present wall is just deadly desert. A Wall would save hundreds of lives a year.

Trump is forced by law to accept a presidential salary. So he will take a one dollar a year salary. (instead of 400 K). He also says:”there is so much to do, we will not be big on vacations.” Trump is also digging in about terms limits for politicians, in a full confrontation with the Republican held Senate.

Trump was given a security briefing, a while ago, with top generals. He listened. Then he asked:”Do you know what a continuous pour is?” Nobody did. Finally a top general confessed his ignorance. So Trump explained what it was. Superficial message: I know stuff, too. The Economist was dismissive of Trump, saying he knew nothing. I think that it is rather the editors at The Economist who know nothing outside of what their masters tell them. Actually Trump may be the best prepared president. Ever. After all, he is a 70 year old builder of great buildings, and a business empire. When Obama got to power, he was smart, but all too young and inexperienced.

(And please don’t tell me JFK was experienced. Yes, he was a great war hero, and that made him experienced. And a Senator, and a scion of plutocrat, worth billions. However, as Allen Dulles pointed out:”That little Kennedy, he thought he was god.” Hint: nothing that a few bullets from several directions could not cure… JFK had uncautiously fired Dulles from his own creation, the CIA… But now the CIA has created the Daily Kos, which feeds the sick minds of the little protesters in the streets, and the situation has got worse…)

So what is a continuous pour? When building a great building, the foundation, a giant concrete pool, meters thick, has to be poured in one flow. So concrete trucks line up, sometimes for many city blocks in the case of a giant skyscraper (like Trump Tower). Then the pour is effected, in a matter of hours, truck after truck, with up to 16 trucks dumping concrete simultaneously. In California, the world’s largest pours have seen more than 40,000 tons poured over 24 hours (giant towers in California have also the world’s deepest foundations, around 80 meters, out of respect for giant quakes).

Obama did not know about continuous pour. That is why he waited the end of his doomed presidency for a constant pour of executive orders. A president who wants really to change things will have to engaged in a continuous pour. Trump is perfectly aware of it, that was his secret message. (BTW, FDR did the mother of all continous pour; his transition from Hoover was full of hatred. FDR cruised on a yacht, for weeks, full of contempt for the lame duck president…)

Meanwhile, the super Moon, in combination with global warming, flooded Miami Beach. Trump is getting flooded, even immersed, by reality. Right away. Expect him to love it: that man loves to fight. The Wall he will have to build is the one with the ocean.

Patrice Ayme’

Golden Rule Reassessed

August 14, 2016

The so-called “Golden Rule” is never to do to others what one would not like others to do to oneself. Or variation thereof. It implicitly assume people don’t like to suffer, or to inflict pain and extermination. It also assumes that right and wrong are like night and day (that is literally the root of the religion known as Manichaeism) Thus the Golden Rule is inapplicable: history, Christianism, Islamism are full of people, or even a god loving pain, punishment, suffering, even as applied to oneself, not just others.

Buddhism is different that way. It naively assumes that people want to avoid suffering at all cost. But if we did this, it’s not clear we could exist. Actually the best way would be to absorb a deadly dose of barbiturates, and be done, Marilyn Monroe style.

Thus, fundamentally, Buddhism is so irrelevant, as to be inhuman (whereas Christianism and Islamism are all too human!) Pain and suffering are intrinsically human. Pain and suffering are regulators of the human species. It is not a question of the animal condition. Pain and suffering do not necessarily regulate all species. They do not regulate marmots. When marmots come out of hibernation, the head marmot considers her folk, and how many have died over winter. She wants a group of between 15 and 21 individuals. Say three have died: she asks her consort to make her three little ones. Then she turns on a pheromone to turn him off. 

Humans Are Not Marmots. Agent Of Evolution Such as Human Beings Are Made For Deception, And Destruction, Not Contraception

Humans Are Not Marmots. Agent Of Evolution Such as Human Beings Are Made For Deception, And Destruction, Not Contraception

The dominant female cannot bear more than two to four babies. If she is unable to replenish the colony, all by herself, she makes it so that her consort impregnates another female. Thus marmots are made for the Golden Rule: they regulate their population in a very gentle, specific way. Humans do not regulate their population through fancy birth control, but through mayhem, pain, suffering, deprivation, famine.

Reciprocal perversity, not just reciprocal altruism, is then intrinsic to the human species: this . Higher wisdom consists not in denying reality,  but in circumnavigating it, for the best. We have so much technology, nowadays, the fanciest moral principles can be brought to bear.     

Take an example. The cases of Mr. Assange (an Australian citizen) and Mr. Snowden (an US citizen). Assange and Snowden are the two most prominent whistle-blowers in the world (lanceurs d’alerte, alarm launchers, literally, in French).

Julian Assange revealed that US military forces, using an attack helicopter, had killed journalists, and then fired again and again, on would-be rescuers. One would think that US authorities, were they compatible with the Golden Rule as traditionally interpreted, and the Jesus god Obama talks about all the time, would have tanked Assange for this revelation. After all, a democracy should have armed forces beyond any suspicion. (The military forces of the UK, the US and France went through the Second World War without extremely blatant, shocking war crimes committed, although the Americans were ruthless, the French somewhat vengeful, and both the French and British suffered striking war crimes from Nazi forces in May-June 1940). 

Instead of lauding Assange, the Washington government has gone all out to capture Assange, and had an ex-CIA agent accusing him of unclear activities. The same violent treatment was extended to Edward Snowden, who had the presence of mind to escape to Russia (making Putin a force for the good!) Snowden’s crime was to reveal that the so-called “social networks” and “search engines” of the USA were actually spy networks searching for miscreants. That, in turn, brought many questions, including how much of world public opinion is fabricated deliberately by the US “Deep State”.

Philosophically, it means the Obama administration had it all wrong. At least all wrong, if, and only if, democracy is what it wants to preserve. In democracy, or justice, and democracy is about justice for all, as all, information is the prime ingredient. A really democratic state will never, ever pursue information providers. Whistle-blowers are among the saints of democracy. 

Assange and Snowden made precious gifts to US democracy. In answer, Obama offered We The People a poisoned dish: serving rabid nationalism the frantic fever of blind vengeance, forgetting that revealing crimes against democracy should be rewarded, not punished.

None of this is an accident, it’s a system, white as the driven snow, same as a polar bear on a rampage, and for the same reason. Ask the average democratic voters: they will telly you Hillary Clinton is more “Golden Rule” than her friend and rival, Donald Trump. As Bill Moyers put it, in his essay, “Anatomy of the Deep State“:

“Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called “Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory.”

Take another example: tolerance. Many feel, rightly, that the Golden Rule should include tolerance. Tolerance is necessary to be nice to others. Tolerance goes beyond just being nice to others. It’s about being nice to oneself, be it only by becoming smarter.

Tolerance is, fundamentally, a neurobiological problem. Any brain is a set of neuroglial networks. Any seriously new idea, or new emotion, is a threat against one, or several elements of that set. To welcome the threat requires a deliberate effort. One needs to train oneself to such mental gymnastics, deconstructing, fusioning and rebuilding. Mind. Tolerance is necessary for adopting superior ideas, and feelings, discarding inferior ones.

