Posts Tagged ‘Abraham’

Commonly Accepted DELUSIONS: FOLLIES That BIND

February 20, 2015

It is common to condemn the madness of the crowds, and to wonder about all sorts of follies, conflicts, moods and ideas favorable to mayhem, which crowds engage in.

Why so little wisdom in so many moods and thoughts systems? Could it be not an accident, a coincidence, an happenstance, but a system, a deep logic at work, hidden from a first glance?

Because, quite often, there is a higher sort of wisdom, a secret plot, a perverse mechanism, attached to the apparent lack thereof. It often has to stay hidden, because, if revealed, it would look rather perverse. 

For millions of years, the greatest enemy of man has been other men, the men of the distant tribe. Proper ecology required to find them repulsive, to reject them, to kill them. Such is the basic reason for the evil men commit: ecology. But there is even worse: there can be too many children, and the most atrocious crimes, are the most binding:

Atrocious Delusion Binds Judaism, Christianism, & Islamism

Atrocious Delusion Binds Judaism, and Its Ilk: Christianism, & Islamism

Crime binding innocence to extinguish it. Should we call Abrahamism, the “Would-be Child Killer religion“? That would distinguish it from Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.


How does one recognize friend from foe? By a signal. It could be the color of a skin, the color of a badge, a flag, and other visual or auditory signal (an accent, say). However, the ultimate structure is a brain structure. They fall in two classes: ideas, and moods.

So, to recognize the friend, the one who has the signal, and the foe, the one who does not, it’s best to entertain a particularly strong signal.

One not seen in nature. That will be best, because no doubt very special.

But are not the most clever, and wisest ideas and moods, faithful reproductions of nature?


So the best way to identify a friend, and thus foe, are most stupid and most unwise ideas, and moods.

This is why Judaism, Christianism and Islamism celebrate the would-be child killer, Abraham his name, as their founder. The idea of killing one’s child is assuredly unnatural, unwise, most cruel, and grotesquely inhuman. It’s the ultimate dumb atrocity: destroying the species, starting with one’s flesh and blood.

It’s abominable. Thus it’s best to identify friend (the one who expresses intense admiration for the same despicable madness) and foe (the one who has kept common decency, readily distinguishable as alien, therefore).

What do we see here?

The madness, the insanity which binds.

Thus many delusions are the cement that does not just unite the group, but even defines it.

No doubt delusions will also help to unite those scatterbrains (schizophrenic) minds some of us suffer from.

Delusion can be the crucible of the many, and the cement of the one.

Madness in crowds and madness of the one, thus spring from a common logic of human ethology.

Are all groups defined by delusions? No, the Directly Democratic Republic can define itself without a common madness (this is why Switzerland holds together, in spite of its four official languages and several religions). By insisting on the basic ideas and moods of our common humanity.

This is why the Republic can be enough of a religion, the one that works, without delusion.

Human nature is made to make one out of many (mental fascism). That’s how lions and hyenas were fought (just as baboons still do it: by making the troop into one giant superorganism). Making one of many was also what was necessary to stay competitive on the (human meat) market: if one did not want to become dinner for the other guys, one had to stay united.

Thus humans sharing a group have a strong instinct to think all the same. In two ways: to define the group, even if it means through a delusion, and to make the group fight as one.

(The more crowded the human population, the more delusions will have to define groups; this is why nationalism grows with the crowding… the latter being relative: considering its technology then, in 1900, Germany was relatively more crowded than now; hence the rise of German fascism, which went in parallel with the explosion of the German population, 1850-1914…)

Yet, human beings are truth machines. That’s an instinct going the other way. Because herd animals think all the same, they cannot think anew. Except to stampede, somewhere., or search for the simplest things: new grass, water.

Those who search for truth will avoid the group (all the more as it is all too often defined by a delusion).

Searching for truth is more human, and a way to reach for greater survivability.

Hence the one, the philosopher, will, by necessity, fight the group. Between the delusion which define the groups and the truths, which define the philosopher, it’s a fight to death. The spirit of philosophers always won over the madness of the crowds.

