Posts Tagged ‘Emotions’

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SOON ALL TOO HUMAN

March 10, 2016

What Characterizes Human Intelligence?

HOW DO HUMAN & ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES DIFFER?

We had a president Obama running amok with his “signature strikes” with half-blind drones with pixelated vision killing civilians, far from battle fields, in far-away lands. These crimes full of technological arrogance gave a bad name to Artificial Intelligence. Are we far from robots running amok? It’s clear that the Obamas of this world will have to be reined in.

The (Korean) world champion of the famous Chinese game “Go” was beaten by a Google computer: “I am very surprised because I have never thought I would lose. I didn’t know that AlphaGo would play such a perfect Go.” The champ looked a bit frazzled, but not as angry as Gary Kasparov, the world chess champion, when he was beaten by an IBM computer program, DeepBlue. Kasparov stormed out of the room.

Kasparov’s anger was not an intelligent reaction, because it was obvious, all along, that chess is not such an intelligent game that a simple machine cannot do better. If you want a really  intelligent game, try to become really ethical (vote for Sanders, not the corrupt one). Ethics? A supremely human game where my friend Obama failed miserably. He and his toys, armies of drones and plutocrats.

The Artificial Neural Networks We Build Do Not Grow Naturally. And Their Neuronal Nodes Are Simplistic Relative To Real Neurons. Real Neurons Are Environmentally Sensitive Self Building Micro Computers.

The Artificial Neural Networks We Build Do Not Grow Naturally. And Their Neuronal Nodes Are Simplistic Relative To Real Neurons. Real Neurons Are Environmentally Sensitive Self Building Micro Computers.

“Go” is 3,000 years old. A Go board is 19 by 19, a Chess board, is 8 by 8. People who love to sound scientific say: “Go has more combinations that there are atoms in the universe” (reality check: we don’t know how big the universe is, so we cannot know how many atoms are therein!)

DeepBlue used brute force to beat Kasparov. With “Go”, the breakthrough came from using neural networks. Neural networks can be made to learn. The computer used a program called “Alphago” (devised by my whipping boy, Google, which I congratulate, for once!)  “Alphago” had to use something closer to “INTUITION”, some even say, imagination.

***

Does Patrice “Make Things Up”? I Hope So!

A few days ago, I pointed out to some would-be Stoics that the trite rejoinder of his admirers that Marcus Aurelius was the first emperor “with a natural born son” was a grotesque lie. I rolled out counterexamples, complete with the names of various sons…

All these sons were not named emperors-to-be, by their doting fathers. Only Marcus Aurelius did that This is of considerable import, because Marcus Aurelius is viewed as a pinnacle of wisdom by a large following (Marcus is the Muhammad of Stoicism).

Whereas I claim that, when Aurelius named his five year old son second in command in the empire (“Caesar”), contrarily to all Roman tradition, Marcus Aurelius showed he was anything but wise. Insane maniac, would-be king, violating the Republic is more like it. In particular, the two emperors just prior to Marcus Aurelius had more than three sons and grandsons, yet nominated none of them as successors when they were children. Although Marcus did. (Even the kings of Saudi Arabia don’t really do this!)

That, in turn, shows that Marcus’ followers have a serious problem evaluating reality. And sure they do.

A philosopher with a prestigious chair reacted angrily, accused me in public of “MAKING THINGS UP”. Even as a self-described “stoic” he could not take the reality of all these sons anymore.

Of course, I did not make anything up, in this particular case. I shoot vicious minds to kill, or, at least, maim. It’s best done with the truth.

But accusation got me to think. Do I make things up? That’s one beautiful thing about nature and its dangerous animals: even rattlesnakes can help me to think. Especially rattlesnakes.

The obvious glared back to me: even to find the truth, one has to make things up. First make things up (that’s imagination, which is most important, as Einstein pointed out). That’s making a theory. Or, in the deep cases, making a new neural networks (this is the part where intuition, that is emotion enters, as it is exactly what builds the network). Then checks that this new theory fits the truth (that’s the part where the network learn).

In the case of Aurelius, after revering him for a few decades, I came across facts and quotes which changed my emotional disposition relative to him. Instead of staying a psychological prisoner of his “Meditations”, I became an hostile witness, and explored facts which would demonstrate Marcus Aurelius’ viciousness. I found plenty (including the “natural son” story).

***

HUMAN HIGHEST INTELLIGENCE IS ABOUT MAKING THINGS UP:

My theory of the mind is simple: impelled by genetics and epigenetics (both in the most general sense imaginable) plus the environment, neural circuitry gets elaborated in an attempt to make mini models of pieces of nature within the brain. So mental circuits are (SORTS OF) answers to the environment.

“Sort of” is crucial: it means the neural circuitry elaborated in reaction will often NOT be (capable of being) a faithful (enough) model of the environment. That’s literally impossible, but that discrepancy is precious.

That discrepancy is the difference between what the neural circuitry impelled by the (perceived) environment and said (real) environment, is human creativity.

(I say “human”, for ease of conceptualization, but actually I should say “animal intelligence”.)

What is going on with Artificial Neural Network machines? They learn, as we do through what is called the Hebbian mechanism.

How to explain neural network learning in the simplest terms? Basically, in very rough first approximation, imagine the neural network is a canal system (made of canal which can be eroded). Suppose one wants an output: more water through a desired exit gate. Suppose one augment the flow there (say by lowering that exit gate). The canal network will adjust itself to maximize output.

