Posts Tagged ‘fascism’

Capital, Civilization, War, Fascism, And Democracy

May 1, 2021

Capital is intrinsic to civilization: capital makes civilization possible, and, in turn, civilization feeds capital. Capital started with mates, family, friends, territory, flint, obsidian, furs, grains, dogs, etc. Our ancestors, twenty million years ago, already worked to amass capital. Cities could be defined as concentration of lodgings greater than sustainable before the Neolithic (the new stone, when herding and agriculture appeared in the most advanced populations).

The entity with the greatest capital has always been, in the last 5,000 years, the mightiest government, presently the USA. Followed by the People Republic of China. Communists often talk as if they opposed capital, but their leaders often muster more capital than their allegedly more capitalist opponents. It’s Stalin’s greater capital in… tanks which overwhelmed that other (and lesser!) capitalist, Adolf Hitler. Hitler recognized no German anticipated or even could comprehend, that Stalin had a capital of 35,000 tanks. That Franklin Delano Roosevelt had decided that the USA would have 24 Fleet Aircraft carriers was another major capitalist event, with long term consequences, as Japan would bitterly find out. Recently Biden, following Trump, having discovered that most electronic semiconductor integrated circuits were made in Asia, a minute flight time from thousands of Xi’s rockets, decided that it would be a good idea to make those in the good old USA (Trump had already obtained that Apple Inc. would make chips, and in the USA). 

However, war is also intrinsic to civilization, and may well be the fundamental reason why cities got built.

Even when not warring with nomads, civilizations compete: barred from the International Space Station (ISS), China just launched the core module of its own second space station. This sort of competition is of course excellent, and we are very grateful to “Communist” China for producing so much excellent science and technology. The USA would probably scoff at the Moon, but for China’s announced drive to establish itself there (the government of the CCP has not formally said so, but the top Chinese engineers let it be known).

In the past. Civilizations, besides each other, had another problem: nomads. In any case, they had to arm themselves. But it turns out too much of a good thing is not good for progress. 

Exponentials Everywhere:

“Capital” comes from “caput”, the head. Civilization, gathering large populations of people in cities, was made possible from, and necessary because of, the exponentiation of population.

The exponentiating population happened because of exponentiation of food production, thanks in turn to mass agriculture made possible by mass irrigation and other massive structures, which provided with many riches. Those, in turn were defended against scavenging nomads by mass armies (the nomads themselves often doubled as traders, who were indispensable, as they provided with otherwise inaccessible, indispensable goods from far away regions: obsidian, currency shells, metals, furs are examples).

It’s not just Quantum Physics, hence the world, which is entangled, but also all most significant human civilizational notions. Notice that I did not bother with explicitly mentioning religions above, as they are tentacular subsets of fascism.

Armies in turn are organized through command and control, to act as giant bodies with just one head. Naturally power runs in families and the children of commanders end up in command. Thus hierarchies of families ended on top of society. Religions they invented with fascist gods explained that the universe was organized according to fascist principles, very naturally, with a few jealous bloodthirsty maniacs on top. The large populations of civilization insured that they would stay on top of innovation, in particular with the best weapons, and would generally not be conquered by nomads (although there were exceptions, in particular the exposure of China to various invaders, the propensity of various Central Asian nomads to invade, such as the Huns-Avars-Mongols, and of course Islam, a particularly invasive ideology which the Turkish leadership found particularly profitable to adopt).

The gods and their servants adjudicated a morality where most found themselves in abject submission, because their very existence was a sin. Watch Incas sacrificing children: the massive usage of fascism to implement civilization was, and is, a worldwide phenomenon. It is not having an Eurasiatic bias to say this. Human sacrifices and slavery were ubiquitous in Africa, up to the Eighteenth Century. The Incas built a vast empire without the wheel, powerful draft animals, copper, bronze or iron working, coinage or a writing system. But they had fascism. The Inca empire could not have done without fascism.

Thus, fascism arose naturally, as a way to achieve civilization. But fascism is not natural to the human species. Human life may have been brutish and short, but it was not under fascism: human life had to be free for other humans, evolution did not anticipate the human condition to be anything, but a dialogue with nature. Hence, the human neurology of most of the population suffered: most humans did not live in conditions optimal for a full blossoming of their mental systems.

This implies that, if one could somehow tame fascism, one could create a mass society that would be smarter and more motivated to act progressively, rather than being passive, depressed and dumb.

Indeed, Rome, Athens, and quite a few other Greek city-states, found a way to mitigate fascism. They invented Demos-Kratia, People-Power. People voted directly, instead of being submitted to superiors. Laws were decided after direct debate insured by isegoria (everybody can address assemblies) and parrhesia (right of candor). 

Paradoxically that democratic revolution started for military reasons. Civilizations and their agricultural system need to be defended. That’s done with armies. Around 650 BCE, the Greek city-state of Argos on the Peloponnesian peninsula found a new military system. It replaced cavalry by hoplites. Hoplites were heavily armed foot soldiers with lances, swords, and shields. Warriors would protect each other with their shields. Hoplite formations, to be effective, needed extensive drilling, and the equipment was expensive. Thus hoplite armies were made of upper middle class citizens with plenty of time to practice. Cavalry had been even more expensive, only aristocrats could afford it. The switch from cavalry to hoplites enabled city-states to field much larger armies. Intact, disciplined hoplite formations could resist the charges of cavaliers. Thus hoplite upper middle class armies defeated aristocracies and took power. Around 550 BC, during the de facto quasi-Republican rule of king Servius Tullius, a universal levy of eligible (that is upper middle class) adult male citizens was instituted as Rome deliberately copied the Greek heavy armor hoplite army. (Two centuries later, fighting the obdurate mountain people, the Samnites, Rome abandoned the Greek phalanx by instituting smaller infantry units; the next big reform would be Marius, around 100 BCE, switching to a professional army… with catastrophic results; I like Marius, and he had no choice… still it was a catastrophe.)  

Democracy spearheaded by citizen-soldiers hoplite armies was enormously successful on the battlefield. The ancient Greeks suggested that was because citizen-soldiers fought for themselves instead of for a master. But there is more: Demos-Kratia was a better method, a scientific method to establish better truth, hence deeper motivation. Demos-Kratia is empowering in another way as people are free to be free.

However, Athens was conquered by the Macedonian tyrant Antipater in 322 BCE. Antipater had the resources of the entire Macedonian empire, all the way to India, and Athens had still not fully recovered from the Peloponnesian war (which had been fought against the Spartan Alliance, led by enslaving Sparta and financed by the Medes, the Persian empire). Antipater then transformed Athens into a plutocracy (only the wealthiest could vote)… Athens would not be really free for 23 centuries thereafter.

Whereas Athens confronted enormous and fanatical enemies, the Roman Republic’s democracy had a different fate. What happened to Rome is more troubling for us. The Republic kept its hubris in check, most of the time, growing slowly, cautiously, and mostly reactively (defending itself with gusto after being attacked, most of the time… or at least that’s how Roman historians present it… But there is a logic to it: clearly, Rome did not go on a rampage until after counter-striking the Carthaginian coalition). Rome never had to surrender. Her one crazy king, Tarquinius Superbus, was thrown out and defeated. “Sumptuary” laws and redistribution to the Ager Publicus limited the wealth and power of families strictly.

However, the horrendous war against Hannibal killed a lot of the best, brightest, most courageous and morally upright in the Roman elite. Those who had rented space in the fortified cities while Hannibal roamed the countryside dominated the post-war period. That was immediately followed by the Roman version of globalization. Indeed pushing back and defeating Carthage and its allies, left the Republic in control of most of the Mediterranean. Instead of imposing Roman law all over, the Republic opted for local self-management, making often alliances with local elites close to those Rome had just defeated. That sounded a good idea at the time.

So Rome left in place many local laws. That legal localization enabled many of the wealthiest Roman of the topmost classes (Senatorial and Equestrian) to evade the Roman barriers to exponential wealth: they just made their fortunes overseas, and then quickly came back and bought plenty of land illegally, managed by armies of imported slaves. This violence led to increasingly brutal plutocrats paying politicians (especially tribunes). Rome degenerated in a way similar to what is happening now, with holders of capital so wealthy they could also hold public opinion in their claws. Wealth got so great the wealthiest created a legion, and then entire armies. Civil war resulted. Optimates (=plutocrats; Sulla, Cicero) against Populares (Gracchi, Marius, Caesar). In the end an alliance was formed between the most powerful army and the plutocracy, led by Octavian/Augustus.

After this triumph of plutocracy, there was no looking back: the Roman power structure invented Catholicism, which became the state religion in the Fourth Century… Under the penalty of death (basically). 