Yes, delusionists, and illusionists are fit for attack, especially when they engage in mass delusion. It’s a matter of collective safety, for the world community. The reason for this is that delusions feed aggression. Delusion is entertained to create the group, the troop, with aggressive purpose in mind.

In particular, theists. Especially of the would-be child sacrifice type (Abraham his name).

As I explained, the main reason for collective delusion, just as for individual delusion is to create a system of mind (moods plus thoughts) that binds.

Thus, the fundamental reason for the collective to bind through delusion is aggression. Either real, or potential. Exclusion and alienation are aggressions. Mass delusions enable them.

Mass delusions such as various sects of Abraham (the word ‘sect’ comes from cutting: chopping heads is what sects do best).

Mass delusions are obsessive about aggression. Be it supposedly for resisting aggression (real or imagined), or committing it, in any case, making it as the big thing in life, worth deluding one’s mind, just to identify as a group, and enjoy the pleasures thereof.

Delusion such as: ’I am the Elected People, not that’s me; I prove it, by exterminating you, etc.’

When a religious group goes around, exhibiting its religious appurtenance, it exhibits its delusion. Thus, implicitly, its aggression.

And size matters. Because the size of a threat matters: when groups of predators fight each other, say lions versus hyenas, generally the side with the greatest total mass wins.

This is why French public schools forbid religious symbols of more than such and such a size, or why schools in Britain impose uniforms (and that’s even better).


Believers know they are deluded, deep down inside. That’s why they are so aggressive, when confronted to their incoherence.

In Copenhagen last week, an Islamist assassin shot at a Freedom of Expression meeting, killing and wounding, and then repeated the performance at a Synagogue, killing and wounding. In a freezing rain, 500 deluded fanatics came to the killer’s burial. Let’s hope the police and secret services took a lot of pictures.

Experience shows fanaticism makes a universe most pleasant to those who dominate it.

Experience is what gives us a ground for all our propositions. This is important, because it means, whether they know it, or not, all human beings are scientists.

This is why the notion of “believer” has been introduced. It, all by itself, is a delusion. A deliberate, collective delusion, to create the group (and then proceed with some crusade, jihad, ghetto).

“Believers” are precisely those who believe in NOT applying science, for the most important metaprinciples.

However, what they have to apply every day to function as animals, and full human beings, is based on what is called “the scientific method”, but which is simply common sense, systematized industrially.

Thus “believers” fundamentally, do not believe!

Patrice Ayme’


Pope Francis A Jihadist?

January 15, 2015

So the Pope claims that, if one insults his mother (“mia mama”), the natural human thing to do, is to smash the perpetrator’s face. It’s just human nature, he added. And he repeated, that it was normal, just to make sure everybody knew the Pope was just a street thug.

Times they are changing. The Swiss Central Bank said it would not keep the Swiss Franc cheap relative to the Euro. Within minutes, the Swiss Franc jumped up by 40%, relative to the Euro, and the Swiss Stock Exchange by 13%. It’s supposed to stabilize around one Euro.
The rumor has it that the policy I advised for half a dozen years, to drop the Euro well below one Dollar, has now been decided.

It turns out that the weapons used by the Al Qaeda/Isis terrorists in France last week were bought in Belgium. The police enquired, and a new shoot out resulted, killing several Jihadists. Meanwhile, the German Parliament observed a minute of silence about the French victims, followed by a discourse of Merkel.

The French government gave French nationality to the (Muslim) Malian citizen who saved people at the Jewish supermarket. Prompt justice. A good thing. A petition signed by already 300,000 had asked to do so.

A bad thing is that Boko Haram (“Book Forbidden”), a Jihadist organization destroyed 16 villages, Amnesty International says, from studying satellite imagery. Boko Haram uses children as human bombs. A girl less than 10 year old is an example.
In Venezuela, the economy is collapsing with the price of oil (the ROI of oil is very bad in Venezuela, so the national oil company is losing massive money; for Venezuela to make money, the price should be twice what it is now). There are long lines to enter all supermarkets. Youngsters standing in line for the rich can earn more than a university professor.

But let’s go back to the Pope, and his slightly crazed eyes.
Asked about the hate massacre that killed 12 people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, including two Muslims, the Pope said: “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits.”