How does one train for tolerance? One should not be proud of being a citizen of some predigested, mass mental system. Instead one should be ashamed. Instead of following the herd, bleating altogether, one should shout from rooftops: “I am a citizen of the mind“.

The Golden Rule is thus, in part, necessarily, just from the inclusion of tolerance, about building a better mind. And tolerance is not easy to foster (as shown by the local interdiction of “burkini” on some beaches in France. See #tolerance). Tolerance for intolerance is not tolerance, but, potentially, its exact opposite:collaborating with mental fascism. We can see that the traditional Golden Rule is not easy to apply.

The real Golden Rule of humanity is that deeper thinking always works best, in the long run. For all that is the most worth it.  

Patrice Ayme’

Russian Jet Downed By Islamizing Turkey

November 26, 2015

Big wars have started for much less. What we know is this: a Sukhoi 24 Swing Wing Tactical Bomber, a work horse of the Russian Air Force, in service for decades, was shot down by Turkish F16s. Putin, rightly, called it “a stab in the back“. Except, as we will see, Turkey is pursuing an imperial dream, and hoping to get leverage from NATO to do so. Both of those dreams are nightmares which make the Islamist State a walk in the park, in comparison. And Obama’s Islamist wet dream is much to blame, as I will explain

The Captain and the Navigator ejected safely, but Pro-Turkey anti-Assad rebels fired on the parachuting crew, killing one of them. The latter fact is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention:  attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. They also fired on a rescuing Russian helicopter, killing one Russian marine.

According to a document leaked by Wikileaks, the Turkish government admitted that the plane was over a saillant of Turkish territory, for only 17 (seventeen) seconds, just around the time it takes for a full yawn.

The Russian who survived got the top prize as a navigator, a few years back. As well as denying Ankara’s assertions that the plane was in Turkey’s airspace, navigator Murakhtin, who says he knows the mission area “like the back of my hand,” also refuted Turkish officials’ claims that the pilots were warned repeatedly.

Clearly A Deliberate Aggression Of NATO Backed Turkey

Clearly A Deliberate Aggression Of NATO Backed Turkey

In actual fact, there were no warnings at all. Neither through the radio, nor visually, so we did not at any point adjust our course. You need to understand the difference in speed between a tactical bomber like a Su-24, and that of the F16. If they wanted to warn us, they could have sat on our wing,” said Murakhtin, who is currently recuperating at Russia’s air base in Latakia, northern Syria. This is indeed correct. The F16 is much faster and maneuverable. The Turks shot down a Russian plane, which indisputably fell in Syria, because they wanted to shoot down a Russian plane.

The consequence is that now Putin is going to bring all sorts of deadly missiles and planes to cover Russian tactical bombing. Some Russian anti-aircraft missiles can go 400 kilometers, at Mach 4. For a little while, France flew its bombers without armed escort, but that would have to change if the Russians get really trigger happy, Turkish style (except the Turks really indented harm, obviously).

The Russian navigator made an astounding admission: “As it was, the missile hit the back of our plane out of nowhere. We didn’t even have time to make an evasive maneuver.”

It brings questions on Russian MAWS (Missile Warning Systems). These are generally connected to various counter-measures, such as taking evasive action, ejecting flares, or flashing lasers at the incoming missile.

More generally, NATO may ponder its association with Turkey. Having Turkey drag NATO into a conflict with Russia is a NO-NO. Turkey Islamizing government has been playing a very complicated game. In particular by using Islamist tricks to support a fighting force of 10,000 “Turkmen” whom it has tried to Islamize, using the Muslim Brotherhood. The idea has been to block the Kurds, whom Turkey also directly bombs.

On February 21, 2015, Turkey launched an invasion of Syria by 500 men supported by tanks and warplanes, to open the mausoleum of the medieval warlord Shah Suleiman, the grandfather of the first Uthmanid emperor Osman Gazi ben Ertugruo. They removed the remains of this man who died 779 years ago, and brought them back to safe ground.

This curious foray may sound pretty crazy, but there is a general method to it. Neo-Ottoman fantasies are taking a growing grip on Turkish leaders’ imaginations. They see the Arab Spring as an opportunity to rebuild the region as an empire with Istanbul as capital, no less. And now they have won elections, giving them 5 years to pursue Islamization, their way.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu wants to build a born-again Ottoman Empire, in which Istanbul would “reintegrate the Balkan region, Middle East and Caucasus”. Hey, if Russia can try to do it, so can Ankara.

Turkey’s religious-right government has imposed an Islamist leadership on the insurgents fighting Bashar al-Assad, using as elsewhere in the region, a cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Those who were so much against European empire may some day discover reality: nature abhors a vacuum. Taking Europe out, brings back Turkey. Europe spent a millennium fighting Turkmen in the Middle East. A combined assault led mostly by Russians, Greeks, French and British (and let’s not forget the Australians at Gallipoli), in the last 300 years, succeeded to push Turkmen back to Anatolia (which they invaded less than 1,000 years ago).

However the Turkmen’s mentality exterminated or ejected millions of Greeks, Armenians and Kurds in the last century. So Turkish imperial fascist ways have stayed strong.

The Muslim Brotherhood resisted the secularising, Arab-nationalist Ba’ath, starting in 1963. Later it capitalized on protests provoked by high prices and housing shortages. This set off a cycle of violence which ended in the regime of Assad father ’s destroying the Brotherhood in a 1980 carnage with a city annihilated and more than 25,000 dead.

Liberals are aghast that the Muslim Brotherhood has hijacked their revolution. The truth is that Islam is a deep network, not just underground, but neurologically: a war religion perceived as a religion of peace, it has got all its bases covered.

For the West, the ongoing war is becoming increasingly a moment of truth. In 2009, United States’ president Obama went to Cairo to sing the praises of Islam. He thought that was smart, modern, In truth, that was a return to the Middle Ages.

More specifically, Obama’s told his aides that there are tensions between the Muslim and the West which root in colonialism. Sorry, Bambi, the roots are much deeper than that. The roots themselves are as deep as the word “Europe”. Because that word got used by the Franks to symbolize their resistance to the Islamist invasions.

Obama also said that he knows from his personal experience that the West and the Islam are not separate worlds because they share things such as love of God and family. Except God does not exist, and families always exist, so Obama was just agitating his tongue. He may as well have evoked the Moon.

Ever since the USA and Europe have put their faith in the “moderate jihadist”, a unicorn-like beast spitting fire, great killer of unbelievers, idolaters, apostates, pagans, other Muslims, Yazidis, and all enemies of God, yet respectable enough, admired by Obama, and a lover of families.

Now, it seems that this intriguing chase of the impossible presents some disagreements, such as Jihadists in our midst, killing the “idolaters” of music and cafes. The West must choose between going on, enunciating non-sense about Islam’s goodness, or reluctantly accept Bashar al-Assad’s brutally secularist regime as the less bad of a set of options which are all bad. But an increasingly insanely aggressive, Islamizing Turkey is potentially a much worse problem than Assad.

Speaking of encroaching insanity, Putin has been trying to amend his ways. He should be encouraged to do so. Meta-policy consists in encouraging the good moods.