One may wonder why plutocracy increasingly triumphed after (say) the Third Punic war. That’s because the Third Punic War was a triumph of plutocracy. The Roman optimates (the plutocrats) did not like the power and increased democracy of Carthage. It was a very bad example, just when aristocrats such as the Gracchi and their friends and allies decided that the Roman equity-equality Republican system was broken, and had to be refurbished. Such a situation of aristocrats leading a People’s revolution had been seen before: king Sergius Tullius had instituted the basic Republican structures Rome needed. The Optimates prevailed (Carthago delenda est; Carthage is to be destroyed), and visited a holocaust on Carthage, an acto fmass evil. Now when one has committed one act of mass evil, it is easy to do the next.

Another Sergius Tullius could have turned things around. And one came: Julius Caesar. But he was assassinated when he had barely started his work… whereas Sergius Tullius was assassinated by Tarquinius after he had made his main reform, that of the army. In particular, Rome kept a professional army… Even when said army was insufficient in power, numbers and enthusiasm, to repeal the barbarians. Thus Rome, population sixty million or more, fell to hordes of at most 50,000 warriors. Why? Because the plutocrats in power in Rome feared, first of all, a popular army of We The People (as Rome had for its first five centuries or so).

And when Rome “fell”, Roman plutocracy did not really fall. Rome did not really fall, because it took centuries, and a queen such as Brunehilde, writing in perfect Latin in 600 CE to impose Roman law to millions of “Franks” can well be viewed as a Roman head of state… As Charlemagne would be proclaimed, two centuries after her. Rome did not really fall also because Roman plutocrats made alliances with the invading Germans, Alans (Iran) and Huns (Mongolia)…A good Fourth Century Roman potentate preferred a good alliance with the invaders, rather than befriending “We The People” (an example is Aetius, the last great Roman commander in the West before the horrendous reconquista under Justinian).

So I am saying that what is called WEIRD (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) started with Rome and the best Greek city-states. And that was so true that it was not forgotten: by the Fifth Century, the Franks made educational reforms leveraging the church, and that was passed into stiff laws before the birth of Charlemagne. Also many of the Frankish reforms (shown by Lex Salica) were pro-equity and equality (equal mandatory inheritance among children, women not forgotten)… The outlawing of slavery (657 CE, queen Bathilde) was more of the (Democratic) drive towards equality…. And technological progress. Chinese emperors tried to cancel slavery a few times, but it did not stick. When Europeans visited China as soon as the Thirteenth Century, they were struck by the massive usage of human muscle power instead of mechanical advantage, for example to carry the trunks of giant trees.

Thus starting under the Franks, progressive traits of the early Roman Republic were recovered. The effort was not accidental, but conscious and deliberate: a great hope was what was then called the “Christian Republic”. Most of the historical documents may have had disappeared by then, but the essential was left, namely the collective memory of a more democratic past.

So why have the full democratic practices of 25 centuries ago not been recovered yet?

Indeed, we are still victims of the ideology which caused the fall of the Roman Republic, being told that we cannot have democracy. Instead we have representative oligarchy, a few hundred individuals enjoying extravagant powers.

One reason is an enormous inertia of moods and ideas. That can be better understood by looking at China, where the mood of “mandate from heavens” to designate the imperial system was established more than 22 centuries ago… and continues to this day. More basically, the elites in power have had interest to reinstitute as much fascism as they could get away with. For example, after eight centuries of (theoretically and formally) electing kings of the Franks, the king of the Franks decided he was king of France, and his job was hereditary (and a mandate not from We The People, but from the god; Charlemagne was already furious when the Pope pulled that trick on him… Charles wanted to be elected by the army, not god…).

Democracy, if and when one can make it work, is mightier than fascism… And this is because it is ethologically correct. Fascism is also ethologically correct but if, and only if, one is in combat. Thus fascist regimes are implicitly telling the people they subjugate that they are at war, and combat is engaged. 

The consequence of democracy is exponentiating intelligence. The consequence of fascism and its generalizations, oligarchism and “representative” pseudo-democracy, is the degenerescence into stupidity.

Our civilization is in an extremely delicate situation. It has to pilot several raging exponentials, just right, and they are technologically and scientifically dependent. If a civilization collapsed 10,000 years ago, the consequences were insignificant in the fullness of time. However, the destruction of civilization in the present circumstances could well condemn humanity, or what’s left of it, being unable to regain ever again the present level of wisdom and understanding. Cannibalism, though, would have a great future…

Patrice Ayme

Entangling plutocracy, media, internet and the state, is fascism

January 10, 2021

The plutocratic media is all out, accusing Trump of a “coup”. A theme is to accuse the 75 million voters who voted for Trump to be “post-truth” and thus pre-fascist, as Timothy Snyder, a New York Times proclaimed “historian of fascism” from Yale university (see plutocratic universities are not universal)… who does not seem to have studied coups very much: when people march, demonstrate, riot and enter illegally a government public, that’s not a coup. A wiser course would be to inquire why it is that people are so upset, and correct that. Pretending that Trump did it, is not just silly, but dishonest. The elite seems stupidly ready to make a bad situation worse. Or is that apparently stupid strategy actually smart in the most vicious way?

The modern definition of fascism as promoted by Mussolini and his main adviser, professor Gentile, consisted in entangling deeply the dictatorial state and private enterprise as if they were one (the original definition of fascism is basically the opposite: it is the people, united by the law around the axe of justice; that definition is symbolic to the French and US republics; it is on either side of the Speaker in the US Congress). 

Thus real fascism in the modern sense is when the government gives the equivalent of roughly half of the GDP to the wealthiest persons in the land. This is what happened under Obama. I used person in the legal sense: giving money to the wealthiest banks, for example Goldman Sachs, Citygroup, etc. Those banks, in turn, lended to the wealthiest people in the land. This strategy, imitated in Europe too, mightily contributed to increase inequality, worldwide.  

Globalization also increased inequality, as it enabled the world’s wealthiest person to evade local laws, and export jobs to dictatorships. 

This general spirit of the times extended throughout US governance, which is characterized by a revolving door policy, where public “servants” serve themselves with rich private jobs the main function of which is a form of corruption, with armies of lobbyists, and the promise that public job decisions will be well rewarded later.   

It is symptomatic that way that Delaware is the world’s ultimate tax haven. Fostering division in the service of the wealthiest broke the Roman republic. Those who rioted were not the wealthiest.

The Guardian called this the “Plastic Conspiracy: who is to blame?” We protested when we realize some people we knew who are professional ecologists steered a school towards replacing natural grass by plastic on several fields. As a result we got threatened to have our 9 year old daughter summarily thrown out of school. Then the plutocrat (one of the wealthiest heirs) insisted with the school that we would be thrown out, as we were. Couldn’t even say goodbye to people. The school kept the tuition for the following year, and installed the plastic over several fields. BTW that fake ecological heir advised two president (French and US) in the matter of presumably fake ecology, and is from a well-known Silicon Valley fortune… He also finances “Factcheck.org”… Hey, he certainly knows which facts people are supposed to know… To become the simple brutes he handles best…

A possibility, of course, would be for the people really upset against the elite on the left (who persuaded themselves that believed in Biden), to realize that Biden is the same old Biden, all smokes and mirrors… And then for them to make an alliance with the other populists, those who switch from voting for Obama to voting for Trump. Then what is plutocrat Pelosi, the heiress, going to do? Call again the Pentagon to inquire about nukes, as she let us know that she did last week?

This has always been a tactic of plutocracy: create a civil war (or a succession of many of them in the case of the Roman Republic), then claim that only the generals can save the land. And rule through the generals.

Meanwhile as Pelosi readies her ridiculous last few days impeachment, she will demonstrate one thing above all else: that the demented Dem leaders spent Trump presidency trying to impeach him. This creates a new anchor for political thought, looking forward: when one doesn’t agree with the president, one should impeach him. Just as when they fostered riots the demented Dem leaders, they did not expect their opponents to do the same, they do not expect the Republicans to do the same.

But, as I said, plutocracy aims to make a bad situation worse, always, because hell is its abode. In the last few days, the monopolistic tech companies rolled out their muscles, and started to shut down people, companies and form of expressions they don’t like. Their leaders are typically half educated (no Elon Musk there) hackers with a typical geeky view of the universe, where everything is two cent logic without culture.

The New York Times calls this, in their opinion all caused by Trump, the “American Abyss”. But actually, from considering the dying Coral Sea Barrier, to melting poles, a Chinese dictatorship enslaving millions on ethnic grounds, a (Chinese) virus which killed more than one out of a thousand citizens in Europe and America, plastic pollution in the bodies of all, one can see that the abyss is much more than the work of a few individuals. Or even a generation.