However, we, very intelligent animals use a META-HEBBIAN mechanism of neuronal network genesis. In Artificial Neural Networks, the network is given, and then it learns: the neural circuit is provided presently by humans to become part of a machine.

The machine does not make it itself. But we do.

Human brains literally make things up, because we objectively, physically, make our neural networks up. We do not just tweak our networks. The networks which characterize our highest intelligence are themselves answers to the environment we are in.

To make a neural network we use emotions: it is known that emotional activity drives dendrite growth, thanks to glial activity.

These neural networks’ construction is tightly controlled from the outside, not just by the environment in the most general sense, but, essentially, by what we call culture. Culture is the set of schematics of the networks which work.

***

So, when we want to explore if machines could become as clever as human beings, we have to ask: could machines be devised to make things up? Could machines be devised which would make their own artificial neural networks?

Many of our fundamental neural networks (such as those controlling breathing) from “genetics” (in the most general sense). Those arise semi-automatically (with minimal back and forth with the environment). However, we make our own most sophisticated neural networks from the emotions which guide their architecture. Emotions are organized topologically, with NON-METRIC topology.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, and certainly worryingly, yes, we could make machines which have their own emotions which build their own neural networks. There is no reason to think we could not build such machines. They probably would have to use artificial neurons, etc. (And why not real neurons?)

The superiority of the human mind comes from making things up, or making ourselves up. Such machines would be similar.

Technologies, the special discourses, are our genus’ genius. Technologies made our genus possible, for at least three million years. Artificial, creative intelligence is more of the same, generating what we become. Not only we are becoming gods, but gods we cannot even imagine.

Imagination is when we make things up. It entails the construction of neural networks which will constitute what future knowledge is made of. This is why imagination is more important than knowledge. Because, without imagination, all the knowledge we would have would reflect neither creativity, nor even will.

Oh, by the way, should we panic? No. But it means that clueless individuals such as the ethically challenged Obama should not have the powers he had under stupid and Nazi-like technology such as drones used to kill civilians. It’s not a matter of replacing Obama by Sanders (although that would be a good idea).

We need a revolution (as Sanders say). We are going to get, in any case, a technological revolution. Intelligence is going to become a science.

But that intelligence revolution has to be about direct democracy fed by the best information possible, that is, total transparency, the exact opposite of the world the malefactor manufacturer Apple is proposing to us. And Obama in all this? He has only a few months to atone for the crimes he committed with the wanton usage of high tech he made. But first, he would have to realize how egregious they were.

This goes well beyond drones. Having the correct ethics will be fundamental for the safe and effective deployment of all too human artificial intelligence.

Patrice Ayme’

Too Much Aversion To Aversion A Perversion.

April 28, 2015

Too Much Aversion To Aversion Kills Prevention.

Anger Sometimes Not Just Best, But The Only Way:

Many people are conflicted about conflicts. They are told conflicts are intrinsically bad, and they should wrought the conflicts out of themselves. Avert aversion, and conspiracy theories, and the world will be yours. This sweetly insipid medicine is central to the plutocracy of the USA, and is repeated at all levels, from family therapists, to (nearly) all the media, to the presidency. “Black” and variously colored youth seem to increasingly disagree with this treatment. It is getting ever harder to swallow, as more and more youth are starting to understand Obama is more Wall Street than ex-disgruntled youth (whom, actually, he never was. Silver spoon is more like it.)

Anger is actually best, when it is the most appropriate attitude. Obama saved the private banks and the careers of the banksters who managed them, but what did he do for Black youth? If not now, then when, and what? Is breaking the necks and piercing with bullets those who disagree the solution, looking forward?

Look To The Right Of The Burning Police Car: All Obama Cares About Is Trade Deals For His Plutocratic Pets

Look To The Right Of The Burning Police Car: All Obama Cares About Is Trade Deals For His Plutocratic Pets

Obama said it was all the fault of “thugs” who live in Baltimore, not banksters who steal on Wall Street. Don’t bite the hand that feeds…

The problem of the Jews confronting Hitler, is that they did not get angry enough. If they had, maybe the American Jews would have protested the pro-Hitlerian policy of plutocrats and the infeodated government of the USA.

Now we have Nepalis left to themselves, dying without rescue, while helicopters are used to ferry in style 1,000 gold plated “climbers” on Everest (who otherwise would have to well, climb down!). Hey, Nepalis are made to die in the service of the gold-plated ones, whereas the gold plated ones ought not to be expected to walk! In case like that, contempt is minimum service. Anger is more appropriate. And, appropriately enough, Nepalis are getting angry.

Europe, in the past was crumbling under plutocrats and religious fanatics (including Great Britain). So was, say, China. Flowers and smiles did not work. Violence is how one got rid of these predators.

But let’s give a the party of apathy a chance to open its mouth for a minute, or so:

***

Anthony Biglan, “senior scientist” at the Oregon Research Institute, a “leading figure in the development of prevention science” has helped over the past thirty years “to identify effective family, school, and community interventions to prevent the most common and costly problems of childhood and adolescence”. He uses “prevention science to build more nurturing families, schools, and communities throughout the world.”

Says Mr. Biglan: “The world has struggled with how to deal with others’ aversive behavior for millennia. The fundamental problem is to get people to not respond to others’ aversive behavior with their own aversive behavior because, more likely than not, doing so will simply perpetuate coercion and conflict.”

