Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

We Think, Therefore We Predict As Scientists

September 16, 2017

Intelligence Produces Science & Previously Theories Thereof, In Monkeys, As It Does In Men:

Intelligence adapts to (known) circumstances, and, or predicts “successfully” the future. Adaptation and prediction is why intelligence evolved.

The adaptations and predictions intelligence brought were so successful, that the most intelligent animals reproduced more (thus brain size has been steadily augmenting among apex species, in the last 600 million years). The preceding was initially a polite answer to astrophysicist Ethan Siegel who wrote publicly that “Successfully predicting the future requires theoretical science”. No, it doesn’t, or then lemurs are theoretical scientists! Because lemurs can predict some elements of the future, just as human scientists can. Many a scientist shares comparable lack of awareness about the capability of other species to predict the future, too… Such arrogance is to the detriment of science in the public eye. Because the public, even if it doesn’t say so, smells a rat, when confronted to such statements, and rightly so.

To “successfully predict the future“, no “theoretical science” is required, or then “theoretical science” has been practiced for millions of years, by apes and their predecessors!

“Science” is what we know, for sure (or so we think). “Theoretical” science is guesswork, which will become “science” if it’s successful. That is, truthful. Philosophy is why and how the foundations of the theory, any theory… evolved.

I Think, Therefore I Eat

[But I don’t try to eat those frightening, nasty human super-predators, who are only trouble.]

Of course many people claim to know, to profess, even, plenty of haughty theories, whereas, in truth they are just paid to disseminate not just fake news, but false knowledge (think of many economists, and their “free market” lies, or “intellectuals” revering religions which brought the Dark Ages, as horrendously happened with Middle Age theology, and is still happening with Islamophilia). And there is a difference between false knowledge and the true knowledge new art and poetry can bring. Yes, art and poetry can be knowledge.

So yes, prehistoric men carrying fire in fire cages, or fire starting kits, were scientists: try it on your own, with what you find in nature, to realize how much knowledge is involved in basic fire husbandry. Ötzi, the 5200 years old neolithic person found in a melting glacier, carried a fire starting kit comprising more than a dozen different materials…All indispensable for fire starting, from dried mushrooms to flintstones.

Right, we know more, than our ancestors because our knowledge is more significant, deeper. We know fire is the chemical combination of an oxidizer and an oxidant, and we even know now how thermonuclear fire works, something even Albert Einstein had not figured out (as Ethan Siegel, him again, points out, as the thermonuclear fusion possibility computation crucially depends upon Quantum “Uncertainty”). But that does not mean we could start a fire in a wet, cold European winter and save ourselves from sleeping outside by scaring away Cave Bears with fire, from the local caves they also craved.

Indeed, left in a jungle to our own devices, we would quickly perish, from lack of… science, while prehistoric men would have seen only business as usual. Stumbling across that fact, professor Jared Diamond erroneously deduced, or at least, wrote, in his famous “Guns, Germs and Steel” that New Guineans were smarter than Europeans (!)

We shouldn’t be too arrogant, and believe we are so fundamentally different from Homo Erectus, a million years ago, learning to master basic skills such as clothing, firing, cooking, etc… Yes, we have more cerebral capability. But the task itself, science, knowledge, is not fundamentally different. Yes, there is a scientific method. But, even more fundamentally, there is a philosophical method. Either will be readily applied by wild, cerebrally advanced animals, even cephalopods. But, of course, certainly not in some human societies. In some societies values are inverted, to serve a few: those we call plutocracies. In particular they value stupidity more than intelligence. Precisely because if the individuals of such a society adapted and predicted the future, they may try to get rid of the satanic ones who exert power (“kratos”) on them.  

Arrogance, and even dominance, are marks of stupidity, except when directed at the stupid. Thus, by being arrogant and dominant, all too many scientists implicitly claim that non-”scientists” are stupid. If one really supports science, that’s real stupid, as science can’t exist without support of “non-scientists”. In truth, civilized people may not all be philosophically minded, but they are much more scientifically minded than is usually assumed.

So remember: although, relative to what it is today, science in Julius Caesar’s time may seem to have amounted to much, that doesn’t mean it was trivial. Some scientists may feel they are the geniuses who make science all what it can be, but they are delusional: it’s the society which makes the science (even the great mathematician Michael Atiyah became aware of this recently, and the necessity for mathematics to adapt accordingly… By making itself useful. However we are very far from it, considering the ridiculous obsession mathematicians have with infinity).

Scientists are just the organs of more or less scientifically minded societies. This is clearly what history shows. Few societies created science, or, more generally, really big ideas.  Such societies were, first, philosophically inclined to do so (for example Athens and the Ionian Greek cities at their apogees). The societies created the scientists, the scientists didn’t invent the societies. Trade did the rest.

And the first mood those societies should have is curiosity, an open mind, a lack of hubris, and a capability to predict possible futures. The downfall of Athens was caused by a shortness of openness (just like Sparta, Athens restricted citizenship to the point of drastically reducing population), an incapacity to predict the highly predictable fact that Athens, once besieged, or on the fleet, thus seriously overcrowded, would be attacked by a plague (Pericles bemoaned that he had predicted everything, but for that), and all of this rendered possible by an hubris so colossal that Athens soon engaged in war crimes (the case of Melos).

Thus scientists’ miens should display all these truthful characteristics of spiritual, mental openness, and humility. To claim only scientists can foresee the future, is flaunting just the exact opposite: it’s hubristic, closed-mind, and dumb. Not a good way to inspire youth with the search for truth. Nor is it a good way to inspire the political and social leaders, who, themselves are often little more than children (JFK, Obama, Macron; in the Middle Age, Europe was often led by outright children: Edward III was 16 years old when he took power, jailed his mom, and prepare to launch the “100” Years War).

Patrice Ayme’


Gibbon’s “Decline & Fall of Roman Empire” In Pluto Context

September 12, 2017

The British, French educated historian Edward Gibbon explained that he accomplished the work of “philosopher” in his justly famous “Decline and Fall of Rome” (DFR). 3,000 pages of dense text! Gibbon explained that the art of the “genius” historian was to select, as a “philosopher”, among a morass of facts “which are just facts”, those of higher significance. The irony, of course, is that his life’s work eschew highest significance, although he himself pulls the curtains for a brief instant, flashing the reality his work misses entirely…

To detect facts of the highest significance, and make them speak, is the fundament of the art of highest thinking. (This is true for all of philosophy, including of the natural sort, as Albert Einstein pointed out.).

Under Trajan, the Empire was at greatest MILITARY & territorial extent, when Gibbon starts his story. Later, the empire would extent much further, spiritually speaking through the concept of “Christian Republic”.

Trajan also introduced welfare and taxes on the richest. He could have gone further, but bemoaned he was too old to emulate Alexander (who didn’t introduce welfare and taxes on the richest, BTW…) Indeed he promptly died and his successor Hadrian was not cut from the same cloth, and precipitously evacuated much of the empire Trajan had conquered. (The map above shows clearly that the German barbarians were too close from the heart of the empire, just north of Italy, and sure enough, Marcus Aurelius spent his reign repelling them there; his ignorant son, Commodus withdrew further, Hadrian style…).

Under Augustus, legions reached Ethiopia and Yemen, but Augustus was full of avarice, and the notion of a world civilization didn’t appeal to him. In any case, he had none to propose. So he pulled the legions back from Germany, Africa and the Indian Ocean shore, and left a will, read in the Senate, advocating a shrunken empire, the exact opposite notion from his great uncle, Julius Caesar….

The “Decline and Fall of Rome” embraced not just the Roman empire from 100 CE to 1453 CE, but also Islam, and the Crusades. Gibbon, rightly, wrote an entire history of the West, from 100 CE, to 1500 CE!

Indeed, the idea that Rome survived the Decline and Fall of Rome was not a new observation: the empire of the Franks, the Imperium Francorum, was, de facto, Rome: it used the latest refurbished (Justinian legal code) Roman law, etc. It could be argued that the Frankish Empire was more Roman than Constantinople, because it spoke Latin, not Greek. By 800 CE, the Imperium Francorum proclaimed itself  “RENOVATION of The Roman Empire”..

Thus, then, of course, Gibbon, by his own implicit admission, should have called his book: The Decline, Fall and Resurrection of Rome! When Gibbon was writing his book, the British empire was much larger than the Roman empire, and arguably better organized and centralized. The French empire was not far behind, and, by his own admission, Gibbon recognizes that the Russian empire dwarfed Rome, in some sense.

Something even stranger is that Gibbon recognizes the obvious: most of the Roman Empire was created under the Republic. And it was because the soldiers defended their rights and their properties. Whereas, in the period Gibbon considers, when the Republic has been replaced by what he calls a “monarchy”, soldiers were motivated by greed, obedience and “religion”.i

Thus, however broadly he encompassed the history of the West after 100 CE, Gibbon could only miss the true cause of the corruption which he bemoaned, and caused the decline and fall of the Roman State.

But there was no choice: for 8 years a Member of Parliament (where he was “mute”), Gibbon enjoyed fame and clout in the British plutocracy. Gibbon could not sing the praises of the Republic. All the more as he made clear, in 1793 CE, that however admirable French artillery was, the valor of French soldiers deserved a better cause (or words to this effect). Gibbon had seen the conspiracy and alliance of European plutocrats attacking the French Republic. Gibbon had actually seen a battle (and was part of a militia ready to defend England against a French invasion, a rather ironical matter, as it was France which was invaded by everybody from the gang of all “aristocrats” united, not England!.