Charlie Hebdo has been targeted because it had printed what fanatics believe are depictions of the prophet Muhammad. It’s not so much what Charlie Hebdo did, than what criminals pretend they believe Charlie Hebdo did. This sort of subtlety is assuredly lost on the Pope. By espousing, without questioning it, the reasoning of Jihadists, and fanatical Muslims, the Pope becomes their friend, mitigating any threat against his person (a Muslim had shot Pope John-Paul II, nearly killing him).

The Pope gestured to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal travel, and was standing by his side. Francis I added: “If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

Except, of course, one can kill somebody by hitting them with a fist. Is the Pope saying that the normal answer to insult is bodily injury, or killing people? To his credit, the Pope admitted that it was what the Christian Church used to do, and that it was no good.

All this in the context of insulting religion. Now, insulting religion is not insulting one’s mother.

For people to come to the rescue of their god by killing other people means, basically, that they believe their own god is as defenseless as a small child.

But, if god is that impotent, how come he is described as potent? Potent, or impotent, that is the question. If god is so impotent that fanatics need to rescue him, then the sacred texts such as the Bible, Qur’an, Hadith, Torah, have been lying about the most important point, namely that god is god.
Indeed, power is god’s most important feature. If god is not all the power there is, then all the power there is is god, or there is no god.

In other words, by going around killing people in the name of god, that is because god is too impotent to the job himself, or then refuses to do it, Jihadists and Crusaders prove that either they don’t believe in god, or god is in disagreement with them.

The real explanation is, of course ethological: since there are people, and they exist, they are looking for excuses to kill foreigners, in other words, non-believers, those who don’t believe what they believe. Interest of this mass homicidal inclination? It decreases human population to sustainable levels.

So what of the Pope?

The Pope is actually at war. He excommunicated the Mafia, first Pope to dare to do so. A risky move. Same with a general reform of the Church.
The Catholic Church is the oldest continuous institution in the world. The historian Gibbon viewed it, in the Eighteenth Century, as the cause of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I agree that Christianism was the most prominent proximal cause (however, I see Christianism itself a consequence of political fascism, itself consequence of plutocracy; so the Decline took more than 5 centuries).
Catholicism crashed civilization twice. First by killing Romanitas, and bringing forth the mood that gave us Islam. The second attempt started with the Crusades, and petered out with the Enlightenment.

Matthew 10:34. Christ said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

The Rophet ran away with that one.
(And no, it’s not exactly an accident, but a pattern. See: “Was Christ Immoral?”)

Catholicism, Islam and their ilk started with a guy tying up his son, to cut his throat because his boss had told him to. I am not making this up by Christianophobia. Here is the Bible in Genesis 22; 1-2 and 9-10.

1 God did prove Abraham, and said unto him: ‘Abraham’; and he said: ‘Here am I.’
ב וַיֹּאמֶר קַח-נָא אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר-אָהַבְתָּ, אֶת-יִצְחָק, וְלֶךְ-לְךָ, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה; וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם, לְעֹלָה, עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים, אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ.
2 And He said: ‘Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.’ …
“9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
י וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת-יָדוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת, לִשְׁחֹט, אֶת-בְּנוֹ.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.”

All Catholics, Christs, Francis, Muslims, Saints, Imams, are supposed to revere that story, one of the most disgusting in the history of writing.

Instead, I propose to revere human goodness, and crush infamy. Instead of partaking in infamy, and abject obedience, as Abraham did… And made a religion from it.
Patrice Ayme’

Unbelievable Comfort: NO BRAIN, NO PAIN

June 1, 2014

Madness Of The Crowds: Comfortable, Cuddly, Yet Also Experimentally Useful.

In brief: Why do people “believe”? Superstitious religions are tools of oppression. They impose the unbelievable, making the masses stupid and gullible. If so why do they still seduce people? The charitable explanation, is that they offer hope: be nice to Moloch, and Moloch shall give you everything.