When Obama went to Cairo to encourage Islam, he made the immense moral and strategic mistake of encouraging “Islam” (When talking about Algebra, no need to thank Islam; actually a Greco-Indian invention). Encouraging Islam just encourages war, because war is what the Qur’an is mostly about (read it!) So now Obama has got what his mood led to: more Islam, that is, more war. He compounded this when he refused to punish Assad personally for mass gas attacks. So now Assad is all what secularists have to work with (besides the Kurds). Putin agrees. No choice. Simply the West should try to protect secular rebels… who have to buy oil from… the Islamist State. War is complicated, always.

But the war we have, ultimately, is one between the mood leading to secular, direct democracy and its enemy, Islam, an objective ally of tyranny (read the Qur’an!) and plutocracy. That God Obama loves and respects so much, plans to destroy all of humanity (read the Qur’an, especially the latter Suras). What is more satanic?

Patrice Ayme’

Annex 1; Obama in Cairo: …”a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles…” How can one put a state (the USA) explicitly founded as secular, in the same category as a superstition (Islam)? Obama also deliberately hijacked the famous Washington-Adams declaration on the secularism of the USA, which I have quoted many times, well before 2009. Obama selectively sampled it, like a disk jockey from hell, cutting out the secular part, to make it sound pro-Muslim. So now Obama has got the Islamist State which, he says, is not a State of Islam, but the work of Satan: Commander-in-Chief of the Truly Faithful? The mood of theocracy spreading got (re)launched in the West, by the USA, during McCarthyism, and has made Western leaders mushy in the mind. But then you can call Obama a McCarthyist, and that’s great fun.

Annex 2: Lawmakers from the Kremlin-friendly A Just Russia party introduced a bill calling for a maximum punishment of five years in jail for those who deny that the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 was a genocide. (France recognizes formally the Armenian Genocide, since 2001, but, differently from the Jewish Genocide, denial is not punished by law.)

Islam: Lies & War Above Peace

November 17, 2015

More than 99% of known religions are, by the standards of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, not just evil, but illegal. And that includes Catholicism as practiced in, say, France, in 1700 CE.

The Islamist State has an ideology, and its name is Literal Islam, the one and only (anybody else is an apostate and Allâh ordered to kill them). John Oliver about the fuc*ing giant ass*olery which masquerades as something honorable:

The “Enlightenment”, mostly a French centric invention, consisted in asserting the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and destroy whatever was in the way of those rights, to impose them universally. When the French Republic declared war to the Nazi Reich (and to Hitler’s ally, the USSR), on September 3, 1939, it was more of the same. It was precisely to destroy ideologies which industrially violated the Rights of Man, while claiming to be for peace, freeing minorities, fighting an unfair treaty which had freed Eastern Europe, saving the pure races from bastardization, rescuing civilization, fighting “plutocrats” and all the grossest lies the Nazis could possibly imagine. As we will see below, the ideology known as Islam rests on a similar dynamic of the grossest lies.

 Islamophilia Kills

Islamophilia Kills

[ISIS declared that going to concerts or bars was “idolatry”, and that’s punished by death, according to the Qur’an, the message of Allah.]

The going was tough for France in 1940, and not just because of unusual left field attack planned by a couple of Nazi generals. That was recoverable, but not the attitude of the USA then. Indeed the USA, at the time did not hesitate to violate its mother, France, to advance American business (also known, aka, as plutocrats). So the USA helped, de facto, in more ways than one, the Nazis, by operating the same bait and switch as in World War One. Germany ended with 10% of its population killed, the European Jews got nearly annihilated, etc.

France would not have been occupied in 1940, if only the USA had barked (because the French Air Force has the means of counter-attack). But, instead of barking, Roosevelt recognized Vichy, a subsidiary of Hitler, as the legitimate French State (it was not).

Fortunately, the present American leadership has learned from the history of infamy to which Roosevelt and his accomplices brought so much. President Hollande proclaimed yesterday the USA and France to be “sisters”, and the U.S. Secretary of State, basking in front of the Red White And Blue U.S. embassy in Paris, proclaimed that the USA and France were “the same family”. Whereas Roosevelt disliked France intensely (after all, he was a plutocrat from a long lineage of plutocrats), Obama loves France (discreetly).

Islamophiles claim that “Islam is a religion of peace”. They also claim Islam respects other religions. Both statements indicate they have not read the Qur’an. They are sheer propaganda, but an extremely old, crafty and interlocked propaganda, set during the bloody decades when  Islam, and its various strifes and hatreds got established.

One call to violence in a religious text is enough to make the religion in question violent. Roughly 10% of the 80,000 words Qur’an are sheer calls to violence: please consult my “Violence in the Holy Qur’an” which consists of violent quotes from the Qur’an. They cannot be explained away.

One call to murder in a religion’s most sacred text, especially to murder of the obviously innocent, is enough, in my own sacred book of humanity, to make such a religion a call to holocaust.

In the New Testament, Jesus calls, in a few places, to murder “unbelievers”. There are not many of these quotes. Indeed, one is enough. Then, in the name of the Bible, “believers” could go out and kill millions of “unbelievers” (millions of those were Europeans). In the Qur’an, there are probably hundreds of calls to murder of entire categories of people. When ISIS struck in Paris, it said it had killed “idolaters” (one of the categories the Qur’an marks for murder.

So how come people who are often viewed as intelligent proclaim that “Islam is a religion of peace”? Because Islam says so. (Hitler said he was protecting minorities: hundreds of millions, not just Germans, but also Americans, believed him.)

Islam says it is a religion of peace, and this lie has elements of truth in it: surely, when you are dead, you are at peace.

What happened was this: the revelations of the “recitation” (= Qur’an) happened to Muhammad over a number of years. During those years the so-called “Messenger” was attacking caravans he was raiding, Jews whom he wanted to annihilate, and making war to Mecca who viewed Muhammad stridently revised Judeo-Christianism a threat to the holy city’s thriving religious business, led by the goddess Moon and 365 lesser deities, plus the same old meteorite Muslims turn around to this day (so Muslims are actually reproducing the acts of 2,000 year old, pre-Islamist IDOLATRY, ironically enough for people who want to kill all idolaters: why don’t they start with themselves?… Ah, but, yes, of course, I forgot, that’s the exact idea of suicide attacks…)

Muhammad won an important battle against Mecca, where he was born, from the leading family.

So Muhammad had to tame mighty Mecca, lest the city go in a total war mode. And, instead Muhammad had to make sure Mecca would accept to lose a few battles graciously. Thus Muhammad was accommodating, and made gentle statements, such as:’you can have your religion, I can have mine’. Muslim scholars interpret this as Muhammad being under duress.

Here comes the all important concept of taqiyya, or lying when in fear: it’s OK to do so. (It’s also OK to lie to reconcile a couple, or to get a woman in bed.).

Taqiyya appears in Sura 3:28:

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends; and whoever does this, shall have nothing to do with Allâh in any matter; unless you do this to protect yourselves from the unbelievers.  Thus Allâh cautions you to have reverence only for him. To Allâh is destiny.”

[My translation.]

Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir writes, “… believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers… are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.” Ibn Kafthir quotes Muhammad‘s companion, Abu Ad-Darda’, who said “we smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them,” and Al-Hasan who said that “dissimulation (Tuqyah) is acceptable till the Day of Resurrection.”