However deliciously informative reading him is, Edward Gibbon was deeply biased. So was all of history, ever since “politics” was founded. “Politics” means “looking at the City-State”. That look was not friendly, because most Greek City-States had democratic characters lost, ever since. To the sort of regimes Gibbon admired… and was a part of.

Gibbon didn’t draw the obvious conclusion from the sketch, in a few lines which he made of the Roman Republic, or how the Roman Empire came to be. His entire “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is biased, from context alone. From the universe which he chose to consider.

Today the British Parliament voted 326 to 290 the previously named “Great Repeal Bill” overturning the law from 1972 infeodating  British law to European law (by accepting the supremacy of the latter). This displaces sovereignty on 12,000 laws.

It’s as Mick Jagger put it in an excellent video “England lost”. In it a dishevelled English gentleman loses his mind from imagined frights, and dashed hopes to turn England into Singapore. At the end, the Briton runs straight into the sea, then stops, dazzled. A black man helps pull him out. A terse blonde 14 year old.girl tells him:”where do you think you could go?..pull yourself together”.

Clearly, by the time of Gibbon, the delusion was going strong. We don’t harbor it here. To understand the Decline and Fall of Rome is to understand the decline and fall of the RESPUBLICA Romana. It’s the Republic and its republicans which built the empire, not the evil baboons the English plutocrat Gibbon is fascinated by…

Patrice Ayme’

Why The Roman State Collapsed, & Contemporary Analogy, Quick Version

September 9, 2017

The climate is, and will, collapse incredibly fast, at some point in the near future. Same, potentially, for civilization.

The hints of climate collapse are in, they are piling all over. Irma, a hurricane packing recorded gusts of 363 kilometers an hour appeared. It got enormous: 330,000 square kilometers. At the same time, hurricane Katia attacked the Caribbean coast of Mexico. Behind Irma, Jose, a category 4 hurricane, nearly as nasty as Irma. When things collapse, they collapse fast: think of the proverbial Twin Towers of “9/11” twisting, turning and leaning, and then down in 8 seconds. This is what happens during a transition to a new equilibrium. 

Collapses of civilizations have happened many times before. The most famous case, by far, is Rome. Roman society was the most complex, and the one most similar to the world civilization we have today. It collapsed, and it was first a psychological collapse.

Rome collapsed amazingly fast. Early in 379 CE, there was a refugee crisis, caused by a million Goths (including women and children) begging to enter the empire. The empire was at the height of its powers. By 406 CE, the empire had collapsed. The one million Goths  had been allowed to enter the Roman empire. Under the condition of coming, unarmed. They cheated. Disaster ensued.

By 400 CE, though, a German Confederation, the Franks, had been put in charge of insuring the defense of the two Germania and the richest Roman province, Gallia (Gaul). In 406 CE, the Frankish curtain broke when the Rhine surprisingly froze, and many tiny German nations broke through Gaul, and even Spain and North Africa. By 410 CE, the city of Rome herself had been conquered by the Goths.

The Vandals, with 40,000 warriors, went quickly all the way to the Roman province of Africa, where they established a maritime empire, comprising the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta (439 CE)… 

The Great Barbarian Invasions By Tiny German Nations Were Preceded By Roman Mental Collapse of the “Antifa” Type. Situation in 435 CE, after 29 Years of Invasions.

The Romans tried to dislodge the Vandals many times, but failed. In 455 CE, the Vandals sacked Rome (their fleet just went up the Tiber). Having seized control of the sea, the Vandals were able to control and cut the grain supply to the city of Rome (and much grain came from North Africa). This starved Rome, and the population collapsed. The Vandal empire would last more than a century, until an army sent there by Roman emperor Justinian defeated them.

By the late Fifth Century, Italy had fallen under the control of the Ostrogoths (who were relatively benign, except they killed the president of the Roman Senate, the philosopher Boethius; the king of the Ostrogoths had believed, erroneously, some lies about Boethius, he later bemoaned).

Emperor Justinian, the same one I just mentioned, decided to grab back Italy, and, in particular, Rome. The city was lost and taken several times. Ultimately, Oriental Romans won, and the Ostrogoths got annihilated (I say “Oriental Romans” because “Byzantine”, is an erroneous concept and word I try not to use: the Romans were calling themselves Romans, not “Byzantines”; the Romans had selected Byzantium as Oriental Capital; Byzantium, an ancient Greek city, had not selected them). However being besieged many times destroyed the city of Rome. Especially, most of her aqueducts. It was said that there was just one individual observed living in the ruins.

In ancient historiography, the Roman empire is described as declining, and then falling. However, the bias may have been introduced by the Christians, who controlled which books were worth saving. Christians hated (the) Greco-Roman civilization (which had created them), and were crucial to its demise, with the supine mentality which they promoted. So they committed a crime, and had interest to present the victim, civilization, as so decrepit, they had nothing to do with it. In truth, their fanaticism helped bring down a thriving civilization.

This is a clear bias, not supported by recent archeology. Archeology shows that the Roman State was actually richer, and more powerful, just before it collapsed. On the face of it, the army was the largest Rome ever had. Roma was much powerful in 379 CE than it had been, facing Hannibal. By a factor of ten. Rome should have been able to rise armies numbering millions in 379 CE (because a ten, or twenty times smaller Rome was able to rise armies numbering hundreds of thousands, facing Hannibal, or the German invasion around 110 BCE, by the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones!) The difference between the Punic and Cimbrian wars, when the Roman Republic faced annihilation, and the Germanic invasions of the Fifth Century, when it didn’t (the Germans being then half-civilized and anxious to become Romans), was mood. The Roman mood.

So what happened? How come that mightiest Roman army ever could be defeated, again and again and again, or shrink from battle? The Goth refugees had done whatever was needed (such as prostituting their wives and daughters, on an industrial scale) to keep their weapons. Mistreated by corrupt local Roman official, so corrupt that they didn’t take basic military precautions, the Goths, ably led by a charismatic leader, Fritigern, rebelled.

The Collapse of the Roman empire was sudden. This is the situation around 440 CE.

Emperor Valens rushed from Mesopotamia with the Oriental Roman field army. Thanks to an hubris reminiscent of that French generals around May 13, 1940, Valens rushed its dehydrated, exhausted army into battle on a hot August day, without having figured out where the mighty Gothic cavalry was.  The Occidental Roman army chief of staff, the Frankish general Richomeres  advised Valens to wait until the Occidental army arrived. The Oriental Roman field army was annihilated, Valens killed (in unclear circumstances). Richomeres kept discipline and saved part of the force (he would later become head of the army in the Orient, magister militum per Orientem, and a Consul).

We have some of the ingredients of the fall of Rome there: dictatorship by the emperor not listening to advice, and most of the top military genius of the empire having to do with Frankish generals.

The Roman State was severely defeated at Adrianopolis in 379 CE. That battle, against the Goths, was reminiscent of the massacre of Cannae, 600 years before. Cannae was a tremendous Roman defeat originating straight from Hannibal’s genius. Roman legions, including 60 Senators found themselves so compressed by Hannibal’s army of mercenaries, that they couldn’t fight: they had been drawn to the center by Hannibal himself, at the head of his Gallic troops. Adrianopolis was more of the same. However, whereas Hannibal was crafty at Cannae, the Romans were stupid at Adrianopolis.

After Cannae, the Romans rose another two large armies, and Scipio “Africanus” landed the main one in Africa, next to Carthage. . After Adrianopolis, the Romans didn’t rise a new army so much as they showed Constantinople to the Gothic king, who was mesmerized. The Goth thus decided to make peace. And to celebrate so much, that he died from it (his successor honored the accord).  

Clearly, by the end of the Fourth Century, the immensely wealthy empire, much richer than Rome six centuries earlier, was able to rise armies (hence the systematic recourse to Frankish armies, forces and general; even emperor Constantine had a crucial battle won by the Frankish general Bonitus; another Frankish general, Arbogast, was emperor in all but name, as he tried a secular, laic counter-coup).

This lack of armies explains why the empire of more than 60 millions was defeated by tiny German armies (the Goths had by far the largest army, around 100,000 men).

Gibbon would perhaps point out that the Christian mentality was antagonistic to war. Right. Actually the Christian bishops were heading the empire by 400 CE (this government of bishops had started under Gratian, when he became weird after Adrianopolis; maybe he was weird because he had to name Theodosius emperor of the Orient; Gratian was barely 20, Theodosius, 33, and accomplished, however his father had been executed earlier for high treason…).

The Late Roman empire had become a very strange place. While the Germans threatened to roam all over the place, with their own Sharia (although they were Aryan Christian, but for the Franks, who were obdurate Pagans), the bishops declared that murderous highwaymen should not be executed (so the roads became impassible).

All this weirdness was there to hide the main fact: the Roman plutocrats prefered experiencing German invasions to paying taxes to the Roman State, to feed the prodigious army Rome could have had, and the Roman plutocrats had the means to NOT pay taxes by influencing people and blocking others. They married the invaders, and that was it.

Does this remind you of today?

It should!

Meanwhile, Trump operated a 180 degrees (long announced). He announced a deal with his new-found friends “Nancy and Chuck”. The buxom Nancy Pelosi has headed the Democrats in Congress since before 2006 (when she acquired control of Congress); “Chuck” is the head of the Democratic Senators. So the rising of the US debt ceiling was passed (it had been attached to 20 billion dollars heading to the relief of Houston). I wonder if all those who called racist whoever had a nice word about some aspects of Trump, will now direct their fury towards “Nancy and Chuck”. Probably not: too complicated for their simple minds.