The abyss is a way of thinking, and feeling, or, more precisely, a way of not thinking and feeling enough., or appropriately enough Pursuing scapegoats to the end of the Earth is, instead, what is called scapegoatism, the anti-idea of replacing all encompassing logic by the delicious pleasure of hatred destroying people.

That, in this abysmal situation “Democratic” leaders have nothing better to do that to hound Trump, chasing him across the land until the last days and beyond, as if he were an orange fox and the Dems are high nobility mounted on tall horses, with nothing better to do than to boast of their cruelty, is a testimony to their complicity in creating the abyss they contributed to dig.

Patrice Ayme

Philosophy Censorship; About Socrates The Basic Truth Shall Not Be Told, Pluto Enforced By “Aeon”, A Magazine Promoting Philosophical Fascism

April 3, 2019

Owners of the pseudo-philosophical magazine “Aeon” enforce a particularly strict vision of Socrates. Straying out of it “violates their community guidelines”. This is pure censorship in the domain of the most esoteric ideas (demonstrating those are crucial to the Pluto. order!)

The gist of my comment was that the trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are pro-plutocratic philosophers, and that’s why their thoughts were so well preserved. This is intolerable to… plutocrats. And guess who is financing “Aeon”? Same as all over the world media: plutocrats!

For Aeon’s abuse, see the note. Here is my censored comment, with a picture added.

***

***

Socrates should not be considered to be the founding figure of Western philosophy:

that Socrates is the greatest philosopher is a widely held opinion that is indeed deeply flawed, considering the gigantic heritage of thought and thus philosophy, which preceded the Athenian Age of Pericles.

General on the left, great philosopher, his spouse, on the right. Aspasia (right) invented the so-called “Socrates” method (“inductio”) and the Open Society, and all great things Pericles said. All the bad policies of Pericles were his own, he admitted, begging forgiveness.

Actually, let’s hammer it again, Pericles’ second wife, Aspasia of Miletus, was arguably a better thinker than Socrates: she invented the concept of the Open Society, which K. Popper parroted recently; the Open Society is more important a notion than anything Socrates allegedly did. 

Consider the many pharaohs who were women, and discoveries such as “Pythagoras” theorem, one of many discoveries which the Greeks themselves said came from Egypt (with steam power).  Truth was revered in Ancient Egypt, and the ideal feminine, when not actual women, propelled it.

Suspicion wants to ask why, among all great thinkers of Greece only the trio of Socrates Plato and Aristotle was viewed as worth preserving so extensively? Was it because their thinking was so compatible with, and useful to, the 2,000 years of dictatorship and plutocracy which followed them? And which Aristotle personally contributed so much to install? Indeed! It’s no coincidence that Roman Catholicism was made compatible with the “Neo-Platonism” which dominated the empire (and not reciprocally).

Contemplate the many colossal thinkers of Classical Greece, such as the inventors of NON Euclidean geometry (Yes, non-Euclidean), and the engineers of mechanical computers, algebra, and of the all important atomic theory, complete with vacuum and perpetual (“Brownian”) motion. Presocratic philosopher Democritus, his teacher Leucippus, and Epicurus, over two centuries, wrote more than 100 books, mostly on the atomic theory, science, and a rational approach to the entire universe. Why were all their work deliberately destroyed?

Because Roman Catholic fascism was not compatible with rational explanations.

Whereas, of course, Socrates, with his voices in his head, Joan of Arc style, Plato, in love with tyrants of Syracuse, and Aristotle being all things to the Macedonian gangsters, were compatible with Catholicism, to the point they promoted many of its themes, five centuries before Roman emperors adopted them, that is, adopted the intellectual fascism Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were oozing with.

Athenian democracy knew so much about its incompatibility with Socrates and Aristotle, it wanted to execute both (Aristotle fled).

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were deeply entangled, in the most intimate ways, with some of the most famous and bloodiest dictators in history. It is telling that most philosophers have not noticed that horrendous, yet very loquacious, fact. So no wonder the dictators, tyrants and so-called monarchs of the next two millennia esteemed that philosophical trio from thinking hell, so much. But should we? Socrates hated real democracy, and Aristotle was, literally, the father of “Hellenistic” dictatorships which  buried free thinking and inspired Roman plutocracy to take over the Republic, and then the world.

Socrates had means, a stock inheritance from his father, which he admitted to have dilapidated, and a busy wife. In any case, he could afford the expensive equipment of a upper class hoplite, and he kept the most intimate company with Athens’ topmost golden youth. That made him tight with the dictators who ruled Athens, when they did.    

That Socrates was married early in his life with an aristocrat called Myrto explains readily why he was hanging around the uppermost echelon of Athenian society, insisted to attack democracy, and why the democratic authorities viewed him with such hostility. That Plato hid that from view is explained by Plato’s general adoration of dictators, and those who love them.

Diotima of Mantinea is presented in Plato’s Symposium as a philosopher of love, teacher of a youthful Socrates, who defer to her expertise, and she is the inventor of the concept of Platonic love.  

Thus one can see that some of the most prominent durable notions of the infernal Socrates-Plato-Aristotle trio were actually elaborated by women… So why all the reverence to the guys? Is that another case of delirious sexism?

Some British philosopher claimed that Western philosophy, the way he knew it, was just “footnotes to Plato”. Indeed: sitting in the middle of his glorious British empire, he only knew Western fascist philosophy of the plutocratic type.

To get out of this inequality trance, one needs to realize the truth: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were just theoreticians and advocates of the exploitation of We The People by the principle of oligarchy. Socrates hated democracy, Plato lauded tyrants, and Aristotle put in place Antipater, the bloody tyrant, executor of Aristotle’s will, who made Athens, after defeating her twice in naval battles, into an official plutocracy.

No philosophical education should be complete without realizing that this infernal trio are fathers to plutocratic philosophy. And, in particular, Roman Catholicism.

***

Conclusion (not part of my comment, which was above): Is Aeon is a magazine promoting philosophical fascism? You judge!

The sort of censorship I was subjected to reminds me of The Inquisition. Actually, it is exactly this sort of censorship which brought plutocratic rule, when the non-Roman Catholic literature was systematically destroyed by the “Men In Black” (monks).

This sort of censorship prevents people to realize that Socratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophies have been the backbone of plutocracy, for 24 centuries… and that so-called Christianism (and thus then its child, Islamism).

Interesting too, the no-good Socrates stole women. And who are women except nobody? The Socratic method is Aspasia’s. Aspasia understood what made civilization strong, the Open Society, exactly what Socrates detested (in the guise of detesting Direct Democracy). Socrates (Plato admits) got his (“Platonic”) philosophy of love from another woman philosopher:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diotima_of_Mantinea    

This is another indication that sexism and plutocracy are deeply entangled. I am honored to be censored for this insight.

But this is a warning: the techno fascist who rule the world now are, in some ways worse than the Inquisition. Facebook censors for obscenity works of art ordered by popes during the Middle Ages. We have sunk low, and are sinking lower.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: Plato or Pluto? Is there a difference? My comment was using not one word of foul language, or slang, and couldn’t be considered abusive to anyone alive since the dictator Antipater became the executor of the will of Aristotle. My comment was polite, and highly informed at a much higher level than the author of the article (who I didn’t criticize, neither directly, nor implicitly; I actually went further in his general direction, bringing new elements).

Aeon send me this message:

Aeon Magazine

https://aeon.co

Dear Patrice Ayme,

Your comment to the article ‘Was the real Socrates more worldly and amorous than we knew?’ has been deleted because it contravened our community guidelines.

Users who repeatedly violate our community guidelines will have their membership deleted.

Unfortunately we cannot give individual feedback on moderation. Please consult our community guidelines.

Aeon calls itself a “world of ideas…Aeon is a magazine of ideas and culture. We publish in-depth essays, incisive articles…” The article I commented up was by a Oxford professor (who, let it be said in passing didn’t know much about Socrates; apparently he didn’t know how Socrates learned of the theory of love… although it’s extensively described in Plato…)

***

***

UK philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica with B. Russell,  wrote in his Process and Reality (Free Press, 1979, p. 39): “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.

Drink The Kool Aid With Madeleine Albright…

April 6, 2018

Drinking the Kool-Aid is an expression commonly used in the United States that refers to any person or group who goes along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure, following an abusive leader, or leaders, to the bitter, deadly end. The phrase often carries a negative connotation when applied to an individual or group. It can also be used ironically or humorously to refer to accepting an idea or changing a preference due to popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion. In recent years it has evolved further to mean extreme dedication to a cause or purpose, so extreme that one would “Drink the Kool-Aid” and die for the cause.