But is that all? No. The main reason (for higher-ups) to believe the unbelievable, is that it introduces a simplification of the mental system. It forces a hierarchy of causality that denies whatever contradicts the religion. That means, of course, that it denies most of the world. So the world goes poof. Is not that great?

Baal Temple, Syria: Yesterday’s God, Today’s Lord Of The Flies

Baal Temple, Syria: Yesterday’s God, Today’s Lord Of The Flies

[Ba‘al dhubaab: in Arabic, “Lord of the Flies”, that is, Lord of Dung, a rich idea coming from the Jews, two millennia earlier! Someday soon the Abrahamic religion will also be seen as a pile of dung to join Beelzebub.]

Superstitious systems of thought occupy a double-faced position in the jungle of ideas. On one end of the spectrum, they are a simplification, a laziness, a creature’s comfort, a herd phenomenon.

On the other end, being a simplification, precisely, they allow to experiment more cleanly with new systems of thought. For example, Christianism imposed murderous altruism: an interesting experiment.



A young mother, who does not even look Sudanese, was raised an Orthodox Christian (her Muslim father was in absentia). Later she married a Christian Sudanese. Some Muslim then accused her of adultery (if a Muslim woman has sex with a non-Muslim, she is committing adultery, says that religion).

While she was waiting for another child, Sudanese authorities decided that she had renounced Islam.

Renouncing Islam is a capital crime in Sharia, a set of “laws” (of the jungle) invented by Muslims a few generations after the Qur’an, the book of eternal peace, 5 feet under.

Sharia is the law in Sudan. So the 27 year old mother was condemned by a so called “judge”, to be whipped 100 times, before being hanged to death. No doubt the “judge” had some prurient interest. (Sudan’s president there is under an international arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. I propose to arrest the “judge” too.)

Chris Snuggs a rather fierce participant to this site wrote: “Islam in many countries is a hideous barbarity, the ultimate manifestation of unhinged minds. Perverted “religions” of this kind are the most staggering example of mass-hysteria the world has ever seen, and peculiar to Homo Sapiens. No “ordinary” animals suffer from this kind of mass simultaneous mental illness. Three billion people need psychiatric help. Astonishing. Why are we prone to mass-hysteria and irrationality on this scale? The French people regularly voting socialist is another example, and of course reminds us of the definition of a lunatic: someone who does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.”

Renounce Islam, Die: Does Sharia Hate Islam?

Renounce Islam, Die: Does Sharia Hate Islam?

[This is the wedding picture of the woman who got condemned to death for marrying the Christian on the left. Is Islamophobia truly Homophilia?]

By “belief, and believers” one commonly means “deciding to believe in the unbelievable, because it’s so convenient”. “Belief” is commonly believed to be an acquired taste at best, an imposed violence at worst.

Nietzsche pointed out about Christianism, Voltaire, about Islam, or Marx, in general, that religion is the opium of the people, or something to make the people into a herd.

More generally, theocracy has been used as a weapon of terror, for the oppression of all sorts of peoples.  The Aztecs captured their enemies alive, and then sacrificed them, opening them up, and tearing out their beating hearts. Before cutting them up, and throwing the proteins down the steep pyramids.

This robust religion kept peoples subjected. However, when Cortez showed up with 2,000 super warriors, those the Aztecs terrorized were enthusiastic to levee huge armies to help the Spaniards with the Hummingbird God.

Christianism and Islam do not basically differ from the Aztec gig. The Aztecs brought death through cannibalism. But it was a rather quick death. The Aztecs were horrified by the tortures of the Spaniards. Those knew no bounds. If Spanish tortures were so advanced that was, no doubt, to keep up with the Muslims, and beat them on their own torturous ground.

In Islam, slavery is kosher. All men are viewed as slaves of dog (typo, sorry!) god. A standard punishment for Muslim slaves who had tried to escape was impalement. As the patient could take several days to jerk about, all transpierced, that procedure had an educative effect on the otherwise ignorant masses.

Violence is intrinsic to the Abrahamic religion. It all started with the Bible, a compendium of holocausts, praising an holocaust driven god. Getting advice and example from the Bible allowed Europeans, clutching their bibles, to massacre the Americas, and much of Eurasia and Oceania.