To come back to Late Imperial Rome, all the wealthiest families had a bishop in their ranks: Christianism was a smokescreen for plutocracy. Among plutocratic families, Christian propaganda was basic civic service. By superficially embracing Christianism, and imposing it deeply, plutocracy made We The People into We the Sheeple.

The empire, in tatters, rose again thanks to the Franks, but the destruction caused by the collapse was beyond a force 8 hurricane. Because the minds, the rational, republican, democratic culture, had collapsed so entirely.

It would take seven centuries for civilization to rise higher. Even then, it got poisoned again by the second plutocratic wave known, with misleading semantics, as the “Feudal” system. That rose again with a second Christianization wave known for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Religious Wars,and various terrors, which wrecked Europe for another eight centuries after 1026 CE (when burnings for “heresy” got launched again, after centuries without.)

More than 200 potential or known causes for the Decline and Fall of Rome have been listed. The plutocratic explanation therein suggested implies them all, so it is the master explanation.

Why was the collapse of the Roman state so thorough and so fast? Contemplate the present North Korean crisis. Suppose it would evolved in the way most unfavorable to civilization: Kim threatens the West, atom bomb a few cities, like Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo, Paris, London, and then one makes a treaty with him, and North Korean and Jihadists become the overlords, under special laws applying to them alone. Meanwhile the “antifa” are in charge of the justice, police and military systems and impose to not fight crime in any form.

This is roughly what happened to the Roman state, and it happened within a few years. At the time, some Romans were indignant, and tried to react, to prevent the Decline and Fall of the Roman State. Maximus in Britain led his legions into Gaul, defeated (next to Paris) and killed emperor Gratian (in Lyon), because Gratian was roaming around dressed like a Scythian, and had put the Catholic bishops in power. Maximus became Augustus, and Theodosius had to live with him. Yet, the rot within average minds was already too deep.

The facts above are mostly ignored in the major universities, because such facts would disrupt them by disrupting their major sponsor, the plutocratic system, which feeds so well the top university leaders (they earn up to 2 million dollars a year in the USA). Still we, humble philosophers, shall obstinately preach the truths, just because they are there, and need to be conquered even more than the highest imaginable mountains.

Patrice Ayme

Should Present-Day Catholicism Be Made Unlawful?

July 29, 2017

Catholicism, as practiced in the past, would clearly be unlawful today: all the great leaders of Christianism of  five centuries ago, would be condemned to live in prison, but for those who would end their lives in psychiatric asylum. Should they resist by force, their fighters would have been eliminated as if they were the worst Jihadists, defending holocausts, or Aztec warriors, defending cannibalism.  

Catholicism, in its original form, its ancient form, its Salafist form, prescribed many atrocities (later carbon-copied by Islam). I will concentrate here just on a particularly inhuman prescription, sexism. Sexism is against nature, because the human species has evolved with little difference between males and females. This goes at the root of what it means to be human.

Catholicism says women are inferior creatures. This hurtful outrage is an ultra-violent contradiction of common human decency, common sense, science, human ethology, and human rights. Mass organizations violating both science and human rights should be outlawed.  

Catholic churchmen are still free to proselytize their contempt, not to say, hatred of women. Women can’t become priests, bishops, cardinals or popes: they are clearly viewed by the Catholic Church as inferior, misleading, depraved creatures. Why should such preaching be legal? 

Tyrant Constantine front and left, directs the Nicaea Council 325 CE, as seen in the 16 C….

To be fair, this religious misogyny started before Catholicism. Catholicism was an invention of the Roman Tyrant Constantine at the Council of Nicaea, in 325 CE (presently located in Islamizing Turkey). Constantine, born at York in England, son of his father, a “Caesar”, was a psychopath who conquered the entire Roman empire. Constantine killed his nephew, his wife and his highly successful son, just because he could. That was enough qualifications for Constantine to be made a saint by the Orthodox Church.

The earliest Christian writer is known as the so-called “Saint” Paul. I put “Saint” in quote, unquote, because in my religion no sexist pig is a saint. Saint Paul was a sexist, man-obsessed pig. I have nothing against homosexuals of the male gender, as long as they don’t disparage woman. But Saint Paul did. 

The Apostle Paul wrote that the “husband is head” and “wives, submit“, and that he was divinely inspired to write what he wrote… Catholic groups diverge in their interpretation of the following passage. Saint Paul wrote:

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.[1Cor 11:3–9]

In the first seven centuries after emperor Constantine, the self-described “13th Apostle” and certified bloody monster of the tyrannical type, priests could marry: Catholicism was overviewed by the Franks, who attached a lot of importance to living like Pagans, and (relatively) non-sexist Germans. The Franks had reinterpreted Catholicism their way. However, by 1026 CE, for the first time in centuries, the Catholic church was able to execute heretics.

What had changed? What had allowed Catholicism to draped itself in, and drip with, blood? Why the relapse into mass murdering theocratic fascism? Plutocracy unbound. The rise of plutocracy, self-described as “aristocracy”: hereditary positions of the wealthiest and the mightiest needed a mood to nurture their capture of civilization, and they had to justify that by the fascist Judeo-Christian god and His torturous, sexist ways.

At that point, the men who viewed women as objects of natural sexual interest were discouraged to join the Catholic Church. Men who preferred men were prefered. And naturally men who love children as sex objects.

So here we are: the Catholic hierarchy is stuffed with sex pedophiles. And the Catholic Church can’t deny this, lest it denies itself.

The present Pope talks a big talk, but he is, at the very least, sympathetic to pedophiles. A fact. For a millennium, the Catholic Church has induced its professionals to approach children, with love (pedo-philia, literally) rather than approach adult women, with love. Thus all too many professional Catholics came to view children as sex objects. And getting away with it. A striking example is the right hand man of the present Pope, now back in Australia to face damning charges… Francis I gives moral lessons to entire planet, but socialized for years with an outrageous pedophile.

As the New York Magazine puts it in “The Pope’s Pedophile?”By Andrew Sullivan:

“Well into Pope Francis’s pontificate, one of his closest aides, the third-highest official in the Catholic Church, Cardinal George Pell, has now been credibly accused of several acts of sexual assault, including one of rape. Australian police have concluded that the evidence they have is sufficient to move forward, even in cases that happened long ago… A cloud has hung over Pell since he was an Episcopal vicar in a parish in the 1970s that has been described as a “pedophile’s paradise and a child’s nightmare. A full 15 years ago, Pell was accused of molesting a 12-year-old boy but when the church investigated, a retired Supreme Court justice found that there wasn’t enough evidence, even though the victim appeared to be “speaking honestly from actual recollection.” A year later, Pope John Paul II made Pell a cardinal. Several new alleged victims spoke out in a book published only last month. In 2015, Australia’s Channel 9 ran a 60 Minutes segment that can only be called horrifying. In it, one of Francis’s own appointees to investigate sex abuse, Peter Saunders, described Pell’s record on sexual abuse as “almost sociopathic.” Pell had a “catalogue of denials … a catalogue of denigrating people, of acting with callousness,” Saunders said on camera. “I would go as far to say that I consider him to be quite a dangerous individual…

The notorious case of the founder of the Legion of Christ, Marcial Maciel, comes to mind. Protected by Pope John Paul II, coddled by Benedict XVI, he was also defended by an array of theological arch-conservatives as a paragon of virtue… It comes as no surprise, for example, that Pell has upheld, like Maciel, a highly conservative theology on sexuality — which was why he was so favored by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He opposed the use of condoms to stop AIDS in Africa, refused to give communion to openly gay people, campaigned strenuously against marriage equality, and described the church sex-abuse scandal as not a function of minor abuse and cover-up but of allowing homosexuals to be priests (a ban on gay seminarians remains formally in place). In his own words: “80 percent of the abuse is with young boys. So I mean it’s obviously connected with the problem of homosexuality … We’ve got to see that [homosexuality] is not tolerated amongst clergy and religious orders.” To which I have to echo David Ridsdale: “Fuck you, George, and everything you stand for.”

What I cannot understand is why Pope Francis chose to advance this man under this cloud so high up the hierarchy. If Pell is found guilty, Francis will have advanced an accused abuser of children to the highest echelon in the Vatican. Far from cleaning the church of this evil, he will have contaminated it at its very apex. That’s why this case is indeed a watershed for Catholicism and Francis himself. If Francis can turn a blind eye to this, we can trust no one.”

What is there, not to understand? It’s in plain sight! The Catholic Church is intrinsically dangerous: most Catholics, with the possible exception of Saint Martin, Saint Francis and a few others, are toxic for civilization, because they abuse not just little boys, but reason. As Emperor Julian had diagnosed around 360 CE, Catholicism was very dangerous to civilization, just because of that point ( and basically all the great social advances ascribed to Roman Catholicism originated in Rome, not Catholicism, which piggy-backed on Rome). Catholicism was basically PC, Political Correctness, gone self-sanctifying and lethal. Many of the Saints of Catholicism were mass-criminally insane (example Saint Bernard, author of the Second Crusade, more Pope than the Pope Himself, and from a Pluto family, to boot; same for the demented Saint Louis, author of more insane texts than the Marquis de Sade, but not meant to be fiction, but all too real threats…)

Sexism is not legal. Sexism should not be preached. Private conversation is one thing, public address, another. Preaching sexism should be unlawful.