The phrase derives from the November 1978 Jonestown deaths, in which over 900 members of the Peoples Temple, who were followers of Jim Jones, died, many of whom committed suicide by drinking a mixture of a powdered soft-drink flavoring agent laced with cyanide and prescription drugs Valium, Phenergan, and chloral hydrate, while the rest of the members, including 89 infants and elderly, were killed by forced ingestion of the poison…

***

Dr. Albright was United States secretary of state from 1997 to 2001. Nobody will now believe that the Clinton administration was a time of great progress: war was pursued, under the form of a cruel embargo, including an embargo of drugs, against Iraq, while rogue US citizens, some connected to Harvard U, advised the leaders of Russia to restore the Russian Republic through plutocracy (a phenomenon which brought us Putin)….

Ms Albright wrote for the New York Times: “Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late?” Contrarily to what that title seems to imply, she doesn’t assert that Trump is going to establish fascism in the USA, but that his alleged rogue attitude makes, worldwide, a bad situation worse (in part as Trump makes fun of the established order). 

900 people died at Jamestown, just because they followed the leader. Ms. Albright wants us all, like Mr. Obama, to have “leaders” to follow too. Meanwhile, we are invited to drink the kool aid too, and join in the Earth massacre? Or, at least, the massacre of our own judgment?

Albright writes:

“April 6, 2018

On April 28, 1945 — 73 years ago — Italians hung the corpse of their former dictator Benito Mussolini upside down next to a gas station in Milan. Two days later, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his bunker beneath the streets of war-ravaged Berlin. Fascism, it appeared, was dead.”

Not so simple: Fascism didn’t die in May 1945. Far from it. Fascism is not just a “right wing” phenomenon. It is more about people feeling and thinking all alike, like the fasces bounded together around an axe, which is where the concept comes from, to symbolize in Rome “We the People” bounded around the lethal power of justice. Fascism is first of all, this binding together of a population as a weapon around a threat.

In May 1945 the fascist Stalin was alive, and well. Fascists such as Mao, Ho Chi Minh, were helped and financed by the USA (!!!) The US overall behavior in the war was highly suspect: why didn’t the USA declare war to Germany in 1939, when France and Britain did? Why did the USA wait until Japan and Germany attacked the USA? De facto, US placidity against it enabled the Axis to believe it had the tacit support of the USA (until it found otherwise in late 1941).

Albright:

To guard against a recurrence, the survivors of war and the Holocaust joined forces to create the United Nations, forge global financial institutions and — through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — strengthen the rule of law. In 1989, the Berlin Wall came down and the honor roll of elected governments swelled not only in Central Europe, but also Latin America, Africa and Asia. Almost everywhere, it seemed, dictators were out and democrats were in. Freedom was ascendant.

Today, we are in a new era, testing whether the democratic banner can remain aloft amid terrorism, sectarian conflicts, vulnerable borders, rogue social media and the cynical schemes of ambitious men. The answer is not self-evident. We may be encouraged that most people in most countries still want to live freely and in peace, but there is no ignoring the storm clouds that have gathered. In fact, fascism — and the tendencies that lead toward fascism — pose a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II.

(Survivors of war and “the Holocaust”? There were 5 million Jewish survivors of the attempted murders of all Jews in Europe; however, between the Nazis, Stalin and Mao, the number of people who died in extermination camps was above… 60 millions… In a 30 year period… So let’s be careful, about the notion of “the Holocaust”… Which one?)

Ms Albright doesn’t mention that this system she cherishes was set-up by the USA, to profit the USA more than the rest of the world (the FDR administration having bought Stalin by offering him half of Europe).

Ms. Albright evokes a so-called “free press”, as a conveyor of truth (please, All Bright, tell me why the New York Times and The Guardian, both supposedly left of center, banned all my comments for more than five years? Just because they could? Or because they didn’t like my theory of plutocracy?) However much of the press has been owned or influenced (through sponsors) by the wealthiest individuals. And the Internet is ravaged by “fake news”.

Among the causes of strife Ms Albright identifies, worldwide, the main one, the perception and actuality of inequality, is not mentioned. Wealth, and the plutocracy it brings, are exponential phenomena. They are the main threats to civilization. Actually, people voted, at least in part, for Hitler and Mussolini precisely because those two campaigned explicitly against “plutocrats” and inequality.

The problems are piling up quickly, many of them driven by climate change. This makes most people fearful, anxious to bundle as one and strike: fascism. But that’s just a symptom. The root cause is inequality, not just in wealth, but also in decision-making.

Patrice Aymé 

Note: Here is Ms. Albright, dissembling away in the traditional way:What is to be done? First, defend the truth. A free press, for example, is not the enemy of the American people; it is the protector of the American people. Second, we must reinforce the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law. Third, we should each do our part to energize the democratic process by registering new voters, listening respectfully to those with whom we disagree, knocking on doors for favored candidates, and ignoring the cynical counsel: “There’s nothing to be done.”

From Albright, nothing about unjust laws which make it so that the wealthiest can pay no taxes, get ever wealthier, and buy politicians… Nothing about direct democracy, all about “candidates”, presumably, “Manchurian Candidates”, brainwashed and all….

Socrates A Poisonous, Unexamined Fascist?

September 22, 2016

The Pathos Of Truth Seeked & Violated. Unexamined Fascist, Unexamined Prostitute? Both. Why Was That Covered Up, So Long? For The Same Exact Cause Which Made Socrates Famous!

The death of Socrates keeps haunting philosophy. And that, per se, is a sad, yet very revealing tale. The old common wisdom was that Socrates died, as a martyr to truth (as Hypatia, Boetius, Giordano Bruno, and many others certainly were). You want a hero for philosophy? Celebrate Jean Cavaillès. In the presence of Cavaillès, Sartre nearly wetted his pants. We will see that the mood behind Socrates’ actions is significantly different. Socrates was rather on the side of those who killed Cavaillès.

Indeed, a casual look at the basic setup of Socrates’ trial contradicts the theme that Socrates was mostly a martyr for truth. Socrates was simply accused to be the mastermind of the young dictators who ruled Athens after her tremendous defeat, and half annihilation at the hands of Sparta, the tool of Persia. Socrates was also mentor, friend and lover (!) of the young Alcibiades who, deprived of a generalship by Athens, then betrayed her for her lethal enemy, fascist, ultra-racist, Persian financed Sparta.

Agreed, philosophy needs heroes, and has plenty. Here is one:

Jean Cavaillès. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

Jean Cavaillès, Anti-Fascist Martyr. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

[Jean Cavaillès was tortured and assassinated by the Gestapo in 1943-1944. He is buried in the crypt of the Sorbonne.]

Thus Socrates was a sort of Charlie Manson of serial traitors and killers, whose mental actions led, or accompanied, Athens’ near-death experience in losing a devastating war, and the resulting dictatorship by Socrates’ students. Temples of democracy such as Britain, France, and the USA have gaily executed traitors, or incompetents, for much less than that.

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Stanford political science and classics professor, Josiah Ober opines in “The Civic Drama Of Socrates’ Trial” that:  “Conventional wisdom sees Socrates as a martyr for free speech, but he accepted his death sentence for a different cause… In his influential interpretation The Trial of Socrates (1988), the US journalist-turned-classicist I F Stone saw this trial as an embattled democracy defending itself. In Stone’s view, Socrates had helped to justify the junta’s savage programme of oligarchic misrule and was a traitor. More commonly, Socrates is seen as a victim of an opportunistic prosecutor and a wilfully ignorant citizenry. In truth, politics is indispensable to understanding the trial of Socrates, but in a slightly more sophisticated way.”

I love sophistication, philosophy is all about increased sophistication (so is science). Sophistication, translated, is wisdomization: sticking to reality ever better by ever more subtle, complex logic.

The point was not so much that Socrates justified the savage programme, but that he formed the minds who organized said programme, “corrupting the youth”. And he was at it again, even after being amnestied. Professor Ober describes the problem well (although he fails to fathom the enormity of what he describes).

Stanford’s Josiah: For what people today call ‘the wisdom of crowds’, Socrates had nothing but scorn. Athenian democrats who argued that the many, the group, were collectively more likely to get important matters right than any individual expert earned his antipathy. Whether or not anyone actually was expert in the art of politics, Socrates certainly supposed that there could be such an expert, and that the Athenians were deluded in thinking themselves collectively wise.”

The “experts” would have been naturally his rich, best (“aristos”) boyfriends. Professor Ober is led to the obvious question, but fail to recognize that he does not answer it:

“How did Socrates both scorn the idea of collective wisdom and yet maintain obedience to Athens’ laws, even when he disagreed with how they were interpreted? The rudimentary answer lay in the foundation that Athens (as opposed to, for example, Sparta) provided in its laws and political culture. Athens mandated liberty of public speech and tolerance for a wide range of private behaviour.”