Now religious fanaticism is less of a problem than a distraction, as the secular, republican spirit mostly rules, except in a few places: Israel, some places in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, where old fashion Islam is gaining ground.

Does that mean we are getting rid of the COMFORTABLY UNBELIEVABLE?

No. Why?



Because having unbelievable beliefs brings mental economy, and ties that bind. What could go wrong?

Let me explain a bit more: intelligence is highly profitable, but it’s also costly. To become intelligent, one has to create lots of neurons and synapses. And the environment does it: studies on rats have proven this. Long ago.

All these neurons and synapses require a lot of energy to build. That’s exhausting: one has to go hunt and gather a lot. Also, once built, all this awareness brings pain: many a religion and philosophy have moaned about extinction (“nirvana”) of consciousness as the solution to the problem of pain (how that differs from Hitler’s solution beats me).

From there springs the opium of the people effect: opium creates an absence of mind by putting many neurons to sleep, but it’s the same result, even more efficiently, by making sure none of these neurons is ever born.

Finally, last, but not least, as the religion simplifies the system of thought, it creates a simple system of thought, and a simple brain. A simple type of a specific brain. Those are easy to match to each other. All those who believe some guy is the son of dog, chose to be crucified for man, and taught us love, are, clearly, made for each other. They have an insanity to share.

There is nothing more reassuring than the herd. And a crazy herd, charging all along, is the ultimate symbol of force, thus, safety.



My spouse had a friend for a few years, and even travelled overseas with her. She was, superficially well educated. As all would-be shock philosopher, I tend to stay apart. Yet, in the end, we met. It was rather brief.

She was from Morocco. I know Morocco, first time I was there I was two years old. I mentioned in passing that this beautiful country was graced with Roman monuments. She mumbled something to the effect that Europeans could never resist invading Muslim countries. I pointed out that the Romans were in Morocco nine centuries before the Muslims ever invaded the place. Her face went white. She told us Morocco had always been Muslim.  We were basically insulting her country.

I said: not so. I told the truth. Her world, her simple world full of simplifying lies that bind, was shattered.  I was not just demolishing her world view, but her social fabric, made of victimized conservative Muslims invaded by greedy Romans.

She did not contact us ever again.

I am never the one to interrupt relationships, because I view even the worst relationships as interesting experiments in my philosophical laboratory… That has led me to harrowing situations, because insuring the integrity of their mental systems brings up the greatest ferocity in human beings.

Such is the human condition.


That ferocity in things mental may look baffling. But it is of the essence. Homo is the intellectual animal. Human ideas compete, and they compete to death. Inferior ideas get killed. Superior ideas thrive, munching the bones of past guesses.

Lovers of the free market gloat that it can produce superior product. Bu there is no product higher than an idea. And the ideas do not just constitute a market. They constitute a jungle, where pain, greed, anger, rage, ecstasy and lust are just ways to achieve a healthy jungle.



Although I focused mainly on the Abrahamic religion above, the situation is general. Stupidity binds.

An example is indeed presently provided by socialism, the old fashioned way, complete with a plethora of useless civil servants and assisted ones (as Chris fulminates).

An other excellent mania of the crowds is found in physics, where completely insane theories have progressed in recent years ( for example the Multiverse madness).

By this, I mean more than physics became more insane than any of the preceding. Yet, precisely because it presents the neurological advantages of insanity, the insanity in physics has been progressing. A delicate moment.

That’s progress, how progress works.

When physicists have gone completely insane, hopefully someone will point out reason, and be believed (it took more than a millennium, between Ptolemy and Buridan, though!)

Folly expands, occupies all space, reason follows, and sweeps behind. That’s how intelligence progresses: even the mania of crowds can be put to work.

Whether it’s painful or not, is irrelevant. The fundamental constructive naturally occurring software, the fundamental principle, of man is not pain, but intelligence.

Patrice Aymé


August 4, 2013

Abstract: Before the Middle East sank into dictatorship and theocracy, it had been on a long term mental decline. This was well known in, but poorly resisted by, the Roman Republic. The decay of the Hellenistic regimes (Alexander and successors), and of Rome itself, was marked by a progressive adoption of fascist, theocratic and generally plutocratic features, much of them from the Orient.