The reasons to crack down now on Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Judaism are multiple. An obvious reason is that, each time perverse religions dwell in hyper-sexism, the practitioners of these nasty primitive faiths point at Christianism. Islamists, in particular, claim that sexism  Naive philosophers such as Michel Onfray make the situation worse by calling our civilization “Judeo-Christian”. That leaves us no choice, but to carpet bomb “Judeo-Christianism” into smithereens.

A more advanced reason is that we need humanity to be as intelligent as possible, as soon as possible: the easiest way to do that is to insure women have the same access to education, and to the motivation to acquire education, as men. Mostly women mostly educate children, early on, keep that in mind: a sexist society is necessarily a more stupid society than it otherwise would be, absent the sexism.

Still an even more overwhelming reason is that we have entered the age of reason. It’s reason, or die.

A hint: the young thermonuclear cannibal in North Korea. The irrationality of Catholicism, which views, half of humanity as inferior (same as (Islamism), and enforces that vision, should not be tolerated, but eradicated.

Everybody needs somebody to love. The Catholic Church says that men should not love women. The Pope, Francis, says this. His collaborators, not to call them accomplices, are left to love small children, because small children are all they have around, aside from each other and their perverse ideology. Enough. You want to fight Islamism? Fighting the abuses of Catholicism may be the easiest way to start doing so.

Mass irrationality implementing stupidity is not just deeply inhuman. It implies the end of intelligence. Perhaps of intelligence in the galaxy. This is not just about us. Let’s make sexist mass ideologies seriously preached unlawful: at some point civilization has to progress.

Patrice Ayme’

EXTREMES INSTRUCT MIND, and Man, The Extreme Animal

July 15, 2017

Usually, when thinking of man, one thinks of something noble, higher, ponderate, endowed with Roman “gravitas”, wise. To put it in one expression: Homo Sapiens.

However, where does all this wisdom come from? Experiments! And how, why, would one experiment? By going crazy! Craziness, and a love for extremes. Why? Because: Extremes instructs.

Wingsuit Flier Above French Alps. The rocky twin tower below the flier is the Drus, where yours truly made a semi-demented first ascent (on the other side). I had been a bit riled, after being nearly wiped out by the biggest rock avalanche I ever saw. However the entire pillar collapsed from greenhouse warming a few years later… Demonstrating the lightness of being even with the heaviest mountains.

Going to extremes is how science is made. Every paradigm shattering experiment in physics consists into forcing nature into an extreme apparatus (be it a telescope, microscope, Stern-Gerlach device, cyclotron, or forcing a virus into circumstances which weaken it, until it can be injected for vaccination, etc.).

Going to extremes happen even in mathematics: there, researchers typically play first with baby examples (which are extreme in the sense of being extremely simple, or extremely computable, etc.). For these extremes, they excavate general principles that they then rework in a general theory. (For example, the general theory of curved spaces, pre-Euclid, and before the invention of connection theory by Levi-Civita, assumed spaces with constant curvature, such as the surface of the Earth; that was extreme, in the sense of extremely simple.)

So here we are, and our power has exceeded our planet. To save our environment, we need to extent it through the galaxy, commensurate to our power. We can’t dial back power: our earthly environment, which we have already mauled, will be the first to succumb. So all speed forward, beyond all the last frontiers…

Extreme behaviors have always characterized man. Because we experiment, and experiments are, by definition, risky.  “Per” meant  risk, initially. To engage in risky behavior, we need extreme passion, like the heroes of Homer.

“Plus Oultre!” as Charles Quint put it in his native French: More Beyond!

Science itself is a love of extreme: the meta-motivation of science is to go beyond whatever was figured out prior.    

Experienced extreme-sports enthusiasts are often not reckless, nor do they have some sort of Freudian death wish. Instead, “older” extreme athletes — those who are past their mid-20s — exercise deep care proportional to the high risk involved by the art they specialize in. The analogy with science is striking. Most practitioners of extremely dangerous sports are highly intelligent people, methodological and systematic. They spend years studying the environment and the mechanics involved in order to make it as safe as it possibly can be, in that general framework of extreme danger.

And generally, they have a an extreme goal in mind. The French specialist of wingsuits, who launched the modern version of the sport, wanted to achieve controlled wingsuit landings (he died in Hawai’i, probably from confusion in a jump to resulting from jet lag).

It is often said, and observed, that humans can be, or are, evil. This is caused, in part, by the love of extremes, the love of experiment.

So is it the love of understanding which pushes to extremes, or the love of extremes which pushes towards understanding? That’s a chicken and egg problem: they evolved together, and are not really distinguishable, being both unavoidable parts of the same mechanism.

This also explains why top thinkers all too often get hated and ridiculously molested: as per their art, they are forced to be, in some ways, extreme. At least, relative to the commons. The founder of cynic philosophy Diogenes of Sinope and his admirer the extremely clever Alexander the Great understood this perfectly well.

Of course the New York Times does not. It does not want to. That plutocratic media calls “provocateurs” “hate mongers”, and explain they have to be violently censored to prevent “torment”! Says the NYT: “By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.”

By all means”? Really? Was not the point of the NYT the exact opposite?

I do agree that speech can be violence. However, to explicitly point at people who “provoke” thoughts, and accuse them of causing “torment” is not understanding that we gain insight from extremes.

Thus, the New York Times’ theory of censoring all my comments was grounded in a conspiratorial theory to avoid inflicting torment on plutocrats.

Some will say I am incoherent: I condemned “thought crimes” long ago, and asked for a “Minister of Truth” (underlying the minister of Justice). However the difference are significant: the Qur’an calls to kill some category of people (the Bible does the same, but less… Actually Qur’an refers approvingly to the death sentence against homosexuals in the Bible). If that’s preached as a part of the religion, which it is, stricto sensu, that’s incitation to murder. If done to children it adds child abuse, child endangerment, child pornography, corruption of the youth, etc.

Whereas the New York Times has actively censored scholars who disagree on Quantitative Easing, the capture of politics by plutocracy, calling Islamophobia racism, or whether Christianism terror caused the decline and fall of the Roman State.

The problem with avoiding confrontation in the guise of comfort, is that extremes instruct. No confrontation, no instruction. The New York Times affects not to understand that (in truth it’s just serving the multibillionaire plutocrats who own it, and are hateful of all those who disparage their status).

A young Egyptian yesterday swam to a resort. There, he killed by stabbing, two German tourists. Captured, he recognized that he had “espoused the ideas of Jihadism”. Jihadism in the sense of the literal Qur’an is a vicious ideology incompatible with civilization. Literal Koranic Jihadism is an example of a mentality espousing ideas and practices revealed to be too extreme when they lead to kill innocent people.

Absent real killing and injuring of people, anything should go in the realm of ideas. Fiction literature and movies (even documentaries) are all about letting imagination roam.  

And it better. Because only ever more true ideas will save humanity, and those are born at very high temperature, so high old mental automatisms can melt the erroneous past in a fiery embrace.

Extreme behaviors are us. Including the worst, they are necessary to think forward and anew. There lays survival, and nowhere else.

Patrice Ayme’  

The Purpose of Life: Harari, Gates, Yours Truly…

July 6, 2017

Get a GRRIP: Gates, Harari, Homo Deus, Debunked & Amplified:

Abstract: After describing a bit the work of Harari, who just sold 3 million books in China alone, we focus on what Bill Gates below sees as Harari’s main gist. Then I present my own version of the purpose of human life. I expand on the notion of raw realism, what I call GRRIP, the driver of human evolution.


Yuval Noah Harari, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, writes the sort of books I would have like to have written myself, because of the many statements highly compatible with my philosophy. However, the gentleman is not the deepest form of thinker there is, so I still think my writings have meaning… Moreover, he and Bill Gates, who gives his opinion below, claim that the “purpose of life” consists into serving a superior class. I sort of agree, as long as said class is superior thinking, not a tiny minority of greedy individuals… 

Harari seesm to embrace what I believe is the reality one should all embrace, to optimize collective survival and happiness GRRIP: Grave Raw Reality Inevitable Principle: Raw Reality is a Grave thing, but it can’t be be avoided, so we may as well consider it to be a Principle (just like God is a Principle of power, GRRIP has even more power, see the White Phosphorus below…) As an Israeli, Harari lives in a grave reality, and Gates, as we will see, believes hard to find a purpose in life if all children have a nice life (I agree that’s a surprising point of view, especially considering Gates views himself as charity prone, not to say charitable!)

My take on it? The purpose of life is a vast generalization of what Bill Gates is trying to say. Starting from GRRIP, I conclude that:

THE MORE WE HOLD TO DEAR LIFE, THE MORE MEANING WE ARE PROVIDED WITH! This is why people like to do dangerous & crazy things! They are addicted to meaning! (Some may say that Camus opined a bit like that in his famous “Myth of Sisyphus“. Except Sisyphus is doing a boring task, whereas human beings in full are too excited by danger to be bored; I am not exactly recommending this, to live a life of danger and terror, I just say that this is the circumstances in which our species evolved, and thus, our brains become fully functional only then, and when such an environment is provided…)


Harari Makes Statements I Have Made Forever:

“In the 300 years of the crucifixion of Christ to the conversion of Emperor Constantine, polytheistic Roman emperors initiated no more than four general persecutions of Christians. Local administrators and governors incited some anti-Christian violence of their own. Still, if we combine all the victims of all these persecutions, it turns out that in these three centuries the polytheistic Romans killed no more than a few thousand Christians. In contrast, over the course, of the next 1,500 years, Christians slaughtered Christians by the millions, to defend slightly different interpretations of the religion of love and compassion.”