Yes, but public incompetence could lead to trial (as happened to Pericles and many strategoi, generals and admirals). Anyway, that is not an answer. I will give a better answer: Socrates himself had no answer to his drastic self-contradictions, so hise self-delusion fatally committed him to self-destruction. Yet political science professor Ober sees the problem:

“By 399 BCE, however, four years after the end of the tyranny, and with Socrates doing the same things in public that had seemingly inspired the junta’s leaders, the Athenians regarded his speech very differently. In the eyes of the majority of his fellow citizens, Socrates was no longer an eccentric with potential for contributing to public life. He was now either a malevolent public enemy, or deluded and dangerously unable to recognise that his speech predictably produced seriously bad outcomes. And so the way was left open for Meletus to launch his prosecution.”

Right. What professor Ober fails to mention is that only the intervention of mighty Sparta prevented Athens’ annihilation after she surrendered, having lost already half of her population (other cities wanted to do to Athens what Athens did to Melos). Try to imagine this: the city-state half annihilated, democracy destroyed by Socrates’ students, and then? The strongest mood that Socrates had been instilling was to oppose democracy. And he was again at it, after the amnesty he had profited from. What could motivate such a rage?

Unsurprisingly, Socrates was put on trial for “corrupting the youth and impiety”. (The City was to some extent divinized, with Athena as her protecting goddess.)

“With unsettling metaphors and logical demonstrations, he made it clear that he [Socrates] opposed democracy… Xenophon implies that Socrates chose that sort of speech as a method of jury-assisted suicide: he was… tired of life and allowed the Athenians to end it for him.”

This is what I believe. And I go further than Xenophon, by explaining the cause of Socrates’ depression. Socrates may have been tired of his own contradictions.And may have been ravaged by regret. (Regret, I reckon, is a powerful human instinct.)

The Socrates’ worship interpretation is due to Plato. It poses Socrates as martyr to civic duty. But, as it turns out, “civic duty”, for Socrates, seems to be mostly blind obedience to “the Laws”, while viciously criticizing the Direct Democracy which gave birth to them.

That Socrates respected the laws of Athens while despising the Direct Democracy which had passed them is illogical in the extreme. Yes, I know Socrates said he respected “the Laws”, as if they were disembodied gods with a life of their own. But We The People passed said laws, and they lived only because We The People had created them, and We thge People could extinguish them just the same.

The “Laws” were nothing. We The People was everything. Socrates behaved as if he could not understand that.

Insisting that the Laws were everything reveals that the concept of blind obedience was more important to Socrates than arguing about the nature of what one should be obeying to, and why. Blind obedience is also the traditional ultimate value of standard fascism: law and order as supreme.

Blind obedience had been what the junta’s rule was all about. What the rule of Socrates’ young students and lovers had been all about. That’s also what fascism is all about. However, arguing, debating, fighting is how to get to the thorough examination necessary for the “examined life”.   

The contradiction was, and is, blatant. Socrates’ mental system was shorting out. Socrates had been shorting out for half a decade or more: he ambitiously wanted to “examine life”, but he could not even examine the minds of his followers, let alone his own, or why he was hanging around them. Why was he hanging around them? They were rich, he was not, but he lived off their backs and crumbs. And the feeling of power they provided with (after Obama got to power I saw some in his entourage becoming drunk with power).  

Arguably, Socrates was a martyr to fascism, a Jihadist without god. There is nothing remarkable about that. The very instinct of fascism is to give one’s life, just because fanatical combat is the ultimate value, when one gets in the fascist mood. In this case, the fanatical combat was against We The People.

Posing Socrates as a martyr for intellectual freedom is farfetched: fascism, blind obedience, passion for oligarchs are all opposed to the broad mind searching for wisdom requires.

Some will sneer: you accuse Socrates to be a fascist, why not a racist? Well, I will do this too. The golden youth Socrates loved so much and drank with were hereditary so. Socrates believed knowledge was innate (so an ignorant shepherd boy knew all of math: this is the example he rolled out!) If knowledge was innate, one can guess that the “aristos”, the best, were also innately superior. That is the essence of racism.

Logically enough, Socrates disliked science: nothing was truly new under the sun (as all knowledge was innate). So much for examining life.

It is more probable that Socrates was indeed, just a stinging insect buzzing around, stinging the idea of Direct Democracy. In exchange, his rich, young, plutocratic boyfriends would fete and feed him. Such was Socrates’ life, a rather sad state of affair, something that needed to be examined, indeed, by the head doctor.

Socrates may have been clever enough to feel that he was an ethical wreck. His suicidal submission may have been an attempt to redeem himself, or whatever was left of his honor (which he also tried to regain with his insolence to the jury).

Plato would pursue the fight for fascism (“kingship”). Aristotle, by teaching, mentoring, educating, befriending, advising a number of extremely close, family-like friends, the abominable Alexander, Craterus and Antipater, finally fulfilled Socrates’ wet dream: Athenian Direct Democracy was destroyed and replaced by an official plutocracy overlorded by Antipater (supremo dictator, and executor of Aristotle’s will, in more ways than one).

This trio of philosophical malefactors became the heroes 22 centuries of dictatorship (“monarchy”) needed as a justification. A justification where “civic duty” was defined as blind obedience to the “Laws” (whatever they were, even unjust “Laws”). This amplified Socrates’ hatred of Direct Democracy. So the works of the trio were preciously preserved, and elevated to the rank of the admirable.

It is rather a basket of deplorables. We owe them the destruction of Direct Democracy for 23 centuries, and counting.

And what Of Socrates’ regret for being so deplorable? (Which I alleged he had to experience.) A dying Socrates lying on a couch, uncovered his face and uttered— “Crito, I owe the sacrifice of a rooster to Asklepios; will you pay that debt and not neglect to do so?”  Asklepios cured disease, and provided with rebirth, symbolized by the singing of the rooster calling the new day. This has been traditionally interpreted (by Nietzsche) as meaning that (Socrates’?) death was a cure for (his?) life. Nietzsche accused Socrates to be culprit of the subsequent degeneracy of civilization (and I do agree with that thesis). Certainly, Socrates, a self-described “gadfly” was deprived of gravitas.

Wisdom needs to dance, but cannot be altogether deprived of gravitas, as it is, after all, the gravest thing.. Maybe Socrates felt this confusedly, besides having regrets for his status of thinking insect. Socrates could have easily escaped, and Crito had an evasion ready. By killing himself Socrates behaved like a serious Japanese Lord opening his belly to show his insides were clean, and its intent good. Well, many a scoundrel has committed seppuku, and hemlock is nothing like cutting the belly.

Human beings are endowed with the instinct of regret, because we are the thinking species. It is crucial that we find the truth, and when we have lived a lie, indulged in error, the best of use are haunted by the past, and revisit it to find what the truth really was. Regrets has many stages, like cancer. The most correct philosophical form of regret is to re-established the truth. The cheap way out is to flee from reality, as Socrates did.

How to explain Socrates’ insolence to the jury? There again, it was a desperate attempt at reaching the sensation of self-righteousness and trying to impart it to the jury (this is often seen  on the Internet, with the glib one-liners and vacuous logic which pass for depth nowadays).

The inexperienced democracy in Athens did not always behave well. Athens behaved terribly with Melos (see link above). But the case of Socrates is different. Ultimately, the train of thoughts and moods promoted by Socrates weakened those who wanted to defend the free republics of Greece against the fascist, exterminationist Macedonian plutocracy. Demosthenes and Athenian Direct Democracy was mortally poisoned by Socrates.

Thus, Socrates execution was not just tit for tat. It was not enough of tit for tat. It was a preventive measure, in defense of Direct Democracy, which failed, because it was too meek.

Democracy does not mean to turn the other cheek, to have the golden beast eat that one too. In ultimate circumstances, democracy has an ultimate weapon too, and that is fascism. This is why the Roman, French and American republics prominently brandish the fasces. Fascism is the ultimate war weapon. But fascism is not the ultimate society. Far from it: political fascism, just a few individuals leading entails intellectual fascism, namely just a few moods and ideas leading. Before one knows it, one is in plutocracy, where not only wealth rules, but so does the cortege of the worst ideas and moods which characterize it.

Socrates often talk the talk, contradicting completely the way he lived (for example he said one should never return an injury, but, as a hoplite, he killed at least four men in combat!)