The usual explanation (by the famous historian Fernand Braudel) is that the Middle East evolved in an “hydraulic dictatorship” mindset. True. But that does not explain why it did not have it earlier, nor why this oligarchic mindset infected Greece and Rome, so pervasively later. The explanation? Mindsets with lives of their own, can propagate like plagues. It is wiser and more pertinent to analyze (and denounce!) the religious intellectual fascism that amplified the “hydraulic dictatorship” mood, while it established an empire of its own.

Blocked By Zarathoustra

Blocked By Zarathoustra

If Zarathustra’s advanced philosophy had reigned over Egypt, and the Fertile Crescent, instead of primitive, nasty Abrahamism, with its blatant desire to kill and torture people, to please the sky-boss, on a cross or during jihad, the Middle East would have turned out differently (Achaemenid Persia took control of Egypt for only 125 years or so). This is the remark underlying many of my observations. And, I believe, an underlying, unconscious irritation with Abraham  underlays the “Arab Spring”. Many from Syria, Egypt to Morocco are taking a turn against the fascism hiding behind Abraham’s pathetic figure.

Oh, lest I be accused of racism, let me point out that, during the Sixth Century, Roman intellectuals had taken refuge among Persia’s Zoroasthrians, who defended them vigorously. Rome (also known as Constantinople nowadays) was using Abrahamism’s fanaticism to justify its fascist rule, and thus made the bed of Islam.

Increasingly inappropriate theocratic plutocracy is why Egypt went down.

This moody process took nearly two millennia of encroaching decerebration, until fanatic Christo-Islamism clamped down onto Egypt within its saurian jaws. (This is the first of two essays on Egypt. As usual the bottom line I foster is hard-edged realism: calling a croc a croc, and gods who masquerade as crocs, crocs and crooks.)



In Roman times, Egypt was still perhaps the world’s richest region. So it had been ever since the Sahara got desiccated, and its dwellers retreated where there was still plenty of water (and sun, and alluvions).

The riches from the Nile Valley, and adjoining oases, attracted a lot of greedy invaders, and Egypt was frequently massively attacked and sometimes occupied for centuries (for example, the establishment of the New Kingdom after two centuries of invasion by the Semitic Hyksos).

Egypt had long been at the forefront of civilization. This speaks for the power of a centralized state: Egypt was the world’s largest, most centralized state for at least a millennium, when it intellectually dominated with its eight million inhabitants (a very large population for the times).

A lot of Greek mathematics originated in Egypt. Great pyramids were perfectly aligned on the north. Egypt, collaborating with Sumerian cities, elaborated, over millennia, the idea of an alphabet (then perfected by the Phoenicians).

One gets vertigo, contemplating Egypt’s history. A millennium after the pyramids went up, an innovative Pharaoh, Athekanen, invented, and imposed monotheism (that no doubt later morphed in Judaism/Abrahamism).

When Persian dictatorship tried to take the world over, the Athenian republic came to the help of the last honest to goodness Pharaohs. Memorable wars were fought.

By the time the Greco-Romans became dominant, Egypt had been at the forward edge of civilization for at least 3,000 years. Prior to Imperator Caesar arguing furiously with Pharaoh Cleopatra about who it was exactly that was culprit of the shameful burning of Alexandria’s library during military action (they settled their fight in bed; their child, Caesarion, was cowardly assassinated by Caesar’ great nephew, his heir, the despicable “Augustus”, founder of the Roman Principate, a parody of Republic, reminding us strangely of what we have today; RINO, Republic In Name Only).



It’s hard to describe 6,000 years of history in a few sentences. One impression I gather, having meditated over Egyptian history for decades, is that it was first about the military and police. When Egypt had its military and police just right, it was doing fine (although a spark was increasingly missing, that the Crete’s Minoans, and then the Greeks ended up providing).

How could the military and police go wrong? Either by being too strong, oppressive, dictatorial, or by being too weak. Too much calm could also lead to civil war, such as when 94 year old Pharaoh Pepy II died after a very long reign (that brought down the Old Kingdom).