Yuval Noah Harari, קיצור תולדות האנושות 

White Phosphorus Exploding Out Of A Shell Over Mosul, June 2, 2017. The Anti-Islamist Coalition Is Fighting Literal Abrahamism, An Intrinsically Let’s-Kill-Our-Children-For-Our-Boss religion. Hence the necessity to use pretty ugly weapons.

The reason for Christianism was to make average people into sheep so that Roman Catholic emperors and their class could terrorize and exploit the 99%. As Voltaire, himself definitively a part of the .1%, as he was personal friend of Louis XV, asserted:  

“Voltaire said about God that ‘there is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night’. Hammurabi would have said the same about his principle of hierarchy, and Thomas Jefferson about human rights. Homo sapiens has no natural rights, just as spiders, hyenas and chimpanzees have no natural rights. But don’t tell that to our servants, lest they murder us at night.”

Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

[Nietzsche basically went lyrical on this idea already found in Voltaire, a century later. Let’s notice this in passing… So much for Friedrich’s originality…]

“Nothing captures the biological argument better than the famous New Age slogan: ‘Happiness begins within.’ Money, social status, plastic surgery, beautiful houses, powerful positions – none of these will bring you happiness. Lasting happiness comes only from serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin.” (Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.)

And right history does not just teach the future, but feeds the imagination:

“This is the best reason to learn history: not in order to predict the future, but to free yourself of the past and imagine alternative destinies. Of course this is not total freedom – we cannot avoid being shaped by the past. But some freedom is better than none.”

Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow


Contrarily To What Harari Claims, Life Has A Scientific Meaning, However Modest:  

Of course I understand, and sort of approve, the following assertion:

“As far as we can tell from a purely scientific viewpoint, human life has absolutely no meaning. Humans are the outcome of blind evolutionary processes that operate without goal or purpose. Our actions are not part of some divine cosmic plan, and if planet earth were to blow up tomorrow morning, the universe would probably keep going about its business as usual. As far as we can tell at this point, human subjectivity would not be missed. Hence any meaning that people inscribe to their lives is just a delusion.”  (Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.)

A superior philosophical attitude requires more modesty about what the universe is really up to: suppose that it turns out we are the only civilization in the entire observable universe (as observed, so far). Would that make us delusional, if we attribute importance to ourselves? Arguably not!

“Purely scientific viewpoint”: for me, science is what is known with certainty. The purpose of life has not been studied enough to even guess what it could be to ponder some of its elements as certainties, this way or that. The purpose of life does not have any scientific meaning, but for one point which can’t be disputed: we are attached to it. All of use, but a few in extreme pain (physical or psychological).

As far as we can tell… human life has absolutely no meaning”??? Why does Harari insists life has no meaning? “Purely scientific”? So occupiers can kill the occupied in peace?


Bill Gates read Harari and found him to his taste. The reason why will be unveiled. In both cases, to put it rather grossly, both life off the hog (Palestinians in one case, the world planet on the other). Here is Billy Boy:

What gives our lives meaning? And what if one day, whatever gives us meaning went away—what would we do then?

I’m still thinking about those weighty questions after finishing Homo Deus, the provocative new book by Yuval Noah Harari.

Melinda and I loved Harari’s previous book, Sapiens, which tries to explain how our species came to dominate the Earth. It sparked conversations over our dinner table for weeks after we both read it…Harari’s new book is as challenging and readable as Sapiens…

Homo Deus argues that the principles that have organized society will undergo a huge shift in the 21st century… the things that have shaped society—what we measure ourselves by—have been some combination of religious rules about how to live a good life, and more earthly goals like getting rid of sickness, hunger, and war. We have organized to meet basic human needs: being happy, healthy, and in control of the environment around us. Taking these goals to their logical conclusion, Harari says humans are striving for “bliss, immortality, and divinity.”

What would the world be like if we actually achieved those things? This is not entirely idle speculation. War and violence are at historical lows and still declining. Advances in science and technology will help people live much longer and go a long way toward ending disease and hunger.

Here is Harari’s most provocative idea: As good as it sounds, achieving the dream of bliss, immortality, and divinity could be bad news for the human race. He foresees a potential future where a small number of elites upgrade themselves through biotechnology and genetic engineering, leaving the masses behind and creating the godlike species of the book’s title; where artificial intelligence “knows us better than we know ourselves”; and where these godlike elites and super-intelligent robots consider the rest of humanity to be superfluous…

He argues that humanity’s progress toward bliss, immortality, and divinity is bound to be unequal—some people will leap ahead, while many more are left behind. I agree that, as innovation accelerates, it doesn’t automatically benefit everyone. The private market in particular serves the needs of people with money and, left to its own devices, often misses the needs of the poor. But we can work to close that gap and reduce the time it takes for innovation to spread. For example, it used to take decades for lifesaving vaccines developed in the rich world to reach the poor. Now—thanks to efforts by pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and governments—there are cases where that lag time is less than a year. We should try to narrow the gap even more, but the larger point is clear: Inequity is not inevitable.

In addition, in my view, the robots-take-over scenario is not the most interesting one to think about. It is true that as artificial intelligence gets more powerful, we need to ensure that it serves humanity and not the other way around. But this is an engineering problem—what you could call the control problem. And there is not a lot to say about it, since the technology in question doesn’t exist yet.

I am more interested in what you might call the purpose problem. Assume we maintain control. What if we solved big problems like hunger and disease, and the world kept getting more peaceful: What purpose would humans have then? What challenges would we be inspired to solve?

In this version of the future, our biggest worry is not an attack by rebellious robots, but a lack of purpose.

What if a happy, healthy life was guaranteed for every child on Earth? How would that change the role parents play?

…Like every parent, I want my children to lead happy, healthy, fulfilling lives. But what if such a life was guaranteed for every child on Earth? How would that change the role parents play?

Harari does the best job I have seen of explaining the purpose problem. And he deserves credit for venturing an answer to it. He suggests that finding a new purpose requires us to develop new religion—using the word in a much broader sense than most people do, something like “organizing principles that direct our lives.”

Unfortunately, I wasn’t satisfied by his answer to the purpose question. (To be fair, I haven’t been satisfied by the answers I have seen from other smart thinkers like Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom, or by my own answers either.)…”


Common Purpose We Found: Oppress and, or Exterminate Them, Subhumans!

I was somewhat chuckling: Harari sees a future full of plutocracy and a situation strangely reminiscent of Israeli ruling over dozens of millions of enslaved Arabs. Gates sees a future where the poor’s pain will be alleviated, if not elevated, by the gifts of the plutocrats (if we “assume we maintain control”, an interesting Freudian slip…). And where purpose is found even though so many people have stopped suffering! (No more role for parents if everybody is happy and fulfilled; apparently!)   


Our Purpose: Survival, now clearly more challenging than ever:

Survive plutocracy, survive climate annihilation and general roasting of the biosphere, survive nuked tipped ICBMs from young cannibalistic maniacs, etc.

Looking at history of all civilizations, one can see that the number one danger is inequality, which affects both  mental and economic performance of a civilization. Inequality grows exponentially, and affects all dimensions of humanity. Inequality does not make the common people destitute, hungry and sick, it makes them stupid and immoral.

Exponential growth of inequality is the plutocratic effect, where an oligarchy, the government of a few, ends up ruling not just from wealth, but also from satanic means (thus the word “Pluto”; hence the notion of Pluto-power: Pluto-kratos). Time and time again, only a few brains end up doing all the thinking and ordering around, resulting not just in misery, but annihilation… Because a civilization where only a few think ends up completely stupid, and lacking purpose.

The “purpose” of the human species was always survival: survival of selves, survival of others we hold dear, survival of what we are attached to. There is no reason for this to change. Actually, with a quick march to ten billion humans, plenty of states making nuke in their basement thanks to laser enrichment, rising seas, runaway greenhouse (soon!), dying plankton, encroaching deserts, etc. survival will pretty much suddenly come back on the front burner.

The ilk of Steven Pinker, supported by ephemeral statistics, claim we have reached a new age of peace. However two things: we have a world oligarchy in place from control by the Permanent Members of the Security Council. That works as long as those don’t fight each other.

2)Moreover, such ages of self-satisfaction are always those of silly minds who go explore the seabed on foot, while the tsunami is gathering strength over their horizon. The more violent the catastrophe, the greater the calm before it strikes, precisely because those who could have done something to prepare and avoid it, were bathing in self-satisfaction.


“Final Phase of Showdown”:

Donald Trump, made a discourse in Poland which mentioned the occupation of Poland by the Nazis and the Soviets, which brought the massacre of six millions at least, 20% of the Polish population, Trump mentioned the collaboration between Nazis and Soviets to massacre Poles: he mentioned the full stop of the Red Army in the suburbs of Warsaw, waiting for moths that the Nazis had finished massacring the Polish population of the capital. (Actually the collaboration between Nazis and Soviets was decades old,m and culminated in the Treaty of 1939, made public to try to prevent France, followed by Britain, to declare war to Hitler…)

“As the Polish experience reminds us, the defense of the west ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail,” Trump said. “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” he said. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

The US president, in his sharpest criticism of Moscow since taking office, urged Russia to “cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes, including Syria and Iran,” and asserting that it must “instead join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself.