The way the author has it, aversion causes aversion, which causes aversion… So what caused aversion in the first place? Aversion? It sounds like the chicken and egg problem: the egg gave the chicken, who made the egg… It’s the chicken and egg problem, without the chicken.

The author blames responding to aversion by aversion. He advocates turning the other cheek, quoting Jesus, Gandhi.

But he does not roll out the violent quotes of Jesus, of which there are several:

Matthew 10:34. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Or Luke 19: 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

Or Jesus’ last message to his disciples: He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” [Luke 22:36.]

And don’t tell me I deform Jesus’ message! Jesus threw the merchants out of the Temple. Proof that not only he was physically violent, but that he was some sort of Kung-Fu master, or the like. Yes the best known version of Kung-Fu was invented by the Shaolin Monastery for defense against from bandits around 610 CE (and at the crucial battle to establish the Tang Dynasty in 621 CE).

Jesus knew that turning the other cheek was not the only valuable strategy to bring the reign of goodness. All too often, aversion to aversion brings forth only toleration of abomination.

The Nazis eliminated hundreds of thousands of Germans viewed as mentally or physically defective. (The Nazis had justified this by claiming that Germany’s population had augmented by 50% in 70 years, whereas the mental retards and degenerated specimens’ population had augmented by 450% in those same 70 years; so soon, the Nazis ominously concluded, one German out of four would be degenerate; thus the need to act now; simultaneously the children of Franco-German unions who were not pure white, were sterilized; there were several thousands.)

The Nazis’ plan was to see how little aversion to extermination the population could be trained to develop. After this, they exterminated Poles, and then Jews (many Germans had Jewish, or somewhat Jewish, friends or relatives, so the case of the Jews was most delicate).

But let’s go back to the aversion of aversion.

The author of the quote above, Mr. Biglan, the self-defined specialist of aversion, also quotes Gandhi.

To see his full essay, consult Scientia Salon: Nurture Effect On Caring Relationships.)

However Gandhi, by posing in Hindu clothes, forever, and with Hindu symbols, such as the Wheel, helped to antagonize the Muslims. This boiled over in 1939. As the Indian Congress voted to declare war against the Nazis, Gandhi, who called Hitler “my friend”, and had corresponded with the mass-murdering, war criminal dictator, did all he could, in vain, for India not to go to war against the racist in chief.

In the end, Gandhi had to turn against the Hindus, and for the Muslims. Gandhi recognized Muslims should get their part of the national treasury. He was rewarded for this perceived “aversion” towards Hindus by being assassinated by Hindu nationalists.

Mr. Biglan also evokes Martin Luther King. However, the entourage of MLK was armed to the teeth, with loaded guns: they were not born yesterday.

So the real fundamental problem of “aversion” is how does “aversion” arises in the first place. In general it does because human beings find themselves in adverse circumstances, or because evil tendencies by a few were not opposed early enough.

So it is the lack of aversion to various adversities, as they are gathering momentum, which leads to large scale aversion appearing in the first place.

An example is the Greenhouse Gas Crisis (“AGW”). If not opposed in a timely manner (and that will require some “aversion”), it will lead to large scale misery and war. Also North Korea, soon to have 40 nuclear weapons according to Chinese specialists, ought to looked at with appropriate aversion.

Prevention of the causes of aversion is how to prevent aversion. And the best way to do this is to have terminal aversion to abomination.

Time to value anger, people!

Appropriate anger, that is.

Appropriate emotions are appropriate. There is no emotion which is not appropriate to all and any situation. Full aversion to aversion is perversion.

Patrice Ayme’

1914, IMPRINTING: Emotions Rule III

January 9, 2014

Abstract: There is a dominant tradition, especially in the USA, to not see 1914 for what it was: a war of aggression, a war crime, a crime against humanity of the greatest proportions.

Both the aggression, and its denial, are cases of emotions dominating reason. It’s historically, psychologically, and philosophically instructive, even fascinating.

What people have been exposed to first, they believe more deeply. And of course emotions are the reasons that come first. It’s sheer sedimentary neurobiology. If you think anew, what happened in one’s mind first tends to still leave the deepest emotional layers intact. Often the deepest is what is thought to profit one’s nation, tribe, or religion first.

***

Bad Boys Be Bad Boys: Leaders of  the Kaiserreich Imprinting Themselves In Versailles, 1871.

Bad Boys Be Bad Boys: Leaders of the Kaiserreich Imprinting Themselves In Versailles, 1871.

[When Minds Goose Step, The Goose Soon Cooks; Polyglot Bismarck In White, Center.]

People get emotionally attached to cuddly bears, foods, habits, etc. Just because they were exposed to them, first. The same happens with ideas, or even songs. As the guitarist, singer, composer Keith Richards observed, people make out first in a car, while a song plays on the radio, and, thereafter, forever, they will feel it’s the best song in the world.

Konrad Lorentz systematically studied this phenomenon of imprinting, and got the medicine-biology Nobel for it. Ducklings follow whatever they are exposed to first. It’s not difficult to guess what happens:

New neural circuitry is created by the first exposition to whatever shows up, and thereafter, having being created stays roughly the same. Similarly for the cognitive and emotional circuitry of entire nations. Once in place, it’s nearly impossible to rewrite.

Common wisdom on World War One in the USA does not see the facts as they happened, because they contradict the deepest emotions learned first on the subject: the war was an accident (Sarajevo), the nations of Europe were all the same vicious bunch (hence the USA was right to get rich from the war), the USA tried to bring back peace (but the terrible Versailles Treaty ruined it).