Socrates spoke so well sometimes, that he can stay a symbol of truth persecuted. But, because it is a lie, replacing him by Hypatia, Boetius, Bruno and, or Cavaillès, and, or, others, is urgent. Indeed, the reality is that Socrates was not just inimical to democracy. The current of thought he floated by was inimical to science, mental progress, and the truth he claimed to be pining for.  And even him may have been so overwhelmed by these astounding contradictions, that, in the end, assisted suicide for his pathetic mental writhing was, indeed, the optimal outcome.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Obama Closes Yosemite

June 20, 2016

OK, only part thereof. Something Europeans miss totally about the USA, is that it is an empire, a military empire, and obeying orders from above is view as the essence of morality. Yes, the Roman army worked exactly like that, for many centuries… Until it did not. This is what gives to the Trump phenomenon an interesting, not to say disquieting, perspective: as Americans view respecting orders from above the essence of morality (as the Prussian pseudo-philosopher Immanuel Kant ordered) one may wonder what will happen with President Donald Trump? Will Americans goose step behind him as they did with G. W. Bush? 

So President Obama shows up in Yosemite, and a gigantic expanse of cliffs is “closed”, a kilometer high, several kilometers across. What fascinated me was the obedient tune many climbers sounded in a climbing site I read. It was as if God had ordered them to do something, and they felt honored. In a place like France, the order would have been so unenforceable, it would not even have been tried. Many individuals would have made a MORAL point of disobeying it.  

This Entire Landscape Is The Area Which Was Closed To Climbing When Obama Visited For Three Days

This Entire Landscape Is The Area Which Was Closed To Climbing When Obama Visited For Three Days

To give the scale, of this piece of the North Rim of Yosemite Valley, the exposed landscape in the picture  is more than 4,000 feet (1,200 meters) high. I have climbed and run all over it, from left to right, and above, and beyond. Differently from Socrates, who engaged in combat during epic battles, I am reduced to meeker pursuits, to get to examine myself.

What is good about being an obedient little fascist, is that one never has to examine oneself: following Immanuel Kant, one can define one’s morality as following orders. And this is exactly what the Nazis dis, and explained to whoever wanted to listen to them. (The jury of Eichmann in Jerusalem was not impressed by Eichmann explaining he had been moral by obeying Kant, and condemned him to hang. The Israelis had learned a few important things in WW II!)

Now this sort of orders given to an American population eager to please its masters, is not an happenstance: it’s training graciously provided by the Deep State, another occasion for Americans, in this case rather young Americans (most climbers don’t make old bones) to obey orders. I sent the following comment, fully expecting racist, tribal, hypernationalistic abuse of the sort which passes for normal in the Anglo-Saxon world this days, regarding France (and I was not disappointed). Yes, philosophy rests on experiments, just like science:  

I love the way Americans take orders, thus showing they are not worthy to lead the world, civilizationally speaking, as they effectively do. This sort of self-humiliation would NEVER work in France. Instead little American sheep take unconstitutional orders with alacrity, pride and total obedience. They should be ashamed of themselves, instead, and the rest of the world should be afraid. Very afraid. Indeed, who is this Obama? An employee of We The People! Wake up, People, instead of just goose stepping proudly in the sunset of the dignity of the human spirit. The meaning and appeal of real climbing is freedom. Taking orders, the exact opposite.

I know perfectly well that the essence of the USA is the military thing: the Indians did not go away nicely. They resisted. The army exterminated them. General Jackson, commander of the US Army decided to attack them, and Congress was too scared to contradict him. Hence the Cherokee “March of Tears”. The famous Tocqueville saw it, in front of his very eyes, but, as this was outside of his philosophical understanding, did not draw any conclusion on the American character, from that experience (I obviously do). Maybe one of the reason Tocqueville is so popular in the United States is, precisely, that he did not draw any conclusion of the holocaust of the Native American over a full quarter of the US, precisely when he visited them. That makes Tocqueville an All-American boy: very smart on what’s less significant, mute on what is most significant.

Here is the order: “climbing areas will be closed over the weekend. Please see below for area closures for Thursday evening (6/16, tonight) through Sunday afternoon (6/19). There will also be other areas closed Friday evening through Saturday evening. We will keep you updated on the official word for the Friday/Saturday closures.

“All climbing routes from and including Church Bowl east to Washington Column (Washington Column itself remains open) will be closed from Thursday sunset through Sunday afternoon. This includes Bishops Terrace, Royal Arches, Serenity Crack, Son’s of Yesterday.”

Thank you for your cooperation in these temporary closures.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/climbingclosures.htm

The reactions I got were the usual abuse, insults and lies (deeply believed to be the truth): France was accused to be a Nazi bastion of cheese eating surrender monkeys. Always amusing from the country which, besides Germany, did the most for Adolf Hitler. OK, I plead guilty for provocation, but what is science, but for teasing out, provoking through experiments the true nature of things, be they human or mineral.

I also understand that Obama has little choice in these matters, or so he feels: the instinct of obedience, called also “peer pressure”, is strong in the empire. And Obama was selected, because he felt it, deep in his bones, to help him “navigate”, as he put it. Thus, when Obama became president, he obeyed. Obama obeyed the powers that be. The empire was safe with him. Thus, some are disappointed by Obama, worldwide, but he is loved in the US: “change you can believe in” was very very small. And next year, the meek progress Obamacare ephemerally proposed will blow-up (it’s already doing so). As the “health corridors” expire with the Obama presidency. But don’t worry: President Trump and his art of the deal, will have to pick up the pieces, and dozens of young Americans are ready to goose-step behind him, lauding all and any “closures” that the government may decide to order.

Patrice Ayme’

Military Industrial Complex: A Necessary Danger To Civilization

April 16, 2016

Military Industrial Complexes are necessary, and have existed since cities came to be, 10,000 years ago. President Eisenhower warned against the danger the US Military Industrial Complex presented to the USA, and the world, in all sorts of ways. Now we can say we are right in the midst of what Ike was afraid of. However, there is another face to that coin.

Great Military Industrial Complexes (“MIC”) are characteristic of great civilizations. One can argue, that’s what civilizations are all about. Rome, the Franks and the Chinese had MICs. So did Japan. The Japanese Military Industrial Complex was able to confine behind walls the invading Mongols (who already had captured China). The Samurai, and their excellent steel, destroyed the Mongol beachheads, and Japan stayed Japan.

In The USA, The Military Industrial Complex, With The Exception Of WWI and WWII, Has long Been At The Service Of Plutocracy, and Its Corporations

In The USA, The Military Industrial Complex, With The Exception Of WWI and WWII, Has long Been At The Service Of Plutocracy, and Its Corporations

Interesting cases of Military Industrial Complexes were entangled with Greek civilization: Greece would not have existed without MICs.

The importance of war during the rise of Western Civilization was colossal. It could never have risen without it.

For example Sparta intervened and threw out Athens’ tyranny, establishing the great age of Athens’ direct democracy. The first thing the newly liberated Athenians did, was to establish a powerful MIC. Themistocles ran for office on a massive MIC program, to establish a powerful war fleet (after the first Persian invasion this grew to a 200 warships fleet). In the process the Athenian state ran a massive debt, and devastated the forests of Attica (to build the triremes). Themistocles’ argument was that Persia was going to attack. It did attack, twice, and was defeated, twice, in a number of battles, including the one at Marathon.

If anything, not enough violence was applied against plutocrats, early enough. Especially against the enemies of the Athenian and Roman empires. This is something peaceniks understand not at all, making them dedicated enemies of what they pretend to defend.

Twelve (12) centuries later, the Muslim invaders, having suffered grievous defeats from the Roman fleet and its Grecian fire, decided to use their military superiority on land: take Constantinople from behind, by invading Europe from West to East. The Islamists invaded Spain, and then attacked Francia (thrice). The Franks replied by boosting the size of their already considerable MIC. Propelled by a nationalization of the church, the Franks established the greatest army since the heydays of the Roman Republic, and mobilized all of Francia.

Ever since, France has been at war with Literal Islam. It was, it is, hard work: just in the second week of April 2016, three French soldiers died in combat in the middle of the Sahara. Frankish armies delivered Rome in 846 CE. The Islamists landed by surprise several armies in several places, and converged on Rome. The outskirts of the imperial capital were sacked, including the Vatican, but the formidable, 16 metres tall, 19 kilometer long Aurelian Wall held the invaders out of the city’s most sacred core. The Aurelian Wall is a beautiful example of MIC: it was used as a military asset, and involved in combat, for 17 centuries. The Aurelian Wall gave enough time for the Frankish Dux, Guy, grandson of Charlemagne, to arrive, and throw the Islamists out of the Latium.