Defending civilization? An answer was provided by the US Islamist Linda Sarsour, a famous US pseudo-feminist who called a Jihad against Trump in the name of “our beloved Muhammad“. Another was provided by the cannibal leading North Korea, as he successfully fired North Korea’s first ICBM (InterContinental Ballistic Missile).  I call him a cannibal, as Kim provides dogs with his enemies, and benefactors. As food.  Alive.

Official accounts had young cannibal Kim “feasting his eyes” on the ICBM. No doubt the perspective of millions burned wet his appetite“With a broad smile on his face,” he urged scientists to send more “big and small ‘gift packages’” to the Americans, in time for Independence Day, according to North Korea state press. Kim was quoted as saying that the “protracted showdown with the U.S. imperialists has reached its final phase.

Senior U.S. and South Korean military officials warned that North Korea’s actions threatened peace. “Self-restraint, which is a choice, is all that separates armistice and war,” Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, and Gen. Lee Sun-jin, chairman of the South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a statement.

On a slightly less grim note, let’s observe that Harari teaches in Jerusalem, at the Hebrew University. In this particular context, the claim that humanity is threatened with bliss, immortality, and divinity will make at least half of the population sneer in dismay, not to say hatred. Some may well argue this is all a red herring, while the West Bank get progressively colonized, and the problem of Israeli Arabs, not solved…

In any case, the problems we have to solve quickly have never been so great, in the history of advanced life. Advanced life is going through one of its three worst mass extinctions. Arguably, advanced life is facing the worst mass extinction, ever: projections on CO2 rise and temperature rises are, potentially the largest, ever, since there are vertebrates and they wiggle.

Exciting and increasingly hot times…

Patrice Ayme’.

European Leadership Imposes Islam

July 4, 2017

Islamist Lead The European Union: A Proof

The European Union leadership is violating separation church-state with an orgasm of Islamophilia. The European Union elite imposes Islam from the top. It’s not an opinion, it’s an observation. The EU’s top foreign politician said:. Islam belongs in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not (January 27, 2017). Here is foreign Minister and European Commission Vice President Federica Mogherini in a fuller context: “Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality.”,

– said Mogherini in her address at ‘Islam in Europe’.

Does Federica also approve of the hundreds of Islamist attacks around Europe, which brought hundreds of dead, thousands of wounded? After all, it’s all in the Qur’an! Can we call to have her tried for high treason and calls not just to prayer, but to mayhem? Instead, what she does is to cry each time Islamist do their Islamist thing, and kill a some more Europeans!

The Islamist European elitists are guilty, and they know it, yet they persevere, because they are diabolical. The full discourse of the Islamist Federica was so damaging that the European Union removed it from its website. Unfortunately I had only a very partial copy of it.

Islamist Federica Mogherini. The necessity to separate church and state requires the firing of the Vice President of the European Commission and Foreign Minister. Islamist bimbos belong to Erdogan’s Turkey.

So, not only does the European Union executive body (the EC) make Islamist propaganda, but it covers it up. That means the European union knows extremely well that it is committing a crime, making Islamist propaganda, and then hides the crime, presumably not just to prevent punishment against Frederica the Islamist, but because the EU wants to do more of the same, probably under a more subtle form.

What does ambitious Federica think? How does she see her future? Being invited for more of these five stars conferences in the Emirates, with payments comparably to those of Clinton and Obama? Does she plenty of petrodollars in her future? Let’s listen to her satanic discourse some more:

“The idea of a clash between Islam and ‘the West’… has misled our policies and our narratives. Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.”

“… the very idea of a clash of civilisations is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union.”

– Federica Mogherini,

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission (Brussels, June 25 2015, Call To Europe V: Islam Conference)

What is odd is that Europe let herself be led by vicious ignorant, well-connected bimbos.. At this late hour. Federica pretends she does not know that Islam is a religion, a peculiar  ideology, not an entire civilization. Apparently, in her crass ignorance of well-connected bimbo, she believes islam invented tajine, couscous, merguez, mechoui… These excellent culinary arts existed already in ancient Punic and Berber times, a millennium, or more, before the invention of the Islamist war and raiding ideology by an epileptic analphabet! Federica the ignorant does not know this. After all she got up in society because she is a pretty blonde, with an extremely well-connected father of the italian elite… And she got ahead precisely because she knows nothing: she just has a “political science” degree and  wrote, or more exactly probably plagiarized, as she sounds like a born duplicator of ideas, some sort of thesis on politics and Islam during a stint at the Institute for Research and Studies on the Arab World in Aix-en-Provence (France is full of idiots who think they are fair, balanced and intellectual, because they adulate islam).



Who Is Jihad Federica?

Federica Mogherini, born 16 June 1973 is an Italian politician and the current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission in the Juncker Commission since 1 November 2014.

Mogherini was Italy’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation from 22 February 2014 until 31 October 2014 in the centre-left Cabinet of Matteo Renzi (himself nominated PM without an election!). The 41-year-old Italian was named the EU’s foreign policy chief, only seven months after she was plucked from parliamentary obscurity in Rome and named foreign minister of her own country.

She is a member of the Italian Democratic Party and the Party of European Socialists. degree in political science after

So what’s her connection to plutocracy and the high life? Her father was a top movies director in the 1970s, directing stars such as Marcello Mastroianni and turning out a series of thrillers and comedies. Now his daughter stars in one’s of the world’s top Games of Thrones. Her job? Selling Europe to plutocracy, in the guise of selling Europe to hard-core Islam.


Fifteen years ago, a French professor published a book, “La Fabrique du Crétin” (the making Of the Cretin) in which he observed that:“Nos enfants ne savent plus lire, ni compter, ni penser. Le constat est terrible, et ses causes moins obscures qu’on ne veut bien le dire. (Our children don’t know how to read, compute, and think. The situation is terrible, and its causes less obscure than one is ready to admit).”

Jean-Paul Brighelli claimed that the dominant classes had made the average student stupid, to rule better. I fully agree with this analysis. Some will label such an attitude “Marxist”. But then Nietzsche was a “Marxist”? Nietzsche indeed pointed out that Christianity was an ideology to make common people stupid and sheep-like, so that the aristocracy, which had embraced a value system closer to those of lions (“the blonde beast”), could rule.

Very recent studies in logic show that logical systems can pretty much have any sort of axioms. Even systems where a proposition and its contradiction are both valid are possible. Thus the concept of “rationality” can’t depend upon logic alone. It has to appeal to other values. What could these be? Well, over the last few billion years, life has evolved its own values. They pertain to survival. Facing “post-truth” and “alt-truth”, we have to appeal to those values, found in the heart. The heart, and art, of survival.

One doesn’t survive by embracing an ideology which orders one’s extermination. Thus the elite intents to kill the spirit of the commons in Europe, by imposing Islam on them, just like their spiritual ancestors imposed Christianity, first on the Roman Empire, so well, they destroyed it. Then, as plutocracy rose again, by 1026 CE (date of the first execution by heresy again, in centuries), they re-imposed hard-core christianism. They are hoping to do the same with islamism.

Many individuals, ravaged by greed and will to power, would do anything to gather wealth, riches, power and influence. An example is Mars One, a commercial outfit which claims to train for settling Mars. They live off publicity and selling TV rights on their Marian soap opera.

The truth? It’s a scam! The fundamental truth about going to Mars: we will need fast propulsion, that is nuclear engine (except for unexpected new energy breakthrough!). There is too much radiation in space to spend several months there.

The present civilization we have in Europe is millennia old, a direct ancestor of Egypt, Sumer, India and babylon, and the mastercraftsman of the Celtic lands, with their best-in-the-world metallurgy and ocean-going ships, Our civilization was fully formed, baby sized, when Islam tried to destroy it, 13 centuries ago. It survived, that, because the Franks nationalized the Catholic Church to pay the largest army since the heydays of the Roman Republic. That was not so that we can be led by Islamist now.

Federica Mogherini is an Islamist. Since Macron recently said the Islamist terrorists were “nothing”, she is nothing. Those who grab weapons to implement the principles of the Qur’an and Hadith (kill unbelievers, kill Jews, kill homosexuals, kill apostates, throw “hypocrites into the fire”, etc.) are doing so because Mogherini and her terrible cortege of traitors have told them that was all very civilized, and that it was exactly what anti-racists should do.

After 1026 CE, Europe suffered increasingly under runaway Abrahamism. The Catholics were just implementing some orders from Christ in the New Testament: Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

The result was half a millennium of wars, a near-destruction of Europe. And an important decceleration of progress. Finally the Christianism got defanged. Let’s now defang Islamism. It starts with observing that Islam is not anymore a civilization than Christianism is. Under Charlemagne, one could be a Christian, a Pagan, a Jew, and, yes, a Muslim. True, Charlemagne used Christianism as a weapon against the obdurate Saxons. But that’s another story.

Meanwhile, let’s fire Islamist Mogherini. One cannot kill young Jihadists returning from the collapsing Islamist State, when all they do was to obey the call of Mogherini and her ilk to defend what they claim is a “civilization”. That’s hypocritical. And hypocrites, remember, are supposed “to be thrown into the fire”, according to the Qur’an which is the future of Europe, according to Mogherini and her ilk… 

Patrice Ayme’  

I think, Therefore I Turmoil

June 28, 2017


Did you see experienced sheep being fleeced? The sheep lies on its back, in the warm embrace of the one fleecing, and rise its legs as needed to be completely shorn. Sheep fleecing is practiced in Australia. I sneered about the Royals to a top Australian mathematician. It surfaced that they cost more than 50 million dollars in direct subsidies last year (indirect subsidies are many times this). The prize-winning mathematician chuckled back that the Royals were a perfect opium for the people, they were extravagant just enough to make people think of other things besides inequity.