How can you have peace when you are supposed to religiously lie to “Non-believers”?

So what of that Islam is peace BS? How do we know that Islamist scholars who believe in the Qur’an, all of the Qur’an and nothing but the Qur’an, know that it is BS? Especially once completed by the much worse Hadith?

A common defense of Islam is to say that, like the Bible, there is everything, including the kitchen sink, in the text, so one cannot single out one or two bad elements. Out of just 80,000 words, the argument is obviously ridiculous: I publish as many words in barely more than a month, and I don’t include the kitchen sink.

As I said, there are more than 10,000 words in the worst verses of the Qur’an, many of them, lethal orders to kill. In this age, when the rage against plutocrats and their obsequious servants is so high, the orders to kill miscreants can only make a sacred text very tempting.

I claim the orders to kill miscreants, unbelievers. “idolaters” (ISIS word of the week), pagans, apostates supersede the “religion of peace” aspect.

Why? Because Muhammad feared for his life from Mecca and his own tribe, when he made this call: it’s straightforward taqiyya. Moreover, there is a general metaprinciple that a later verse takes precedence over an earlier verse. When Muhammad was dictator of Mecca (not expecting to die at the early age of 61), he issued the orders of “God” (namely himself), right and left, and for no good reason whatsoever (at least by then 15 centuries old Roman law standards).

Hopefully the holy alliance of France with the USA (“sister” country, said president Hollande… Actually, daughter) and rogue, but repenting Russia, will stamp out the Islamist State within months.

No pity should be shown, and heavy, relentless bombing used. Special Forces should be sent, in vast quantities. The three countries have plenty of them. A deal should be made with some of Saddam Hussein’s old officers, presently in ISIS.

In May 1940, France fought the unholy alliance of Hitler, Stalin and their friends, financiers, technologists and enablers, American plutocrats, not so discreetly supported by the American Congress and the White House.

This time Putin is no Stalin (I must admit with a reluctant smile) and president Obama is no (plutocratic and French backstabber) Roosevelt. Who said there could not be progress.?

A unique occasion is offering itself to get rid forever of Literal Islamism, as we got rid of Literal Christianism during the Enlightenment. Let’s outlaw the former, as we did the latter. Ferocity for the better is in order. Let’s go. This is how to recover an Islam we can live with, a seriously improved version of the one the Persian Caliphate knew, in the age of the House of Wisdom.

Patrice Ayme’

Religion: Delusion Serves Tribalization

December 13, 2014

[The following was censored by an American philosophy site. Why? It “exacerbates things”.]

In culturally advanced countries, such as the USA, religious believers with a modicum of general culture and awareness, know very well that, when they embrace a superstition, a so-called religion, they fancy something that is not the truth.

So what is going on? Why do they outwardly believe in something, that they truly do not believe in?

(For the purpose of this essay, I will override the joke that the difference between the USA and yogurt, is that yogurt has live culture.)

Thus believers know that they do not believe in the truth, they just have “faith” that they will get away with it. In advanced countries, believers have seen enough TV, and videos, to know this.

So why do they embrace something that they do not believe in, deep down inside? If you ask them, they will say because so did their parents, or that it’s a “tradition”.

Thus the motivation of believers is essentially tribal: I believe what my tribe believes, however absurd (and the more absurd, the more well defined it is). Religion is not just tribalism, it’s in-your-face tribalism. No wonder the so-called Islamist State behaves just the same. They heed the example generously provided by the USA (or, more exactly the leading, opinion making circles, of the USA; thus: are Islamists Americanists in heavy disguise?)

This is evidenced by the situation in Israel. Weirdly dressed people, often coming from overseas, namely the USA, have decided to occupy the land of others, and, if one observes this, they brandish racism, or even dark allusions to Nazism.

Tribalists always call critiques unduly offensive, or even racist and disrespectful of their religion (it is a sin, precisely because religion is tribal, and thus, attacking religion is attacking the tribe).

This, religion being a deliberate lie masking a tribal purpose, is why the god delusion has deflated in Europe: Europeans, deep inside, know that the old religions were essentially tribal excuses to go to war manipulated by elites for their own profit (see Israel again for a live example). And Europeans have had enough of wars.

(By the way, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine killed at least 4,500 people, it was announced today.)

The rejection of religion by Europeans was helped by the SS motto: “Gott Mit Uns” (God With Us). Nazism evoked “Gott” a lot, and Biblical semantics (superior race versus “Elected People”, “Lebensraum”, the vital space to the east, as in the Bible, in parallel with “Promised Land”, without counting the many god-organized genocides of the Bible, etc…)

It dawned on Europeans that the old elites walloped in faith. With the enthusiasm of various predatory beasts, walloping in gore. This is not meant to be an insult, by the way. It’s a description: predators rub themselves in the smell of decaying flesh of their prey to disguise their true nature, and make it easier to approach the next meal.

Thus Christianism did with love. Love was rubbed all over it, but the purpose was just the opposite: Christianism killed millions…. Yet, it did not even originate European style welfare, nationalization, and socialism (the Franks did that).

If, as I asserted, believers have made a conscious decision to believe in lies, what does that tell us? That here are people whose meta-ethics is lying.

Do we want to encourage this? Do we even want to tolerate this? Should this be viewed as a deviant psychological behavior? This is what somebody such as Dawkins believe. I do not like Dawkins on genes, but I approve him on that.

One cannot have faith, a faith one knows is a lie, a faith that lies should rule the minds, and it is of no consequence.

We encourage meta-lying by not calling, at least among intellectuals, the God Delusion for what it is. Not just a delusion, but a tribalization. The delusion of tribalization.

It is not a question of telling a child dying of cancer that god does not exist, and will not take care of her. I am ready, and I certainly will lie, in such a case, as I comfort a child, and not just a child, with such lies… And maybe they are not lies, gods know…

By the way, Christians ought to stop holding the Solstice hostage. The Winter Solstice feasts, complete with cut conifers, lights, decorations and gift giving, are known to be older than Christianism by more than five centuries.

An exasperated Imperator Augustus passed a law to limit the “Saturnials”, as the Romans called the solstice feasts, to less than three weeks.

In a debate among intellectuals, the connection between gods’ delusion and tribalization ought not to be censored.

That such a connection is censored in American “philosophical” sites is telling.

Primitives go to war. Those who claim to be primitive enough to persuade themselves that they are primitive, will also go to war, because, once they have persuaded themselves that they are primitive, they are free to act like the primitives they have persuaded themselves they are. When Bush invaded Iraq, in 2003, monolithic war thinking ruled all over. USA media systematically censored all my comments (although the New York Times editorial board was reading them for themselves, as they communicated with me).

Religionism is tribalism by another name. Tribes are the primitive war units. However, war fabricates history.

Europe is anxious to forget war. But the feeling is not reciprocal. The American leadership, by making sure that the population does not forget religion, thus tribalism, makes sure that most of the military budget of the planet originates in the USA.

Thus religion is at the core of the military-industrial complex. They are both strong in the USA, because they are related.