The Egyptian military learned that to safeguard the homeland, it had to extend broadly around it. However, that was not enough: staying on top of military technology, and a preventive diplomacy was a must: at the end of the 13th (!) dynasty, the invading Hyksos showed up with a new weapon, the composite bow. The Hyksos attacked and occupied Egypt for 2 centuries in conjunction with their southern allies from Kush.

The New Kingdom threw the occupiers out when the rump Egyptian military counterattacked with that same weapon.

Similarly the Sea Peoples invasion of the entire Orient was caused by superior military technology, developed in the Aegean Sea (an area that the Minoan thalassocracy, Egypt’s ally, owned before it was wiped out by a volcano).

After Ramses IX or so, Egypt progressively fell to ravenous Libyans, whereas its eastern flank became the realm of various Israelites and Mesopotamians on a rampage. Egypt had lost the vital spark that made it superior. It was reduced to a rich valley.

Why? I would advance the following explanation: Egypt had become a philosophical backwaters. The rigid theocratic state of ancient Egypt, with its increasingly silly looking religion, was left behind by more advanced philosophies and polities. Others had grabbed ideas that had originated in Egypt, and ran further with them.

The earliest known set of laws, 5,000 year old, is Egyptian. Yet, the law was made the backbone of government authority in Babylon next door, 38 centuries ago (Code of Hammurabi). The government erected all around Babylonia formidable steles on which the laws were engraved in stone.

Or the civilization of Zarathustra in Iran, with its promotion of good, evil, and truth as the most important concepts (beats the man with the head of a hawk any day). Watch Israelites mixing Egyptian monotheism with Punic human sacrifices of the son.

The West adopted the formidable intensity of these new ideas with a flourish, but Egypt did not. It was a matter of degree: as I just said, all these system of ideas originated in Egypt. But Egypt failed to aggressively re-invent and amplify them. Egypt failed to metamorphosis. Instead it put Crete and then Greece, in charge of doing so.

What the West would do, though was to make those meta-ideas, law, science, absoluteness of empathy, which are central to the genus Homo, central to the emotional system it endowed its civilization with.

Pharaonic Egypt did not evolve mentally enough. And that made its military and its military-industrial complex, lag. Second best, in military matters, means extinction.

Weirdly the “Sea Peoples” invasion made the situation worse. Egypt was the only state that resisted it. But barely. Yet, it enslaved an enemy army. This both weakened and rigidified Egypt. The Sea Peoples rejuvenated many places they invaded.

For instance, the Etruscans, went on to grab the iron-rich province of Italy, ultimately enriching obscure indigenes called the Romans, Egypt stayed stuck in its elaborate, but by then sterile emotional and emotional systems. Soon it was unable to resist even Libyans. Then the Persians followed.

Once again, the military aspect comes to the fore. When I was a teenager, I was very anti-militaristic. I am still that way, but, ultimately, it’s always the military that enforces righteousness.

(Intriguingly the USA, France, the UK, and even Israel, are presently implementing changes to make their military more futuristic, while diverting more military missions to the… civilian sector, as spectacularly demonstrated by the NSA-Snowden scandal; methinks that they should collaborate more, and more openly.)



My thesis is that dynastic Egypt became a victim of intellectual fascism, generated on its own. An objection would be that, if the Egyptian civilization was roughly the same in 3,000 BCE and 1,000 BCE, how could it have become more fascist?

Fascism, as its name indicates, is about fasces, making many minds point all in the same direction. That’s excellent in combat, but miserable in imagination. However imagination leads to higher intelligence, hence greater combat capability. Thus fascism, being of one mind gives greater combat capability everything else being equal, but is also a lower common denominator, hence the necessity to lift the intellectual base from its opposite, when not in combat.

(Once again a military lesson in disguise, and this is why the French army is reducing its personnel by about 10%, and some conventional forces, while spending more getting ready for future wars; the Israelis talk of going through the same process and the Americans will probably follow… but for the pork barrel F35 program…)

If one looks at the Frankish empire 12 centuries ago, one sees the world’s most advanced political system (although primitive by the best Greco-Roman standards).