I keep fighting with some Buddhists, and their ilk. Actually they are on the attack, strangely enough for those speaking about clam all day long. I used to be attacked by Muslim Fundamentalists on this site, but, for some reason, they have completely given up. Maybe they died on the real battlefield? (Many have, but most of the Jihadists are fleeing to other countries, now that they are on the run in Syria and Iraq… But let me stick to the subject at hand here, namely those who scream for calm…)

Praying At The Foot Of Sequoias, California, June 2017. Praying & Meditating Are Good, But Not Enough For a Higher Human Comprehension. Turmoiling Action Is Even More Important.

So why are Buddhists so often calling names those who recognize conflicts as subjects of interest? To qualify my robust considerations, some have used terms such as”height of arrogance”, they ask me to look at the creature in the mirror, and conclude that I ask questions and criticize String Theory, or the Big Bang, let alone the concept of infinity in mathematics, because I suffer pain. As if other animals never suffered.

Pain can be suffered. Yes, it has to be suffered. Pain can also be ignored (cross-country runners, mountaineers are particularly good at ignoring pain, some of their training being to learn to ignore pain!). And, of course, pain can be inflicted. All top thinkers, throughout the ages, have inflicted pain on lesser minds: the revelation of deeper truths is literally painful when the neurology does not exist. I will give an example with mathematics further down. 


Typical of the Buddhist-New Age objection complex is Nathan Daniel Curry , who opined that:I am going to step away from our interaction Patrice for quite some time. All hatred, as far as I have seen, is a form of self-loathing. Those who understand this do not judge. This is the difference between insight and recrimination.”

Hatred? Which hatred? And why would hatred be so terrible? Hating Hitler is OK in my book. Speaking of Hitler, he could have done with quite a bit of self-loathing. Or, more exactly, we would have done better if Hitler had proceeded with self-loathing in a timely manner, killing himself before his niece, or another 100 million people (5% of humanity then)…. Rumors of the badness of viciousness are much exaggerated, sometimes.


Pain is part of the human experience:

Pain is a teacher, even a master. Also one best to be overcome, when fully grown-up. Those desperately searching for pain avoidance are fussy lifers. Roll over Buddha, and stop whining!

Pain, of course, can be an atrocious thing: it defines atrocity. However, precisely, it has to be respected. Ignoring, or deriding others’ pain, is lack of compassion.  

Buddhists, or New Age neo-Buddhists, have ordered me to find “inner peace”, as if I suffered from inner war. I remember facing this famous San Francisco architect, a devoted Buddhist, Tibetan style. His mansion if full of expensive Tibetan paintings representing various “Buddhist” deities. He thundered across the table:”And if you want to change the US Constitution, nobody will take you seriously, ever!”  Wow. That reminded me of when close associates of the Dalai Lama killed each other in Darjeeling, for obscure reasons…

Some are desperate, religiously searching for inner calm. If they had it, they won’t search for it.

Solo climbers have inner calm. Or they won’t be. Instead of going to the temple, it’s certainly more educative to go to the cliff! The cliff definitively selects those with inner calm. The others stay on the ground, or crash.


Inner Calm Does Not Replace Mental Force:

Quanta Magazine had a very interesting story of a 34 year old Korean mathematician who became one through the friendship of a now 86 year old Japanese stars of mathematics, who got the Fields Medal in the past. The youngster may himself win the Fields Medal. However, he feels he betrayed his mentor, because he left the subject (singularities) of the mentor, to forge his own. And why did  he do that? Because (basically) he didn’t understand the senior mathematics, which is too advanced. I know this feeling well. One can feel completely incapable of understanding some pieces of mathematics others fly through. It’s similar, but worse, than listening to a language never heard before. At least in that case, one can point at something known, and associate a sound to it. In mathematics one does not understand, one points at something, and one has absolutely no idea what that is. And the more the other explains, the less one understands.  


Much turmoil, for a better brain! Wisdom, key to peace, if not self-satisfaction, is a child of mental storms:

A slug is calm. However, not brainy. What made our ancestors increasingly brainy? The will to power, the will to know, the will to experience, the will to imagine. In any case, the will NOT to be satisfied with what they had. Thus they created new ecological niches, new worlds they could colonize. The first amphibians were refugees from the ocean. However, they didn’t ask continents to respect oceanism. Instead, they changed themselves.

The first fishes who walked on their fins, in the mud, were not calm. They were no clams, full of inner calm. Instead, they struggled. They fought the elements.

Those who, full of turmoil and invective, ask for inner calm should ask themselves: why all the turmoil about turmoil? Turmoil is an excellent, indispensable mental tool..

Turmoil is irreplaceable when it fosters mental activity. Creative mental activity always causes turmoil, because mental creation means mental annihilation (of errors), or (energy costly) neurological construction of otherwise absent neuronal circuitry. (This is why those who don’t have the circuitry don’t get the math; learning math is about building circuits, and the brain can use up to 43% of a human’s energy!)


Summer, Interrupted In Its Anticipated Splendor:

Turmoil comes from the Middle (Ages) French tremouille “mill hopper,” in reference to the hopper’s constant motion to and fro, from Latin trimodia “vessel containing three modii,”  related to modus “measure.” Attested earlier in English as a verb (1510s). Turmoil is also related to the contemporary French “tremousser” (funny sort of writhing).

Submitted to some of the preceding, Nathan Daniel Curry opined that:”Only fear begets pain Patrice. Hate is one of the paints in fears palette. You may go on with your tired neurological palette. For a while. Yet, pathos, ethos and logos go deeper than the shadows on Plato’s cave.”

Well, Plato didn’t know the word “neuron”. Had he, maybe he would have realized networks of neurons could make his “forms”.

To claim that only fear begets pain means one has lived under deep anesthesia, all of one’s life, perhaps because one’s heart has been torn out. Fortunately, I had the occasion to experience raw physical pain recently:

I broke 2 bones, tore three ligaments, 6 weeks ago. I was not afraid, but it hurt. And ruined the most ambitious version of my summer to come. I still had to run 4 miles. First thing I did was to yank on the affected limb, to settle the articulation back into the joint. No fear, no hatred. No hatred, although the fall was caused by a city having put straw in a steep ravine. (Straw is nearly as slippery as ice…)

Reading this, I tried to stay calm under this traditional Buddhist broadside, similar to been attacked with a wet noodle full of tomato sauce. Confusing “pain” and hatred is similar to confusing victim and perpetrator. Weirdly common. Perhaps from suffering too much, or too little!

Humanism in full is what I defend. No drug, no placebo. No claiming that it is not, what it is. Face it, and love it.

And war is part of it, as even Islam has fully observed. Jihad, a war-like effort, inside oneself, or outside, is a central concept of Islam. It’s superior to laying supine like a sheep. This is why Islam could implant itself so powerfully (and not so nicely!) in India (pervaded, as India is, by various derivatives of Brahmanism. Much of the long and sorry deliquescence of Asian civilizations has to do with metaphysics too friendly to the fleecing of sheep being pervasive in too many minds. This stasis of Eastern progress is of course over now, as most of Asia has adopted much Western secular aggressively progressive metaphysics…  

Patrice Ayme’

Covenant (With Plutocracy)

June 12, 2017

A  covenant is a formal alliance or agreement made by a Creator, a God, with a religious community or with humanity in general. Covenants are omnipresent in old religions. They will even more important looking forward, as Artificial Intelligence (and, even worse, Artificial Consciousness) become capable of autonomy (= self-management). This the theme of the movie “Covenant” and its prequel, “Prometheus”.

The Covenant between the Mexicans and their gods, especially Huichilobos, led them to fight to death the Conquistadores, although that brought the systematic annihilation of their city, stone house by stone house, canal by canal, over 93 days (said Bernal Diaz; the Conquistadores, suffering themselves 50% losses, filled in the canals with the stones of Aztecs’ houses, to enable their armored cavalry to charge).

Aliens Have Landed on Planet Paradise, Strangely Reminiscent of New Zealand

It is also of interest to We The People presently: there is a covenant with what views itself as our creator and master, plutocracy.

The present covenant is ludicrous. What’s the Covenant plutocracy and its obsequious servants believe we have? That greed and power, collectively known as the “market”, are all the laws worth having (yesterday’s laws are in the way; as a plutocrat told me the other day: ‘I don’t care if i go to jail!’; he knows that whatever he does authorities will look at his $200,000 car, and let him be.).

God is generally known first as the “Creator”. In the movie “Covenant”, an anthropomorphic robot faces his creator, in this case, a human being. The robot asks the human who created him, the human, and then goes on to observe he will live on after his creator dies. The human affecting wizened gravitas labels the question of who created the Creator as an eternal question. Maybe, but we have had an answer ever since Lamarck and Cuvier established evolution, 217 years ago.

The question of who created the Creator, has become very naive. It’s conventional, ignorant naivety.

In truth, we were created by evolution, a progressive process. And we, in turn, have been accelerating evolution deliberately for more than 10,000 years. We will now evolve Quantum Consciousness robots: we have already started that process of evolution (one qbit at a time!) Ridley Scott, just a great writer and movie producer, does not realize this.