The USA was also spectacularly in denial about the poisoning of the biosphere by CO2. That, too, is related to religion: after all, why to worry? God is omnipotent, remember? And no need to do anything about a violent society, violent police, and the might of plutocrats: God is in charge.

Religion does not just organize tribalism, it can make it conservative, that is, in a few hands. Don’t ask why American universities censor agnosticism, ask why they should censor those who want a society less defined by the few, who make them rich.

Time to “exacerbate things“?

Patrice Ayme’

American Energy Conspiracies

December 12, 2014

Science is about what we know, for sure. Philosophy is about what we can guess.

History has been fruitful to the USA, so it should be repeated. Again and again, and again. Historians are viewed with suspicion, as soon as they don’t stick to the official, fruitful version of history. Indeed, not repeating history is viewed as counterproductive, in highly successful empires.

Conspiracies is what the most impactful part of history is made of. The USA started as a conspiracy, mostly conducted in Paris. It was so conspiratorial that the King of France had the budget for the war of liberation of America written in secret ledgers.

Many A Conspiracy Explain This Weird Oil Price Graph

Many A Conspiracy Explain This Weird Oil Price Graph

No wonder that the concept of “conspiracy theorist”, is a well-known demeaning expression, in the USA, among those who, in the best universities, aspire to make a career from supporting the established order. The fox hides its trail, with its tail.

Conspiracy is in the genes of the American institutional psyche.

To understand human evolution, especially in the last ten million years, one has to understand energy. Our distant ancestors decided to venture in the Savannah to grab the food, that is, the energy, there. They were immigrants in search of a better world.

The rise of European civilization in the Middle Ages was caused by the outlawing of slavery in 655 CE by the Merovingian Frankish Empire: it forced society to develop mechanical and animal advantage. That turned out to produce a lot of energy. By the year 1000 CE, Europeans commanded more energy, per person, than anybody else, leaving behind China.

In 1939, the dictator-president, Kanzler Adolf Hitler, wanted Poland absolutely, one reason being that Poland had oil (whereas the oil Hitler was getting was from the Americans, or a synthetic oil process, also a, secret, courtesy of American plutocrats). Ironically, Hitler’s ally Stalin got to Polish oil first, thanks to his conspiracy with the Nazi dictator.

Before World War Two, the British and the French controlled the Middle East (which they had freed from the Turks). In particular, Britain controlled Iraq directly (wrestled from Germany in WWI), and Saudi Arabia, indirectly. Thus European democracies had their own oil supply.

After WWII, the USA took control of the Middle East. That was done with an irresistible cocktail of implicit military force (against France and Britain, which culminated when the USA allied itself with Soviet Russia during the Hungary-Suez Canal week of 1956), and debt (when Britain and France were under threat of invasion by the Nazis, the USA exchanged military equipment for debt, or cash).

In the Orient, the USA was not keen to see European influence re-establishing itself. So the USA allied itself with the Vietnamese Communists against the French (and even, for a while, de facto, with Mao). The USA provided the Vietminh with weapons to fight the French, and would not rest until the French got kicked out of North Africa.

Thus the worldwide empire of the USA grew. (No, the Ukrainian situation is not the same, contrarily to what Putin propaganda has been claiming.)

The end result? The Chinese and Arabian plutocracies are doing great. Thanks to the Big Brother plutocracy based in the USA.

The USA give the feudal oil regimes the military backbone they need to stay in place. The USA gave China the capital, technology and companies to establish itself as the number one factory in the world. This has been excellent for American plutocrats. If built in the USA, Apple’s iphone would cost three times more (that is $2,000! For the cheapest model.) Mostly due to higher labor cost. Fortunately Apple’s management has been able to cut out all these greedy American workers (who can now wait on the tables of Apple executives, or clean their luxury electric cars). Geeks and wealthy teenagers are forever in the debt of American plutocrats.

But let’s go back to energy.

Jesus has obviously been conspiring with the USA by providing it with vast quantities of oil, all over, from Pennsylvania to California, and Texas to North Dakota. Without oil, the USA may just have been a larger version of Argentina (Argentine has some oil, but not as much, and not as easy to get; in places in the USA, such as Los Angeles, oil literally makes lakes on the surface).

American plutocrats then conspired with their servant, Adolf Hitler, to provide those-who-wanted-to-kill a lot of people, the Nazis, with all the oil they needed to invade countries, starting with Spain (when their oil got cut-off, the Nazis found their war toys could not be used; but, by then, Nazis were not useful to American plutocrats).

The price of oil stagnated around twenty dollars a barrel for the longest time. The USA was the world’s main producer of oil, but then its production peaked at around ten million barrels a day, and went down. It was the end of cheap oil, at least in the USA.

The world’s main producers, real and potential, became the feudal regimes of the Middle East: Arabia, Iraq, Iran. Iran, in a plot helped by Iraq and France, rebelled from under the American lordship, and went its own way: it got punished. Iraq thought it could be independent from Washington: a series of plots, wars and embargoes, subdued it.

Iraq had the greatest, or second greatest, reserves of oil. The subjugation of Iraq took it out of the oil market. Hence the price of oil took off, helped by financial futures market conspirators.

But sometimes there is too much of a good thing: oil became so expensive that many Americans walked off their mortgages (housing is mostly borrowed from banks in the USA, not properly owned). That was something the whizz kids in American banking had not expected, and the whole, highly leveraged house of cards collapsed.

Thus so did demand for anything, the economy collapsed, and the price of oil went from $140 down to $40.

However, even with that hiccup, the price of oil, thanks from the Washington conspiracy to take out of the oil market both Iran and Iraq, stayed high.

Thus the USA was able to develop TIGHT OIL.

The USA was past CONVENTIONAL, CHEAP OIL, but a new technology was able to get at the oil tightly embedded in rock by fracturing said rock. Actually the technology was not new, but to deploy it massively, using wells which bent and went horizontal, was new.

This technique, called FRACKING, is expensive. Not just expensive on the environment, and deleterious for water supplies. It is intrinsically expensive: instead of just digging a hole and having oil gushing out, one needs to dig deep and massage the rock hundreds of times with water laden with corrosive chemicals and sand. Then one needs to go make another hole close by and start all over again, after having thrown away the humongously disgusting water, now laden with all sorts of poisons, toxic minerals, and, often, radioactivity, somewhere discrete.

Fracking needs an oil price around $60 a barrel to be profitable.

The oil price just broke below $60 on December 11, 2014.


The short of it is that Saudi Arabia is producing massively, and has announced it decided to target $60 a barrel for the price of oil. It is like an official conspiracy.

How come? Well, Vlad the Invader, having ravaged his country’s economic prospects, like Hitler, is reduced to oppress other nationalities, and minorities (Tatars), to imprint on his followers that he is worth following blindly, being a great chief.

The total fossil fuel (oil and gas) production of Russia is 22 million barrels a day, and was just equaled this year by the USA, making these two empires the largest fossil fuel producers in the world. Russia makes all its money that way.

To squeeze Russia, squeeze the oil price. To squeeze oil, just ask the Saudis, and make oil futures guys understand that it is in the national interest that the oil price go down.

Here we are.