When Genghis Khan and his Mongols invaded Northern China, some of his generals suggested to kill all the Chinese, and also kill the Chinese ecology (by destroying forests, etc.), and make Northern China like Mongolia. Genghis Khan refused to do so. However, notice that China came very close to extermination. Exterminated civilizations have existed before: Genghis Khan exterminated two, including the largest Buddhist empire, ever. The Hittites, and others, were exterminated during the invasion of the “People of the Sea”.

So civilization needs MICs. No MIC, no civilization.

However, a mighty MIC implies a deep militarization of society. The fundamental principle of militarization is the Fascist Principle: obey your superior as if s/he were god.

The fascist principle has long been an instinct with primates. Or at least those who invaded the savannah: baboons are intrinsically military, they move in armies, and the alpha males, the baboons are zoological equivalents to Roman generals. Complete with the right of death inflicted, whenever contradicted severely.

The fascist principle allows a social animal to behave as if it were a super-organism, with just one coordinated mind.

That principle is explicitly stated in the Qur’an. It was also the fundamental principle of organization of the Roman army, and, later, under the empire, of all of Roman society: the superior Roman officer had right of life and death on its subordinates, and would inflict it to encourage the others.

O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and Obey Those Of You Who Are In Power.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Sura 4; verse 59).

The principal drawback of a fascist society is that intellectual progress comes only from contradicting what was known before, hence, from contradicting one’s superiors. Thus, a society organized around the fascist principle will stagnate intellectually. And, in particular scientifically and, thus, technologically. Hence, being ruled by a MIC brings lethal stupidity (and a very inegalitarian society).

Thus the Barbarians will catch up in technological military prowess. This is exactly what happened to the Romans: under the Republic, buying the best military metallurgy from the (highly divided) Gauls, the Romans dominated in the quality of their weapons (Hannibal defeated the Romans many times, but, arguably, his best troops were Gallic). Under the empire, the savages, such as the Franks, had better weapons than the standard Roman army (so they were co-opted into it!)

However, by the time of Marcus Aurelius, that wind bag, a certified intellectual fascist with a sugar-coating still mesmerizing the naive, the barbarians caught up with Roman military technology… In no small measure because Roman emperors, those professional fascists, paid inventors not to invent.

Nowadays we can observe similar phenomena: US corruption has brought the reign of the F35, an obsolete, but extremely expensive weapon. Meanwhile, the Barbarians, including Kim of Korea, are catching up technologically, at a torrid space.

Civilization has to keep a balance between MIC and innovation in all ways, lest imagination collapses, bringing a weaker MIC.

Reciprocally, though, a MIC is a friend of fascist rule, and thus of oligarchy. But oligarchy is sustainable only in a satanic form, known as the rule of Satan (an older name of which being Pluto). So uncontrolled MICs bring plutocracy: Rome was the paradigm there.

We are in the process of creating another such example, because we did not heed general-president Eisenhower’s warning, that the Military Industrial Complex:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.”

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Eisenhower stays modern to this day. He saw the rise of plutocratic universities coming, with their fake thinkers, all dedicated to the power of money:

Eisenhower: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

A few days before democrats are going to surrender democracy to the power of money, once again, let me remind them, that this can happen only so many times.

Democracy needs to be defended, but, first, some will say that it needs to be worthy of a defense. Right.

However, democracy needs a strong enough Military Industrial Complex. The Athenians and other Greek democrats were initially successful at defeating Antipater. But then Krateros, hyper dangerous with his hardened troops arrived from the Orient, and the Athenian fleet, of 170 triremes, the largest since the wars against Persia, was defeated. Twice.

As I explained in “Aristotle Destroyed Democracy” the friendliness of Aristotle to Alexander, Antipater and Krateros, and thus, to the idea of monarchy, goes a long way to explain that the Greek MIC came short of the Macedonian MIC. The philosopher Demosthenes was not heard enough, in his strident, fully justified, prescient warnings against the savage, tyrannical Macedonians.

So here we are: pretty much 23 centuries of trampling of direct democracy, the one and only, by the forces of oligarchy, and, or, when oligarchy is not enough to rule, plutocracy. Ever since official plutocracy was installed in Athens by Antipater.

All this because the direct democratic military industrial complex came short to the one of the Macedonians. So let’s not despise the MIC. It can save the best. But now, we don’t have to worry about foreign enemies first: the plutocrats are already in power.

Patrice Ayme’

Marcus Aurelius, INTELLECTUAL FASCIST: Why Rome Fell (Part VIII)

February 16, 2016

Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (“Marcus Aurelius”) is generally revered both as emperor and philosopher. Both attitudes are grievously erroneous, and have a bearing to what very serious people have considered, ever since, as the highest wisdom to be embraced when trying to lead civilization, or the individual lives which sustain it. I will presently roll out some (new) reasons why the Marcus Aurelius’ cult is so wrong.

What endangered the Roman State? The question has been considered since the Third Century’s turmoil, the time of the “Barrack Emperors”, which started with the elimination of young emperor Alexander Severus, for buying the Germans, instead of crushing them.

In 360 CE emperor Julian explained why Christianism was bringing Romanitas down. Christians worshipped a secondary and “evil God” (and that the Serpent, bringing knowledge, was “good”!). Julian removed Christianism’s extravagant privileges (such as the right to execute heretics). However, Julian ruled only three years as Augustus (after 5 years as “Caesar”, subordinate emperor). Immediately thereafter, the Christians came back with great vengeance, burning libraries to the ground.

Inventor Of Intellectual Fascism Catches Flies With Philosophical Honey

Inventor Of Intellectual Fascism Catches Flies With Philosophical Honey

The thesis that Christianism, as practiced and implemented at the time, nearly destroyed civilization is obviously superficially true, and was supported in detail by Gibbon in the Decline and Fall of Rome (written in the eighteenth century). However, destruction-by-Christianism not the whole story. In truth, it’s plutocracy which brought Rome down, through a succession of ever more dreadful instruments to insure its reign. Christianism was only plutocracy’s latest weapon of civilizational domination (which brought destruction). Political and intellectual fascisms had arrived centuries earlier, rabid theocracy was only a twist therefrom.

Marcus Aurelius, emperor from 161 to 180 was the last of theFive Good Emperors” (his abominable son succeeded Marcus at the grand old age of nineteen). Marcus is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. Generally revered, he will be condemned here as a stealthy, sneaky, subterraneous yet explicit proponent of INTELLECTUAL FASCISM. Marcus’ elevation of Intellectual Fascism to a virtue explains a lot of things, from the “Fall of Rome” to the present sorry state of world governance.

I agree that this is shocking, and all the little ones will run for cover, squealing: Marcus Aurelius has a saintly, superficially justified reputation (and that, per se, is revealing: Marcus is a bit to philosophy what Einstein is to physics: a naked emperor whom the commons imagine fully dressed; critters prefer to have 140 characters anchored by a few celebrities they adore, like simple baboons adore the alpha females and males).

Even more shocking, Stoicism is supposed to be the behavior one adopts when a victim of fascism. Thus Stoicism is a behavior one would not expect from a proponent of fascism…. Until one realizes that, precisely, stoicism is, par excellence, the behavior in the masses which makes fascism possible. So Marcus fed what made him possible.

So let me severely criticize, as deserved, the following passage of Marcus Aurelius kindly provided by Massimo Pigliucci:

There are four principal aberrations of the superior faculty against which you should be constantly on your guard, and when you have detected them, you should wipe them out and say on each occasion thus: this thought is not necessary; this tends to destroy social union; this which you are going to say comes not from the real thoughts — for you should consider it among the most absurd of things for a man not to speak from his real thoughts. But the fourth is when you shall reproach yourself for anything, for this is an evidence of the diviner part within you being overpowered and yielding to the less honorable and to the perishable part, the body, and to its gross pleasures. (Meditations XI.19)”

[I don’t understand Marcus’ last sentence, he seems to take himself for god, but that’s besides the points I will make, so I will ignore this obscure sentence. I will address the two “principal aberrations” accented above. They define what wrecked the Roman State, what will wreck any state, and any civilization: intellectual fascism in its purest form for the first one, and even explicit political fascismo for the second.]

This thought is not necessary.” Says Marcus Aurelius. The emperor calls the apparition of ‘unnecessary thought’ one of the “four principal aberrations”. Sorry, Your Highness. When is a thought not necessary? When it’s not necessary to Your Excellency? And if a thought is necessary, what is it necessary for? Necessary to worship you and your kind, such as your five year old son, Commodus, whom you made a Caesar then, such a genius he was? No Roman emperor had been that grotesque, prior to you. Is that a non-necessary thought?