What’s imprinting? Obviously, imprinting is the building of neural networks. Where there was none before, there are some after. Once there are some, new ones are difficult to build; just as it is difficult to build new structures out, or above, old ones. The ethology (Lorentz and company) enlightens the neurobiology, and the establishment of all emotions, hence values. The hierarchy of values has to do with chronological order.

Considering the way imprinting has to work neurologically, an immediate very important philosophical consequence arises: if one wants to be philosophically correct, one will have to be extremely careful about the nature of first exposition… to anything, whatsoever. As what comes first tends to be neurologically irreversible. For the youth, or for oneself, or for any excited tribal member, anywhere out there.

Socrates pontificated that the unexamined life was not worth living, I will counter-pontificate with the following, more stringent declaration:

The unexamined experience is not worth having.

Nationalism is an example of duckling behavior. The tendency of young males to go to war after getting orders to do so, maybe viewed as a tendency strongly manifested by young ducklings. Goose stepping into war is a consequence of imprinting of impressionable youth.

My acid views of Dylan and Oprah Winfrey, two entertainers, were poorly considered by some, perhaps trying to spare pets they are attached to, from blame. More modest people tend to live grand lives through the great. Thus the popularity of celebrities. And the necessity to adore & lionize them (to make them great, hence admirable). Same for nations. Nations are the ultimate celebrities.

Thus many lionize the “Germany” of 1914.

One of the honorable commenters on this site, Old Geezer Pilot, expressed succinctly the Common American Wisdom on “Germany” by claiming that: “Doesn’t anyone suspect the BRITISH for having pushed Germany into starting WWI? After all, Germany was on track to out-produce Britain in Dreadnought class ships very soon…”

No, there was absolutely no way that the Kaiser could catch up with Britain in battleships. Why? Because Britain had basically no army. All British military spending was on the Royal Navy. Germany had the world’s mightiest army, made to crush and encircle the formidable French army, the world’s second mightiest. That cost so much money, very little was left for the Kriegsmarine.

I explained, in the “Plot Against France” and in “Emotions Prime Reason II” what happened in 1914. The concept “the British” and “Germany” are NOT comparable. “Germany” did not exist really as a nation. “Germany” was just as an hysteria of poorly designed robots. “Germany” was a dictatorial plutocracy of the spastic and delirious type. Britain was a plutocracy, sure, but under a thick representative democracy’s layer. An evil dictatorship in Germany, a sort-of democracy in Britain: one cannot compare.

I excruciatingly explained in minute details many times that the American leadership goaded the Kaiser into war. The USA had interest for an attack of “Germany” on the rest of Europe. Britain, or France, had a very good reason to avoid war: time was working in their favor, as they were tapping their global empires into giant co-prosperity spheres. Moreover those democracies could not organize a conspiracy, as they societies were too open. And the fact is, they did not conspire.

But the handful of military men at the head of “Germany” could conspire, there were no democratic institutions to check them, and they did conspire, nobody could stop them. We have the documents, we have the facts. We have the attack. “Germany” attacked, “Germany” did the war crimes, within days of said attack.

The explicit analysis by Molkte and company, is that “Germany” was losing the economic, hence military, race. They were correct. That was precisely due to what they clang to, the plutocracy they led. Quite a bit the same situation as in the USSR, North Korea, and maybe soon, China.

The attachment to the Kaiserreich is one of the most striking of those which afflict the West (a variant of this is the attachment of Jews to Keynes, who was pro-Nazi…).

Loving the Reich is the other side of the coin that equates France and Britain, two democracies, to a bloody dictatorship. Thus identifying plutocracy and democracy as the same.

The Kaiserreich, also known as the Second Reich, was the ridiculous dictatorship established by Bismarck as the “German empire” in 1871 at Versailles, in a manly ceremony (see above). In this attachment, the blame for the First World War is spread equally, by platitudes about bloodthirsty Europeans.

That legend is particularly important for the USA’s tragic history, as it excuses the embargo shirking, fortune making attitude of the USA, selling to the Kaiser what he needed to pursue the war. That complicity of the USA and the Kaiser endured until the day came to charge to the rescue of victory, lest Britain and France would keep on ruling the world all by themselves.

As I have explained many times, WWI was not an accident, but a determined conspiracy. And wittingly or not, the leadership of the USA was on the side of the bad guys.

France, Belgium, Britain, and even Russia were completely innocent of the war. Britain, to start with, did not even have an army (or more exactly, the entire British army was no more than one single French army corps).

The French government was so unprepared for war, that all ministers of the government were either completely out of France, as the Prime Minister and the President were, or far away in vacation, when the Kaiserreich mobilized. An under-secretary of agriculture had to launch the French general mobilization.

Reading French or British newspapers, one week before the “German” attack, show no inkling at war.

Nobody could suspect that General von Molkte, the “Prussian chief of Staff”, head of the Kaiserreich army conspiring with four others, had declared in a war council of 1912:

General von Moltke: “I consider a war inevitable—the sooner, the better. But we should do a better job of gaining popular support for a war against Russia, in line with the Kaiser’s remarks.” His Majesty confirmed this and asked the secretary of state to use the press to work toward this end.”

One does not need to artificially create “popular support” if one’s country is attacked, so Molkte intended to attack.