Is that a problem for fracking? Not really. Not only has fracking a lot of inertia, but several of the aims of the fracking movement, such as the repatriation of the chemical industry, or the lowering of the price of energy in the USA, and energy independence thereof, have been achieved (never mind that the poles are melting).

One of the problems with Europe, is that it cannot generate plots at this scale: European national governments and administrations are all too independent. A strength of the USA is that it can conspire on a gigantic national, and worldwide basis. Top American leaders come from very few elite schools, the plutocratic universities. Where they are taught exactly what to know, what to not know, and how to listen.

Then they implement.

Patrice Ayme’

Evolution Scientifically Established Before Darwin’s Birth

November 13, 2014

English speaking authorities found a master thinker, Darwin, He created evolution. Charles Darwin is the messiah of evolution. Any critique of this miracle, this shattering of ill preconceptions, is labelled “postmodernist”, and no doubt arises noxiously from a gross lack of non-appurtenance to the church of righteous thinking (prestigious, well-paid American academia). Or then is to be attributed to the hysterical nationalism of the French.

This roughly summarize some of the critiques American professors have made of my “Lamarck Discovered Evolution” essay. It is typical.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Scientifically Established Evolution By 1800

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Scientifically Established Evolution By 1800

Paradoxically, this scornful attitude comforts religious creationism.

Why? Making Darwin into what he was not, a snow capped giant towering above a sea of error, is all too close to the terror of the religious mindset. Making Darwin into God, neglects the evolution of ideas, the giant collaborative reasoning that is science. It reintroduce the concept of the prophet: everybody got it all wrong, before, then comes miracle man, Darwin. Miraculously speaking English.

So why not Jesus for miracle man?

Or why not Muhammad? Hey, Muhammad spoke Arabic, which is obviously the language of God.

The scientists who claim Darwin did it all, are lying. Lying because they have not integrated the scientific method, and do not know how truth is established historiographically is the worst possible case.

Most of the ideas demonstrating that there had been “biological evolution” were evolved before Darwin.

The truth is that Darwin was astounded by the audacity of several of his professors who praised ‘Mr. Lamarck” for having shown how life had “evolved” from “simple worms”.

Darwin’s publications came in a full century after evolution started to be established scientifically.

Buffon introduced the idea that migration caused speciation. He illustrated this with pachyderms.

Augier introduced the “Tree of Life”, then much improved by Lamarck. Lamarck’s Tree was much more specific than the general idea that all species came from fishes (Pre-Socratic philosophers).

Lamarck had spent decades looking at life and fossils through a microscope, and he demonstrated that life had evolved over millions of years, by documenting in extreme, microscopic details the evolution of mollusks.

The great geologist Lyell got a copy of one of Lamarck’s books from a friend in 1827. He wrote back:

“I devoured Lamark… his theories delighted me… I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!… That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed…”

However, Lyell, a close friend of Darwin and Huxley, rejected evolution when he was a professor at the prestigious King’s College, London.

Lyell explained in a letter to Whewell in 1837:

“If I had stated… the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradistinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me, which are unfortunately opposed at every step to any philosopher who attempts to address the public on these mysterious subjects”

When finally Lyell endorsed evolution, he endorsed Lamarck. Darwin’s daughter Henrietta (Etty) wrote to her father: “Is it fair that Lyell always calls your theory a modification of Lamarck’s?”

No wonder. Darwin revisited Lamarck’s example of the giraffe, with more details:

“The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths…. Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish…. By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.” (Darwin 1872. Sixth edition of his seminal book, Origin of Species.)

In other words, Darwin subscribed to Lamarck’s book of 1801, on inheritability of acquired characteristics. (The whole problem now being what these “acquired characteristics”, now called “genes”, “epigenetics, transposons, prions, soma, whatever…) are and how they arise…)

Darwin had produced a toy model of evolution. Anatomist Gould told him that some varieties of birds he found in the Galapagos were different species. Yet they all belonged to the finch group. Darwin then brandished that as an example of evolution.

Darwin’s dubious birdies no doubt beat the millions of years Lamarck had uncovered. That’s the strength of the Anglo-American empire!

Darwin’s “B” notebook showed that he speculated a species could turn into another by summer 1837. He discarded Lamarck’s independent lineages progressing to higher forms, drawing a tree of life with a single trunk branching out (there too Lamarck proved right: decades behind the microscope, remember?).

On the continent, evolution was solidly established.

Cuvier discovered the “Ptero-Dactyle” (name Latinized later), and Mesosaurus (sea going giant). Cuvier also invented stratigraphy, and demonstrated species came and went.

Cuvier was a Christian fundamentalist, but a very clever one, with an open, and changing mind. He invented most of the “Creationist” Biblical arguments. Yet he explained why he could be proven wrong in the fullness of time, thanks to, say, more discoveries.

Lamarck’s reputation was soiled because Cuvier smeared it all over with “pangenesis”. The original texts make it clear that Lamarck believed in natural selection. In the case of giraffes, to put it in modern terms, he believed that giraffe ethology, and the vegetation being what it was, due to climate, put a selective pressure favoring giraffe’s anatomy, the way it was. (Cuvier later said it was all about “desire”; that’s not in Lamarck).

Darwin tried hard to prove pangenesis. A battle was engaged, still ongoing. Many of the arrogant certainties of the 1960s have been washed away. Elements of heredity are known now to travel among species, and interact with ethology.

To combat religious fanatics, we need the weight of evidence, not inappropriate celebritism. Misrepresenting those who discovered evolution only helps creationists.

Darwin is an important biologist, but evolution had been scientifically established more than a generation before he published anything.

Everything else is pathetic tribalism, and, or, making fun of the scientific process. No way to help the advancement of civilization.

Patrice Ayme’

Religion, tribalism, Extermination

October 15, 2014

Ce sont des Mots Qui Vont Tres Bien Ensemble

This is a follow-up on the essay I wrote on the debauch of demons in Christo-Islamism. One of the reasons for which I do not like novels much, is that the human psychology therein represented is all too often a caricature, something all too simple. Why so trite? Because a novelist wants to sell books. Those who are successful, that is the most read, are most read precisely because they are familiar, and flattering, to the masses.

The Politically Correct (PC) is not just most followed, it’s what sells (and reciprocally). Nietzsche sold only a few hundred books when he was conscious.

A real philosopher does not caress, but stings the masses. Nietzsche sold books only after several famous intellectuals sang his praises.

I had a most curious upbringing, mostly, but not exclusively, in Africa. Although (it turned out) in “Muslim” lands, I was unaware of Islam. I grew up under the vast umbrella of what is called “Sufi” Islam.

In some ways that “Sufi” Islam was more secular and progressive than secularism in, say, Europe. (“Sufi” is a label which covers many completely different religions; yet they all tend to be less sexist: Kurdish females have been dying as soldiers in combat in Kobani).

Many of the religiously obsessed claim that elaborate religious rituals are innocent, because they represent a long tradition. The Jews, in particular, are prone to make this reasoning. That’s rather incongruous, after centuries of pogroms: any practice which brings lots of death to the practitioners ought to be viewed, clearly, as not innocent!

Others identify religion and civilization. For example they talk of the “Islamic” civilization. Really? As there is more than one hundred types of Shia “Islam”, does that mean there is more than a hundred Islamic civilizations?