In “Covenant” producer and writer Ridley Scott assumes that the robot David, full of feelings as he is, is fascinated, even dominated, by an obsessive desire to study “creation”, which he does by creating species. So man-made robot David experiments, and creates various aliens. Those aliens start as nano-assemblies which amplify themselves by hijacking human genetics.

David is managed by five emotional sets: the desire to create species, as I already said, a resentment against humanity in general, the will to power, the will to create something superior, and the arrogance to believe that power is all the law that counts.

Of course these philosophical emotions have dominated the Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries. So no wonder that Ridley Scott considers them: those moods made history. They dominated in philosophy (Nietzsche being the most blatant example), in politics (Marxism-Lenino-Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism, US Neoliberalism), and now in socio-economy, the so-called “NEOLIBERALISM” (21C mass inequality, mass-disinformation).

So is this a danger? Yes, and it’s a danger now from the present plutocrats: they are the ones behaving like man-made robots. We have seen David before: he heads a well known “social” network.

Patrice Ayme’

Counterbalance Representative Democracy By Direct Democracy

May 27, 2017

Representative Democracy” is a contradiction in adjecto. I propose to complement it by making direct democracy the overlord of the present system.

The seven leaders of the seven richest countries met in Sicily for the G7 Summit of 2017. Meanwhile several rescue ships rescued more than a thousand refugees from the sea. Each. That’s thousands of people a day. It looks as if much of Africa is a sinking ship, and the rats are leaving. But don’t worry: there is no colonialism in Africa (what there is now there is neocolonialism-plutocratic exploitation, without administrative interference, and that’s much more efficient as an extraction mechanism).

So here you seven individuals deciding for the world. What the world will do, what the world should do, what the world is capable of, what the world should learn, etc.

They were a bit discombobulated by Trump, who was described as “unpredictable”. And firmly committed to be uncommitted on “climate”. Whatever “climate” is.

G7 2017 Meeting In Taormina, Sicily, in a Greek Theater, 25 centuries old. The gigantic Etna volcano is erupting in the background, emitting copious amount of CO2. CO2 indigestion is how the super enormous mass extinction of 251 million years ago, between Permian and Trias worked: massive CO2 emissions by the Siberian Traps made two-third of the planet too hot for life. Yes two-third. And yes, we are heading straight for it, within a couple of generations. However, Trump didn’t get the message from Vulcan!

The disagreement with Trump on climate is a gigantic tale, on its own. Indeed, it’s not clear what “climate” means. Climate, done correctly, should mean, first, to curb carbon burning, thus, a carbon tax. However, what European leaders have meant by “climate” mitigation is not this.

As demonstrated by the extreme pollution problems in some European countries, including France! And the fact Europe let its car makers get away with extreme pollution for years (it’s the despised USA which found the diesel cheating trick of European car makers). Fighting the “climate”, for European leaders, has consisted in giving hand-outs, hush money to the poorest countries (maybe to pursue quietly the neocolonialism as described above?) Many of these poorest countries have the world’s highest indoor pollution, by a very long shot, due to carbon burning, indoors, precisely…

The low-level of understanding in these “climate” related problems is directly a consequence of the lack of debate. That, in turn, is a consequence of the lack of direct democracy. Why should people think hard about what is really going on, when it will make no difference, anyway?  

The seven brains we have to lead us all to extinction. World Think & Action Leaders. From Left to Right: Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council, Trudeau PM Canada, Angela Merkel Deutsch Kanzler, Donald Trump US Entertainer, PM Italy (one of many), 39 year old French President Emmanuel Macron, Shinto Abe PM Japan, Theresa May, British PM, and, far right, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission (and advocate of sophisticated Tax havens) pose for a family photo during the G7 Summit in Taormina, Sicily, Italy, May 26, 2017. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer

Macron, a smart cookie, but not a scientist, lectured Trump on climate, and the US made it known the great leader was happy to have learned so much.

Teresa May, the British so-far-unelected Prime Minister,  insisted that one should start watching what is going on in the Internet, and cut off Islamist propaganda. Indeed, it’s Western plutocrats who control access to TV and Internet (because they control fibers and satellites), as I have said many times. Facebook and company, but also the satellite operators should be viewed as objective accomplices of murderous propaganda: after all they are the ones transmitting it, and it would not be transmitted otherwise. At least that’s what I say, and I am happy to see our great leaders oozing in that general directions, as the mental slugs they are. 

As Reuters put it: “After lengthy deliberation, the (short, 6 pages) final G7 document included a separate threat, that was inserted into the 2016 G7 statement, to take additional action against Russia, if warranted, for its intervention in Ukraine.

But the more general question is this: why so much power in so few hands? Why are seven brains in charge of the imagination and learning of the planet?

It should be now obvious that elected politicians and the deep state have too much power. Their power should be counterbalanced by direct democracy! It can be done. Republican Constitutions should be tweaked.

This is what happened in Switzerland. The Swiss Constitution had a provision for direct vote on legislative proposition (also known as referenda, or plebiscites). However, that was not applied much until the last 30 years, when the practice blossomed. Any proposition compatible with the broader constitution having gathered 100,000 signatures,  can be presented to the direct vote of We The People.

Scaling that up for France would mean nearly 800,000 signatures, and for the USA, 4 million.

California has such a system.

I claim that the main reason for the wealth of Switzerland and California is this system of direct vote of We The People for propositions: it keep politicians more honest, financially and intellectually, than elsewhere.  

Direct vote makes We The People much more cognizant of the real problems. This is demonstrated by the fact that public opinion in general swings around when a proposition is proposed. Often people are 60% for it, and end up voting 60% against it, and reciprocally.

Some will object that a direct referendum brought us Brexit, a catastrophe. Well, what brought us Brexit was a devious media owned by plutocrats which drove people persistently into deliberate disinformation and misinformation, for decades. That should be completely unlawful, and I have advocated a ministry of truth (no, I am not kidding, and yes, I have read Orwell’s “1984”. Precisely!)

What happens when the popular vote passes a law contradicting existing laws, or simple rationality? Well, then a debate ensues. An example is the popular vote against free circulation which the Swiss people passed. (After an immigration of the order of 13% in ten years, mostly from the rest of Europe, explaining the vote!)

The European Union was furious and took sanctions within hours (by intelligently, I am ironical, cancelling the Erasmus program for Switzerland; Erasmus enables youth to go study in other European countries). The Swiss government was livid. Ever since the EU has been furious and the Swiss government livid. But nothing else much has happened (that reminds us of Brexit, present and future…)

In other words, when contradictions between We The People and  the elected government appear, the debate deepens. And that’s good.

Adding plebiscite to the existing elected representatives system is easy to do, there is no contradiction: elected Swiss legislators usually integrate the propositions in the laws of the country. 

G7 2017. In Attendance, A Slovenian Fashion Model Named Melania, Lower Extremities. These Stilettos Are made To Walk On You. Extravagant Wealth, Hence Power, Should Be Unlawful In Any Republic. And It was, In Republican Rome, For Centuries. Not Meant To Express A distaste For Melania, far From It. But To Express A Distaste for The Mood That It Is PC To Have Some Think It All, Do It All, Have it All, While 8 Billions Despondently Watch, Powerless In All Ways, And Those Stilettos Are Walking All Over Us. And the biosphere too.

By the way, the idea of real democracy is not new: “plebiscite” comes from the Latin “plebs”. The “plebs” was We The People of Rome. The “plebs” formed a national assembly, and practiced direct democracy within (demultiplying with a system of “tribes”). That part of the Roman political system was a direct democracy (Athens had a functional equivalent, more direct, but also more unstable).

The least we could do, as the biosphere is facing the greatest crisis in 65 million years now, and, soon enough, in 251 million years, is to mobilize all our mental energies. This is not accomplished by letting seven brains think it all. Or even seven thousand brains (the number of influential people, worldwide is less than that).

Giant Tower Woman With Shaggy Hairdo Overlords us insects With $51,000 jacket by Dolce & Gabbana. In a respectful show of humility for average losers, this is a few thousand dollars below the US median family income. Make no mistake, I love colors.

Mobilizing all our mental energy is not done by putting seven brains in command, however eager they are to dominate us all. Or, rather, precisely because they are so eager to dominate us all.

In other, yet related news, Donald Trump had to follow the other leaders, as they walked around the streets of Taormina, in a golf cart. The joke was that he got somewhat left behind, because the cart was not American made. OK, Trump is older than the rest (70, whereas Abe and Merkel are 62; May is 60). Age is a good thing for leadership. Healthy age.

Nevertheless, clearly, the great leader has abused golf carts. Trump claims he does not do drugs, including alcohol, inspired, as he was by his older brother’s alcohol addiction, which brought his early demise. However, golf cart addiction is also a life threatening addiction. In several ways. First it makes people impotent, as Trump himself demonstrated at Taormina. Second, by making them physically impotent, it also makes them mentally less potent than they would be if they learn to practice physical independence from technological hand-outs.

He came here to learn. He came here to get smart. His views are evolving which exactly as they should be,” Trump’s economic adviser Gary Cohn hopefully said on Friday. Well, Trump should learn from Angela Merkel (who is also overweight) that he is definitively not in good shape, at least physically speaking. And we are even worse, as most of us sincerely believe that this parody we are subjected to should be called democracy, lest we are found out-of-order.

Patrice Ayme’