That mass homicidal general was a distant relative, so I knew the inside stories from my astronomer uncle, who was his (grand)son in law; clearly Molkte caused the war, the point man of a dirty mood that had grown over two generations. Molkte, in his fascist dumbness, expected a quick and shattering victory over the French armies. He did not expect that the French would fight like crazy to preserve (their) freedom and democracy.

The French nearly destroyed the main German armies at the First Battle of the Marne, a counter-offensive on the fifth week of the “German” attack (a shattering victory would have been achieved, if the British army corps had been speedier). Afterwards, Molkte fell apart psychologically: he had started the war that was going to destroy the satanic order of things that he wanted to see rule the world with.

Wilhem II being all over the map psychologically, Molkte and his co-conspirators sent him incommunicado to a vacation home in July, with a crafty lie. They were afraid that, at the last moment, the Kaiser, grandson of Queen Victoria, would stop the planned invasion. Thus they kept him in the dark about what their true intent was (although, once he finally learned from his generals that they were going to attack the world, the Kaiser approved).

What of the assassination in Sarajevo in all this? It’s the standard fare of the (naïve) textbooks. It is much loved, as it provides a mechanism for the thesis of the “accidental” war. The heir of the Austro-Hungarian throne was assassinated, in a conspiracy from a number of students, guided by elements of the Serb “Black Hand”, who were part of the secret Serb services (acting on their own, without government authorization).

The Archduke was a grim character, not very popular, all the more as he was grimly determined to maintain peace. To boot, he was best friend with the German Kaiser Wilhem. The Archduke’s assassination was a godsend for the war Party of Molkte and company: they got a casus belli, of sorts, or, at least, Austro-Hungary did, and, at the same time, the tragedy removed the greatest enemy of war among the Central Powers’ plutocratic oligarchs.

So determined were the assassins leading the “German” military that, when they encountered unexpected resistance in Belgium from the Belgians and the French, they went insane. They had not expected this. They threw millions of soldiers through Belgium, expecting to quickly break-through, and encircle the French armies (Schliefen plan). That did not happen. French resistance became nearly suicidal: one day 27,000 French soldiers died in combat. Orders were given from above, by the Prussian General Staff, to mass massacre civilians. People such as general Ludendorff came to personally supervise combat. We have reports of two year old girls being assassinated.

Unsurprisingly, Ludendorff, a war criminal in 1914 already, was the most determined founder of the Nazi Party. After Bavarian soldiers fired a volley of gunfire into the top Nazis, in 1923, some were killed, and all fled, including Hitler… All, except general Ludendorff, who kept marching towards the troops.

Much of the preceding are inconvenient truths, because they keep bringing us back to the question of why did the USA help the Kaiserreich? Is the same old same old much older than has been suspected?

Some will say: ”So what?” But the same impulse that leads the American secret services to spy on democracy, the same Dark Side, was already fully in evidence a century ago.

Not only did the USA leadership goad the Kaiser into war, by promising an alliance, but it delivered said alliance: the USA provided the Kaiser’s henchmen with raw materials for explosives until 1917, making a national fortune in the process.

Socrates thought he lived according to: ”Unexamined politics is not worth having.”

However, he was tried because he had neglected a higher calling. The more pertinent: ”Unexamined emotions are not worth having.” The emotional system of an individual, just as that of a nation, or even that of current of thought, if they are not examined, are not worth having.

The emotions the ruling class conferred to the People in Germany, down below, were all wrong, deeply evil. Nietzsche understood this perfectly. The turn took only a few years. Nietzsche saw his friend and fellow musician Richard Wagner take a turn for the worst. Courageously Nietzsche denounced Wagner to the world in “Nietzsche Contra Wagner”. The most acute madness of the German People lasted from 1871 to 1945.

However, that same madness is still going in those who fail to distinguish between the fascist, mass murdering aggressors in 1914, and their victims. So the difference still has to be taught. No doubt the Germans have been much instructed on the subject. However, in the USA the moods, methods, ingrained emotions, and culture that made possible the betrayal of the Republic in 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941 are still beyond any suspicion.

German judges have decided to put on trial a SS who was only 19 when he obeyed orders at Oradour Sur Glane, contributing to the assassination, mostly by torture, of 700 innocent civilians, many women and children. 247 women and 205 children were burned alive in a church.

It’s not just about justice. It’s about education: soldiers cannot obey criminal orders, and contribute to a war crime. That brings a present-day quandary. Private Manning exposed to the world the killing of innocent civilians by the U.S. Army. Who was the criminal here? Manning, who did not obey orders, and revealed the crime (not really an accident, the recording show), or those who condemned him for not partaking in a criminal cover-up? Once again, under Obama, the Choom Gang president, all values are being inverted.

Exactly the game the Kaiserreich played, until the apocalyptic end of 1945.

Conclusion: To think anew, one has to break down the deepest emotional layers. What can do this? High emotions and passions. Pain. Even pain can be fine, if it is what’s needed to take out erroneous neurology (example: Germany suffered so much in WWII, that it made drastic reforms of its soul; Japan did not suffer as much, by a full order of magnitude, and thus did not improve its soul as much!)

Pain can help to define goodness when, or where, nothing else will. Thus pain helps create a valuable world. If emotion primes reason, only greater emotion will move in the sense of greater reason.

Imprinting passes by emotion first, as emotion is the universal, primary learning system. But it does not stop here. It then goes down all the way to genetics, though epigenetics (=”Lamarckism”). Apparently, pain can change one’s DNA: http://www.mcgill.ca/…/chronic-pain-alters-dna-marking… (Thanks to Alexi Helligar for the link).