How do the simplistic theory: Islam = Civilization… survives the war in Kobani? There, in a few miles, three versions of “Islam” are in an extermination fight: Wahhabis against Kurds against Turks. Clearly both non-Kurdish Turks, and Wahhabis want to exterminate the Kurds.

About 25% of the population of Turkey is Kurdish (but many are in hiding). That the government hates them is nothing special: in a full blown plutocracy, the 1% hate the 99% (aristocracy, in France’s old regime was 2% of the population).

I know Turks who hate Erdogan and his ilk: the ancestors of those “Turks” were Armenian (thus Christian), or Kurds (and some of the Turks I know are mixed Armenian-Kurdish). To save their children, they had to bring them up as the kind of Muslim Turks who are kosher in Ankara. So now they feel that their children are not really their children anymore. That’s the Australian method of genocide (bring up the children of Bushmen without their parents, or their culture).

Kurdistan is about 3,000 years old, and Armenia was the first Christian land. Saladin was a Kurd.

Too much respect for tradition is an error. Tradition to a great extent, is in opposition to “secular” (which means of the age). Hence tradition is a religion.

This meditation is about religion, it can only hurt those who feel it is right, it is their right, to feel very strongly about the metaphysics they believe in. But metaphysics is never innocent. After all, it’s about the foundations of minds one talks about. One can’t get more intimate than that. Or more penetrating and violating, should one get into metaphysics, that is, other people’s minds. Potentially.

Religions tie people together. (Re-ligare.) This is what religious means.

Religion does not have to have a metaphysical element. Some people practice an art or a sport, as if it were a religion. It is a religion. Many young people get tied together again by activities such as being soccer supporters… And only by them. And they seem ready to die for it.

Zen, Taoism, forms of Yoga, nationalism, tribalism, are all religious in character. After all, these bounds are often so strong, people are ready to die for them. The SS had: “Gott Mit Uns!” on their belts buckles (“God With Us”; that inspired the American Congress to follow suit and adopt a variant of that slogan for the entire USA.)

Yes, any nation worth its salt, is, to some extent, a religion.

In other words: Religions generate tribes. That’s what they do. It’s very important, because human beings are nothing, in nearly all ways, if not in a tribe. (Or then they are philosophers.) The religious instinct cannot be distinguished from the tribal instinct.

Nice tribes, or nasty tribes, that is the question. Inclusive tribes, and inclusive religions, are nice. (To conclude the “Social War”, Rome learn to become inclusive, and so are its descendant regimes.)

Religions, nations who exclude are nasty, and bring blood. Exclusivity, alienation, is always (ethologically perceived as) an aggression. That has been observed in chimpanzees.

Tribes are not just about being strong together, they are about group selection. Thus, so are religions. Deadly aggression, even war, was found to be “adaptive” in chimpanzees:

Religion is war according to the most fundamental means. The deepest ways of the minds. Maladaptive religions get exterminated: Rome and its descendant regimes annihilated all human sacrifices religions (starting with Rome’s, Carthage’s and then the Celts’).

It’s not a good sign, when a religion is full of demons (as Christianity and Wahhabi Islam are). Or when it’s so nasty, it needs a god of evil (Hades, Satan, etc.)

Another dichotomy is between rational religions, and irrational ones. That one is roughly equivalent to that between religions which are organized around superstition, and the supernatural, and those which are not.

Nasty has to do not just be about mistreating others directly, but how they lead others to react.

Often tribes get dressed in black, claiming to be somehow elected by god. Example: Catholic “men in black”, those monks of the Fourth Century destroying books and intellectuals. Jesuits followed suite (and suits!), a millennium later, and then, Orthodox Jews, themselves copied in more ways than one, by the Hugo Boss black tailored SS, etc… The alienation was deliberate: it became a hatred multiplier, and hatred was the goal.

Another way to alienate is by advertising wildly irrational beliefs, constituting a religion, defining a tribe. The more irrational, the more flaunted, the more alienating to other groups, the more it leads to hatred in reply, and the more hatred one is submitted to, the tighter the tribe that creates the alienation will be.

It’s this advanced calculus of hatred, fear and alienation which is at the root of all too many religions and their associated tribalizations.

Ever since men have roamed, religions have clashed. And the better ones have won. Time for the best, the most ethologically correct religion, the one ultimately granted by 50 million years of evolution: direct democracy.

Patrice Ayme’

USA Financial Extortion

July 6, 2014

Individuals (famous economists), and organizations that are profiting from the present oligarchic system cannot be too critical against what feeds them. One has to read beyond the mellifluous lines.

Here is The Economist, June 28, 2014:

“Share and share alike… America should also embrace the OECD’s efforts, already backed by more than 50 countries, to create a truly multilateral system in which tax information on residents’ accounts and certain investments is shared annually. For that to work, America would need to hand over data similar to those which it demands from others—something it has hitherto appeared reluctant to do. The financial superpower looks ever more a regulatory bully, setting rules it ignores itself.

Bullies Kill, Vultures Feed, Justice The Old Fashion Way

Bullies Kill, Vultures Feed, Justice The Old Fashion Way

Setting rules for others one ignores for oneself is the essence of viciousness.

The financial superpower looks ever more a regulatory bully?

The USA is a financial bully, and it started in 1944, when the USA tried to bully Lord Keynes himself (head of the currency commission at Bretton-Woods), into accepting the Dollar of the USA as the world’s reserve currency.

The fact that it started so long ago means that the bully’s institutions have evolved accordingly. A particular case if American justice, which finds American violence to be just: the case of the vulture funds is exemplary. Whoever stands in the way of American vultures is unjust.

Keynes wanted to use the International Monetary Fund to create “Drawing Rights” as needed, a solution Dominique Strauss-Kahn implemented to the tune of 450 billion dollars until his fateful encounter with the maid from hell, taken super seriously by New York “Justice” (until she proposed so many tricks to the officers in charge of “protecting” her, that, well, it was embarrassing, even for New York “Justice”).

Keynes resisted totally, so the government of the USA forged the documents that made the USA into the one and only financial superpower. When Saddam Hussein begged to differ, and started to use Euros, he was hanged. So the BNP executives, who have not been executed yet, ought not to complain too much, as The Economist astutely points out, somewhere else.

What is The Economist alluding to above? “… hand over data similar to those which it demands from others.” To the fact that the USA is the world’s largest tax haven for global plutocrats, while busy destroying all other tax havens. The destruction of Swiss banks and bankers is exemplary that way.

In other words, the USA sucks up capital from all over the world, by stealing other countries’ taxes (as it provides plutocrats, worldwide, to escape taxation, thanks to… Delaware).

Says The Economist in: “Tax havens, The missing $20 trillion How to stop companies and people dodging tax, in Delaware as well as Grand Cayman”: a lower rate on a broader base, combined with vigilance by the tax authorities, would be more efficient and would probably raise more revenue: America, whose companies face one of the rich world’s highest corporate-tax rates on their worldwide income, also has some of the most energetic tax-avoiders.

These reforms would not be easy. Governments that try to lower corporate tax rates will be accused of caving in to blackmailing capitalists. Financial centres and incorporation hubs, from the City of London to Delaware, will fight any attempt to tighten their rules. BUT IF POLITICIANS REALLY WANT TO TAX THE MISSING $20 TRILLION, THAT’S WHERE THEY SHOULD START.”