The church had been nationalized, forced to educate secularly, slavery was de facto outlawed, tolerance was the law (Christians were free to become Jews, and they did, massively; Muslims left stranded by the recessing invasions were free to be whatever). The Franks then proclaimed the Roman empire had been renovated. It took another ten centuries to throw out Abraham’s crazy, pedophobic god, and renovate the Roman Republic itself… minus the man is a wolf for man mentality.

What’s the picture? Constant change. The cathedrals gave a pretext to create massive iron architecture rendered possible by hydraulic hammers. But it was just a pretext. The reality was that singular change had become the new secularism.

In my thesis Egypt mentally froze, while the world it had given birth to, kept on changing. New dimensions opened, but Egyptian civilization ignored them . The dimensions the Egyptians had created progressively became a lower dimensional subset of the Orient. Egyptian civilization became increasingly intellectually fascist in a relative sense.

How come the Egyptians could not adapt? Well, they did, to some extent. Hence the New Kingdom, and monotheism (for a while). Also Egypt subcontracted the sea, and much culture to Crete and the Greeks. The Minoan thalassocracy centered on Crete blossomed as the most advanced civilization mostly with the help of its natural partner, Egypt.

Under the Greeks, and then the Romans, Egypt underwent a renaissance. For six centuries, Alexandria became the world’s most intellectually advanced place (although Athens had rebounded).

However, Abrahamist superstitious terror, starting in the Fourth Century, crashed civilization. Nowhere was the madness of men in black, the monks, as ferocious as in Egypt. Probably because nowhere else was the breath of theocracy as strong (from the latent mood of theocratic hydraulic dictatorship). The philosophers tried to resist. But secular Egypt was caught in a vice.

The fascist Roman state did not want an intellectually independent Egypt, so, when it was not in open conflict with the monks, it was allied to them. Intellectuals fled to Persia. The bishop of Alexandria created Arianism, which contradicted the “Catholic Orthodox” doctrine of the Trinity set-up by the self declared “13th apostle”, emperor Constantine. The simmering conflict with Constantinople went on until the Arab Muslims surged from the wastes of Arabia. Coptic Egypt, including Palestine, made peace with them. Until, three years later, it realized that the Muslims were even worse than Constantinople.

Egypt then fought Islam to death. And lost that second, desperate war. Ever since theocracy has reigned over Egypt, with few eclipses (one in the times of Saladin, when Frankish penetration was massive; one in the modern era, when European secularism was in control).

So here we are. Peaceniks believe that what was grabbed by military force will be surrendered peacefully. Well, the present Egyptian military begs to disagree. Correctly so, if one looks at history. Islam was not voted in. The Calif Omar just attacked and invaded.



Meanwhile, al Zawahiri, the real brains of Al Qaeda, one of the principals, if not the principal, of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, has resurfaced so mightily that, terrorized, the great Western powers closed their embassies in many countries. (Hey, Mr. Terrorist In Chief, what happened to your elimination of Bin Laden? Did not get enough data from it?)

What does this all mean? How come Egypt went back to theocracy after the Brits left? Well, precisely because, starting in 1945 on the cruiser Quincy with FDR, the USA played the Muslim Fundamentalist card, to get all the oil it wanted from a family, the Saudis, that took refuge behind theocracy to justify its rule.

That made the Saudis, and thus Washington, addicted to their enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood. Quite a bit like a junkie with heroin. Don’t like it, think one could stop, but never do.

In any case, as long as Egypt keeps on revering the mythical individual, Abraham, who was willing to bind and kill his son to please his boss, it will not be free of intellectual fascism of the worst kind. A religious frenzy that celebrates the mind of those who want to destroy children, the same exact frenzy that led to Carthage’s destruction. And one that ancient Egypt never got involved with.

So, when Egypt was the greatest, it did not view children as religious fodder. But, for more than 13 centuries, the greatest religious celebration has been a psychopath’s willingness to kill his son. How difficult is it to see that such a superstition is not viable, and that, in such a valley of tears, and fears, nothing very good can grow again?


Patrice Ayme