Learning is everywhere, and all the way, as long as we open our hearts to it.

Patrice Aymé

***

Warning: My correct point of view is that the cause of WWI, was Nazism, Version 1.1. That opinion was obviously not shared by Bertrand Russel, the well known philosopher and logician. Why? Russell was one of the top Lords in Britain, and, obviously was very emotionally attached to the plutocratic principle that had made the grandson of Queen Victoria the dictator of Germany. If the Kaiser had won in the summer of 1914, the glory of Russell would have risen even higher. Of small things even great minds are made!

Emotions Prime Reason II

January 6, 2014

EugenR: “ Patrice, I agree 100%, emotions are the prime reasons driving the human acts and also human history. And since human emotions are unpredictable and uncontrollable …

I do agree that human emotions have been, mostly unpredictable, to this day. However, the whole interest of studying Systems of Moods is that emotions follow systems and thus are much more predictable than has been asserted in the past.

For example, after I saw Obama associate with the miscreants from the Clinton era (Summers, Clinton plutocratic ex-chief of staff, Eskerine, or whatever his name is, etc.), hyper plutocrats (Buffet), banksters  (Dimon), and go work at an hedge fund, November 5, 2008, I had an ominous feeling.

That feeling got ever more ominous, considering particular family events that happened after that. At that point I got depressed, and was depressed for two years. Now I am grim. I will bear witness to that period, hopefully. Perhaps, like Plutarch, it’s my version of events that will enlighten the future about the present reign.

The amusing thing about Greco-Roman history is that few writings and authors were preserved. Perhaps 95% of Aristotle was lost.

Tiberius is described as a monster by the few surviving Roman authors. Yet, careful analysis of the facts reveal otherwise: although he may have done horrible things (as alleged), we have very few hard facts justifying this.

On the facts strictly, it’s hard to attribute to Tiberius a single fully unwarranted execution (although his son Drusus was poisoned by conspirators, and it took seven years for this to be revealed. Maybe, much earlier, his other very popular son Germanicus, also the topmost general, was also poisoned, by the same assassins, with a very determined agenda of self-aggrandizement).

Compare with the assassin in chief. The one who selects civilians to kill by drone, worldwide, on tiny grainy pixelated screens. Naïve, ignorant, unwise, poorly advised creature, soon to be excoriated as a debris of history (see above).

Why was Tiberius so hated by later thinkers, that they dragged everything about him in the mud, even accusing him of private torture sessions in his Capri villa?

Probably because, after Augustus died, nobody knew what the status of the state was. Tiberius was the top general and heir apparent. But heir to what? Nobody knew.

The Senate waited, Tiberius waited, Rome waited. It lasted months. At this point, Tiberius could have cleared his throat, and declared that one would try to make the Res Publica more democratic.

Instead, when finally the Senate begged him to take action, Tiberius progressively, insensibly, stepped in Augustus’ shoes. Thus definitively not solving the problem of the non-defined nature of the Roman state, and of the problem of succession of the Princeps (technically just the “first” in the Senate).

Tiberius made a stealthy coup, in ever slower motion… To avoid any adverse emotion, that could have precipitated a confrontation between him and the partisans of a return to a full and real Republic. Tiberius was a cancer of the soul, slowly smothering democracy.

Emotions everywhere.

We do not know what the future is made of. But the present tells us what the future could be made of. By deciding not to re-establish the Republic’s government, Tiberius veered to dictatorship. The first republic to be re-established would be Venice, about 750 years later, under the protection of Roman emperor Carlus Magnus (“Charlemagne”). So, yes, it could be done.

That was all the more meritorious, as Venice had a huge fleet, a low hanging fruit.

Venice was soon followed by several other republics, and countless de facto independent cities or counties, often under local democratic government (Genova, Firenze, and other Italian republics, but also Dauphine’, Escartons, Toulouse, the Swiss Cantons, etc.).

When Obama decided to kill apparent civilians by his personal fiat, and drone, all around the world, he set the conditions for the sort of future depicted in the movies “Terminator”. Hopefully, history will remember him as an incomparably worst monster than Tiberius.

Obama crossed a moral Rubicon that Tiberius was careful never to be even seen to approach.

I say: “Hopefully”, because, otherwise, the abominable state of affairs we have presently when an autocrat, Obama his name, go kill civilians around the world, and everybody respects him, will endure, and that’s the gate to the worst emotional hell.

Pontius Pilatus did not know if Jesus was innocent or not. He just allowed a judicial process to proceed. We all do know that these people in that wedding were all innocent. And we know who ordered their assassination.

Tiberius did not try to bring back the Republic, Obama does his best to lose it. This is the emotion of the thing. Comparisons are not always flattering.

***

Eugen R: the break-out of WWI. Nobody predicted it and there was no rational reason to start it.

Quite the opposite. I have described in excruciating details, that the attack of World War One had been planned officially (yet, highly secretly), from December 10, 1912. See my “Plot Against France 1912-2013”. In it you find:

Here is the report from Admiral Georg Alexander von Müller (the chief of naval operations):

“His Majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II said: …if we attack France, England will come to France’s aid, for England cannot tolerate a disturbance in the European balance of power. His Majesty welcomed this message as providing the desired clarification for all those who have been lulled into a false sense of security by the recently friendly English press.