From the horse’s mouth: to tax the missing $20 trillion, start from London to Delaware… Exactly what I have been saying for years. The global financial exploitative mess is part of an Anglo-American imperial situation.

I have condemned the way “judicial” authorities in New York siding with the financial vultures therein. The Economist now agrees with me, and goes somewhat further, as it alleges state corruption. Here is an extensive extract from:

BNP Paribas in the dock: No way to treat a criminal. The French bank deserved a clobbering, but America’s legal system looks like an extortion racket.

BNP argues that it broke no European laws… That is true enough, to Europe’s shame… It is also true that the underlying transactions had nothing to do with America, but because they were denominated in dollars they had to be cleared in New York, which provided America’s lawmen with a toehold.

But the guilt of a suspect and the justice of a cause do not make a tribunal fair. And America’s system for pursuing errant banks, especially foreign ones, is anything but fair… BNP had little choice but to settle. Defeat in court might have led to the loss of its American banking licence—a death sentence for a big international bank. America’s prosecutors can also wield the threat of criminal charges against individual bankers.

Bank against the wall

Not only were BNP’s tormentors, such as Benjamin Lawsky, New York’s politically ambitious banking regulator, able more or less to dictate their terms, they also had an incentive to make the fine as big as possible because the agencies involved divvied up much of it among themselves. Mr Lawsky’s outfit gets $2 billion, four times its annual budget, which it will triumphantly deposit in New York state’s depleted coffers.

There are no meaningful checks on this process, let alone a plausible procedure for BNP to appeal. Bank bosses cannot even publicly criticise deals they agree to under extreme duress. No precedent is set and no guidance provided as to the limits of the law and the proportionality of the punishment.

So even if BNP fully deserves its punishment, the legal system that meted it out is closer to an extortion racket than justice. France’s economy minister, Arnaud Montebourg, has compared America’s pursuit of BNP to “economic warfare”. In other words, a bank that catered to mass murderers has had some success in portraying itself as a victim. Any process that can make BNP’s dealings with Sudan look anything less than shameful must be very flawed indeed.”

“Catered to mass murderers”? Is that not the story of the invasion of Iraq by the USA? Did BNP invade Sudan? Is the USA pursuing the invaders of Iraq?

No, the USA is using imperial might in ways very similar to Putin. (Putin also has laws and judges and Congress on his side, nota bene.)

Two months ago Argentina reached a settlement with the Paris Club, a group of government creditors.

On June 16th the Supreme Court of the United States decided twice in favor of NML Capital, a “vulture” fund (and subsidiary of hedge fund Elliott Management) that snatched dirt cheap bonds after Argentina’s 2001 default. The fund and its plutocratic owners have since pursued the country for the payment of all principal plus outstanding interest in US courts. For at least 1.6 billion dollars.

The ability of struggling countries to restructure their debts has been dented. Hold-outs everywhere have greater incentive to litigate; creditors who might accept exchange offers could see them gulped down by vultures, catered to by USA judges.

Those who play with fire to burn others may find where the concept of “backfiring” comes from.

Patrice Ayme’

Attack Context, Not Appearance

June 12, 2014

The term ‘redskins’ is viewed as a racial slur in the USA… by the self-celebrating “politically correct”. Bob Burns, a Black Foot Elder, says: “…”redskins” not okay with me. It’s never going to be okay with me. It’s inappropriate, damaging and racist. In the memory of our Blackfeet relatives, it’s time to change the name.” “Redskins” is the name of an American “football” team in Washington.

Contrarily to what its name indicates, American Football is also played with hands; steroid laden monsters clutch to their chest a squashed ball, running all out, until they bang into each other, thus demonstrating that brain concussion, and men running into men in tights, and manhandling them, is where it’s at.

"Red Skin": Original Native Semantics

“Red Skin”: Original Native Semantics

[What’s next? Plucking the feathers too?]

If “Redskins” should not (?) exist, semantically speaking, why should a game played by hand with a non-ball, be called “football”?

Provocateurs often adopt the very values they condemn, be it only by contradicting them. In general, when one does not like some idea, there are three avenues to do away with it:

  1. Showing it leads to some blatant contradiction (mathematicians love that one).
  2. Showing it’s contradicted by fact(s), evidence (as lawyers call it).
  3. Showing its context is hare brained (the royal road to deep thinking).

An example of 1), 2) and 3) combined was the assault of G. W. Bush and its idiotic followers, against Iraq. Saddam Hussein, long the West’s attack poodle, and who had passed lots of Western-like laws, was the best the West could hope for in Iraq (thus a contradiction, and an hare brained context). That Rumsfeld who used to shake Saddam’s hand, wanted him suddenly killed was even troubling (what did Hussein know that one did not want him to say?).

Iraq, of course had no weapons of mass destruction (thus making Bush’s main loud arguments contradictory to facts). The chemical mass murders during the Iraq-Iran war were something the West was involved with in more ways than one.

Another example of 3), according to me, is that the (Standard) Big Bang leads to the Multiverse, something obviously hare brained (how many angels on a pinhead being the most ridiculous aspect of the Middle Ages that the Multiverse brings back, just worse!)

I more than see the point of talking about the holocaust of Native Americans, all the more as the mood that presided to it, is still in power. I have written literally hundreds of ferocious pages about it.

However, not to mention Red Skins ever again, is the best way to achieve a philosophical holocaust. In France, a country present in North America about a century before the English arrived, and much more respectful of “Indians”, the term “peaux rouges” is not derogatory. Some of the Plains Natives used an early combination of sun screen and bug repellent, giving them a red appearance. Naturally, they decided that it described them proudly (contrarily to what the video above suggests).

The worst thing is not insulting, but ignoring to the point of dehumanizing.

American semantics has a similar problem with “black” and “niger” (the Latin word for “black”). Senghor (Senegal-France) and Césaire (Martinique-France), both “black”, made a point that black was proud.

Making a big deal about appearances, behaving as if they were everything, is precisely what leads to holocausts.

“Red Skin”, a self-identifier,  if nothing else, celebrates early Native American, ecologically correct technology, let’s celebrate it, by keeping on mentioning it.

By refusing to even mention “Red Skins” anymore, we play into the ultimate act of annihilation. It’s a case of victims, embracing their exterminators’ cause.

Ironically, the name “Redskins” for the Washington football team was supposed to have a positive connotation, when it was chosen. A century ago, the team’s coach, “Lone Star” Dietz, a Native American, had brought to the team several other proud and authentic Red Skins.

And what of Iraq? Jihadists are taking over, Washington is talking of going bombing again.

Well, the USA is getting what it deserves in Iraq. Mr. Obama did not want to intervene in Syria against a clear war criminal (Assad). The Jihadists in Iraq are clearly a reaction to the annihilation by the USA of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and the various institutions of the Iraqi state.

Iraq is a case for the United Nations. All the more as the case of 3,000 year old Kurdistan is tied to it. I am all for the independence of Kurdistan, and carving it out of Syria, Iran and Turkey. Not just Iraq.

Patrice Aymé