His Majesty painted the following picture:

‘Austria must deal firmly with the Slavs living outside its borders (the Serbs) if it does not want to lose control over the Slavs under the Austrian monarchy. If Russia were to support the Serbs, which she is apparently already doing…war would be inevitable for us. But there is hope that Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania—and perhaps even Turkey—will take our side. …If these powers ally themselves with Austria, it will free us up to throw our full weight behind a war against France. According to His Majesty, the fleet will naturally have to prepare for war against England…’

As I explained, the German plutocracy was stuck between Russia (democratizing and modernizing fast, thanks to French help and capital), France (a democracy, republic, and world empire, whose economy was improving by leaps and bounds) and the German Socialist Party (SPD), which dominated the German Reichstag, and wanted out with the plutocracy.

In June 1, 1914, the envoy of the president of the USA, himself, Colonel House, proposed a satanic alliance…against France (!)

Thus the attack of 1914 was not irrational. The plutocrats knew it would neutralize the socialists. And it did. It worked, as anticipated. Oh, OK, it’s the American based plutocrats who mostly profited. Well, big crocs eat little crocs.

Now, a century later, the French republic, has lost her empire, but has won… Europe. Germany is a sister republic governed by the … SPD.

The attack of 1914 was perfectly rational for the monsters who ordered it, just as killing innocent civilians by robots is perfectly suitable to enact the climate of worldwide terror those who order it wants.

However, the emotions that guided those monsters were, and are, all wrong. That’s why, history did, and will, hopefully, vomit them, again and again.

Patrice Aymé

Emotions Are Not Free

December 27, 2013

People say: ”Oh, we are free to think and feel as we see fit!” But this is not true in several deep, even brutal, unavoidable, ways, many of them hidden. Elites have always known that hearts are the core of what needs to be controlled. On this their power rests, since before there were pyramids, and they stood.

Only 7,000 Gestapo agents watched 80 million Germans. Hitler could not have held Germany with them alone. So how did Hitler do it? With very strong emotions.

Pascal famously said: “Le Coeur a ses raisons que la Raison n’a point.” Those reasons of the heart deserve to be known, not just because they are reasons, too, and not just because they dictate to rationality itself, but also because they can be manipulated in ways that ought to be, and are already partly, made unlawful.

Instead of denying that there is spiritual and emotional control out there, as the meek insist, I propose to embrace control… be it only to dissect it with gusto.

Throughout the reigns of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, “progressives” and “liberals” have been played like violins. It has not been much better in Europe.

In both cases, the People was persuaded to engage in public service by forking public money to private banks so that the hyper rich could stay hyper rich (it was done with semantic smokes and mirrors. To this day, most of We The People understands nothing to what happened).

How was We The People made so blind? To start with, even indignation was in short supply.

Pulling at their heart strings of We The People just so, enabled ever increasing plutocratization. That’s done by hammering continually the fallacious association between bad economy, and deficits. And thus impregnating the emotion, in the public, that public spending is bad (and thus implicitly that the rich ought to go tax-free).

How hearts can be bent out of their natural shape.

A well-known saying is that one person’s freedom ends where another nose’s starts. But that’s not so easy: after all, just threatening to hit someone else is an assault. Also what about public nose, public space, etc.? Are plutocrats not infringing on everybody’s public space when they made society so that only their money is endowed with power?

In any case, all and any law controls actions. However, controlling emotions and thoughts is just controlling the origin of actions.

The best minds of the (French) Republic, after a monster fight to death with racial mass murdering fascism of the demented type, in the period 1914-1945, were confronted to a paradox: Germany was, in 1900, the most literate country in the world. However enough of the German population got maneuvered into beastly madness to make their nation the tool of monstrosity.

What went wrong? The heart. German hearts had been taught wrong. Nietzsche screamed this from every roof top, by 1888, and before. A teenager such as Einstein fully agreed, and fled Germany (Einstein the rebel, later did enough discoveries for 4 or 5 Nobel Prizes in physics, most of them for work in… Quantum Physics).

German hearts had been bent out of shape by the plutocrats who owned Germany (enabled by a somewhat self-destructive alliance-symbiosis with various Anglo-American plutocrats).

Starting even before the World War was finished, many medium level intellectuals in France deduced that an example had to be made, to strike the hearts even more than the certainly grandiose, but somewhat suicidal, Republic’s attack against Hitler in September 1939.

So the French Republic executed more than 40,000 Nazi collaborators, with a judicial ferocity that even republican Rome never knew. But not just this. Anti-hatred laws were passed.

Some will object: ”Wait, they execute all these collaborators, and then pass anti-hatred laws? Is not that self contradictory?” No. You see, the collaborators were guilty. Those they killed were innocent. Anti-hatred laws are against the killing mood. Killing killers is also a way to kill the same killing mood, especially for future reference.

So let’s recapitulate: the criminal insanity that gripped Germany, a pure product of plutocratic control, was a case of total manipulation of the deepest heart strings. The same happened in places such as the USSR, where dozens of millions were killed because of the emotional deformation of common moujiks.

One could see something similar in the USA when G.W. Bush launched his legion in a war of aggression in Iraq. It was a time when most citizens of the USA goose stepped behind Bush, just because an employee of the CIA, Bin Laden, had killed .1% of the number of individuals that the actions of Carter had killed in Afghanistan. Of course that made no emotional sense: the USA had started it all, and pursued it all, and taught Bin Laden the nastiest ways. Instead of marching to Baghdad, justice ought to have marched to Washington.

Yet, just as German hearts had been taught it was all the fault of the Jews, and Russians, that of the Capitalists (whatever that is), the Americans got emotionally persuaded that it was all the fault of Bin Laden’s enemy, Saddam Hussein (whatever “it” was).

So hearts are already getting manipulated. It’s high time that justice gets to see how lawful those manipulations are. It’s all a question of manipulating hearts for the best. As it is already done, all too often, for the worst.

For example the fossil fuels plutocrats have made the public in many Anglo countries (USA, Canada, Australia), hysterical CO2 deniers. How? The fossil fuel maniacs spent enough money to incite heart manipulators to teach the right notion. Hence a new religion, climate denial. A religion made to serve the likes of the Koch brothers, mighty plutocrats them all.

As long as the emotion that there is nothing wrong with fossil fuels, and CO2 reigns, it will be hard to do anything serious against the CO2 mania. How to feel right about it? Well, maybe by realizing that spewing CO2 is a form of hatred. And there the law can help.

Hatred is an emotion, but it is not a free emotion anymore. It is an emotion under watch, that can be struck by the law.  

Hate speech has become criminal, even in the USA. The fact such laws were duplicated from France does not make them any less American. Total freedom of expressed emotions is already a thing of the past, and rightly so.

I have no problem doing the same at the United Nations, and even using anti-hate laws as a ram against customs that I don’t like (such as circumcision, or regimes that are too satanic). So it’s a matter of legislating my superior taste… ;-)!

Some, such as Tom Alex, a contributor to the comments on this site, have objected that: “How can feelings be criminal? This is absolute totalitarianism, where the state -and actually a FOREIGN state- believes it can and should have a say and furthermore control and penalize feelings through some judge. Plutocrats would absolutely love that. Been fired and have hard feelings towards your ex-boss? You’re a hateful ****, and should go to jail. Posting against plutocrats? You’re spreading hate.”

The origin of Tom Alex’s worries were my approval of the indictment of Bob Dylan for “public insult and incitation to hatred, for comparing (existing, innocent) Croats to (dead) Nazis, and justifying a hatred (existing) Serbs are supposed to “sense” when exposed to their “blood”, the usual recital of those who want to justify hateful antagonistic atavism.

A few points: one can have all the feelings and thoughts one wants. The problem is PUBLICLY EXPRESSED hateful emotions, of the UNJUSTIFIED type.

Thus, the devil is in the details. I am going to come out with a stridently hateful (some will say) essay against (the hateful gross and mass murdering friendly leadership of) Japan. I don’t mind, it’s the exact target of that mental torpedoes volley. What I will publicly say is both true and justified. That makes it completely different.

Zola went to jail, big time, during the Dreyfus affair for the famous “J’Accuse!”. In it, him, and other top intellectuals, accused publicly the elite of the French Republic of a criminal conspiracy. Well, they were right. Ultimately, everybody got exonerated, starting with Captain (later Colonel) Dreyfus. More than that: anti-Judaism in France got lethally wounded (this is why most Jews in France survived WWII’s Gestapo, whereas nearly all Dutch Jews died).

If I suggest that French and Croat Nazi collaborators of the worst type ought to have been executed. Well, that’s OK, because those were terrible people doing horrendous things. A trial would determine that those people ought to have suffered the worst treatment, indeed. In this spirit, Norway, the Netherlands, and others, re-instituted the death penalty against Nazi collaborators after WWII, just for them. Fine.

Having strong anti-UNJUSTIFIED-hatred laws will help the search for truth.

And that’s what we need. You want to hate KGB’s Putin, or Tojo-loving Abe? Be my guest. And do it publicly, and question why Russia and Japan need to humiliate themselves that much, while, implicitly, thanks to the brutality they deploy and worship, threatening us all.

The calculus of hate and aggression needs to be refined. Because justice and progress need to be armed and stronger than the alternative.

For example GW Bush ought to be prosecuted for war crimes. Among them, war of aggression, a hate crime.

Attacking North Korea, even preventively, would not be a war of aggression, as North Korean leaders already threatened the USA (and others) with nuclear strikes (!). Similarly, France’s unilateral attack of Hitler in September 1939, was not a war of aggression, whatever the Nazis said at the time. Indeed, the Nazis had repeatedly attacked civilization and human rights first.

Hating hatred for real requires justice to be involved. One cannot leave plutocrats, be they the Kaiser, Stalin, or G.W. Bush to be free to mold, knead and brutalize hearts as they see fit. As civilization progresses, and becomes ever more intelligent, just as a matter of survival, so justice has to.

Patrice Aymé

***

Notes: On French trans-national jurisdiction. There is a common European citizenship. It’s entirely in the realm of French justice to react when citizen of the same polity (Europe) are hated by whoever, be it a citizen of the USA.

Moreover, for questions of Human Rights, French justice tends to apply worldwide.

On the USA’s indifference to the plutocratic obscenity, a learned emotion: Watch Obama meeting, twice, with all the plutocrats he could find, in December 2013. First with the health care crats. Just six of them, around the table with their crat in chief, made 100 million dollars, in the preceding few months. One could see the problem of USA health care, just there: the filth of riches.

Then there was the meeting with the high tech spies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc.): how can we manipulate the truth? By flaunting his associations to the hyper rich he regularly begs for money like a pigeon hungry for crumbs, Obama has taught everybody in the USA a weird, twisted, masochistic, debasingly insane emotion, gratification by plutocratization. A new sort of bully pulpit. Call it the pigeon perch.