Is a thought then necessary when it embraces the desire of been guided by only a few thoughts reigning over the entire mind, just as Marcus Aurelius reigned over all men? In other words, is a thought necessary, and only then, when it embraces intellectual fascism? Or is that the big “stoic” philosopher thinks like the general of an army (something he was)..

Another of the Marcus’ “four principal aberrations” is lying… or more exactly “you should consider it among the most absurd of things for a man not to speak from his real thoughts”. In other words, the idea of “bad faith”. To trash and condemn Bad Faith is good. Many philosophers have done it, all the way up to Sartre. But then notice that Marcus Aurelius puts ‘unnecessary thoughts’ in the same category as “Bad Faith”.

Marcus also frowns on as a ‘principal aberration’: Any “thought [which] destroys social union”. Thus “social union” is part of the leading intellectual principles which should rule on the realm of ideas, just as Marcus Aurelius rules on men.

Now, any mental progress will disrupt brains, thus the “social union”. A society which knows “social union” and no revolution is condemned to stagnate mentality until the situation becomes uncontrollable. And this is exactly what happened to Rome the day Marcus died and his teenage son succeeded to him. A spectacular fall, driven by his son Commodus’ fateful decisions, in a matter of days, from which the Roman State never recovered.

Marcus Aurelius had decided that embracing intellectual fascism was the highest behavior, and imposed for more than two decades on 25% of humanity. I would suggest removing that element, that drive to mental shrinkage, from modern stoicism.

Those who know the history of the period with enough detail will not be surprised by my scathing critique. Instead they will realize that this was the missing piece to the logic of the disaster which befell civilization.

Indeed, immediately after Marcus Aurelius’ death Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus (“Commodus”), at the grand old age of 19, inverted all his father’s decisions (after saying he won’t).

Where did Commodus’ madness come from? Commodus, had been named “Caesar” at age 5… by his father, the great stoic parrot. How wise is that? It would feed megalomania, and indeed, Commodus was much more megalomaniac than the present leader of North Korea.

Commodus was accused of being a megalomaniac, in his lifetime. Commodus renamed Rome Colonia Commodiana, the “Colony of Commodus”. He renamed the months of the year after titles held in his honour, namely, Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, Exsuperatorius, Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, and Pius. Commodus renamed the Roman Senate the Commodian Fortunate Senate, and the Roman people were given the name Commodianus.

Cassius Dio, a senator and historian who lived during the reign of both Commodus and his father wrote that, with the accession of Commodus, “our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day.” Soon, it would descend even lower, in part because Marcus’ poisonous ideas would be revered so much.

It is probable that Marcus Aurelius was assassinated by his 19 year old son (officially Marcus died suddenly of the “plague”; but sophisticated poisons were well known, and had been used before in imperial affairs: Tiberius, the second Roman emperor, did not realize, for more than 15 years, that his two own adult sons, both of the most famous generals, had been poisoned to death by Rome’s prefect Sejanus: that was revealed after Sejanus tried a coup, and his accomplices talked). Commodus would kill his own sister shortly after his accession (she had opposed him).

In a way, Marcus’ assassination was well deserved. His superficially noble, but deeply despicable stoicism, and his brazen advocacy of political and intellectual fascism enabled Roman plutocracy to own the entire empire as if it were its own colony.

Whereas imperator Trajan had brought up taxes on the wealthiest to make education free for poor children, Marcus Aurelius went the other way: he did not have enough money to pay the army, when savage German tribes were trying to cut the empire, civilization, in two.

Some may sneer that I am condemning Marcus Aurelius for an unfortunate passage or two. Not so. Marcus’ entire work, both in philosophy, and as imperator, is an extension of his fundamental view that thinking should be restricted to what was useful. As if one could know in advance what thinking will be useful for. In his context, to boot, what Marcus meant by “useful” was what was useful to him, the one who proffered the thought.

Thought reduced to what was useful to just One, the One? How much more stupid and immoral can one be?

Nowadays, we face the fast rise of colossal inequalities which foster impoverishment, be it material, intellectual, or even cognitive. We have to realize that some of the apparently wisest, most respected and ancient philosophy is fully compatible with, and an engine of, this lamentable development.

Philosophy, poorly done, is the ultimate propaganda for the demise of the many by the self-chosen few.

Patrice Ayme’

REAL HISTORY: WORLD WAR ONE INCEPTION From Plutocracy Unchained

November 10, 2015

The real history is, all too often, still the secret history.

[This is chapter two of World War One, Patrice Ayme’s version. For the basic fault being Germany’s, see Chapter One]

Real history, all too often, still the secret history? This is so true that I am not the first to think of that. The Mongols did. The main, most revealing, horrors, massacres, and all,  most interesting and educational document we have on the history of the Mongols is called the “Secret History of The Mongols”. It was really secret, and written only for the elite (so they will learn how Genghis Khan did it, and the way he did it is much revealing than, say, the Prince of Machiavelli, or the “Art of War” of Sun Tzu). Another precious Mongol text survived as just one sample… In Japan! (Japan had sent spies to the Mongol court, generations before the Mongols attempted to invade Japan…)

A related truism: Learning history from one’s master is to condemn oneself to perpetuate one’s subjugation.

History conducive to one’s servitude can be subtle. Extremely subtle.

Take three lies about World War One which are viewed as obvious truths by historically minded, college educated commoners:

  1. The USA had nothing to do with World War One’s inception. The USA only got involved in the war, against Germany, in April 1917.
  2. European powers, and only them, all of them, are responsible of the inception of World War One.
  3. Germany was neither fascist nor “Nazi” in any sense (that is prone to mass murdering atrocities akin to holocausts) in 1914.

The three notions above are subtle lies, not apparent at first glance… at least as long as one gets all of one’s knowledge from (what passes for) official history books. Verily, one is often taught history by such good liars, they are the best, they don’t even know they lie. OK, not so subtle, it turns out, and certainly catastrophic. Catastrophic, gigantic lies whose consequences are alive and well as we try to think nowadays. Perpetuating these lies by repeating them like educated parrots, makes one incapable of understanding what is perhaps the main cause of evil in the world.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

For the third lie, one has just to look at what the Kaiser’s Germany did in Namibia: a deliberate holocaust aiming at exterminating the Natives and replacing them with Aryans. After French civilization was thrown out of Germany in 1815, Jews lost the equal rights they had acquired. The Hep-Hep riots took place throughout Germany, killing Jews, destroying their properties. Many German states stripped Jews of their civil rights. Nazism was a repetition, not an innovation (except in the sense that it got help from IBM; see the book: “IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation for further edification).

Some still insist that the Kaiser’s Germany, a dictatorship, was on a level field with those it attacked, including the French and British democracies. The Kaiser’s Germany deliberately launched a world war in early August 1914, knowing full well it would be a world war, but hoping to take out militarily, in quick succession a whole number of powers, including the French Republic, and later Russia, to force an advantageous peace on Great Britain. Five men took the decision to attack: the Kaiser, and His four top generals. The two admirals present were highly reluctant, but they gained only a delay. Five men: not a democracy in any sense.

If one does not realize the three points above are lies, one cannot understand the causal system which brought World War One. Still historians have written thousands of books on the subject, which more or less treat the three lies above as if they were not the lies they are, but self-evident truths. How come those noble, much honored doctors of history missed the truth so much? Is it because they are called “doctors” and thus doctor history? Is it because they were paid to sell books, and to entertain the ruling paradigm: pro-”American”, anti-European, anti-democratic. In a variant, Germans were crazy militarists (true, but irrelevant for understanding what sparked the German government into action).

Something similar happened with World War Two. One cannot understand the causal system which brought World War Two, if one does not known a number of facts which are completely ignored by (most) “official” history, and, certainly, all plutocratic universities.

Instead the usual causal system used is just to announce that the Nazis were, well, Nazis, stupid, racist, hateful criminals who did not know what they were doing.

The much more frightening truth is the following. Against plutocracy, the Nazis themselves contended in vain. The Nazis were bent to lethal self-destruction, in part because they got carefully manipulated into insanity. Manipulated? The historian Dodd was the ambassador of the USA and his grim assessment of the nature of Nazism was shared by his colleague, the French ambassador. To avoid being listened to, thanks to the omnipresent Nazi microphones, the two ambassadors used to take walks in the “garden of the beasts” (Tiergarten” in Deutsch). Now there is an American book by that title.

Roosevelt replaced the anti-Nazi ambassador by a pro-Nazi one, and did the same in London, or Paris (where Roosevelt went as far as recognizing immediately the unconstitutional Vichy regime established under the Nazi guns; Churchill and the Commonwealth never recognized the Vichy puppets as the legitimate French state or government: rightly so, because it was not)

To come back to the three lies above they create the following moods advantageous to the present rulers (and it helps define who said rulers are!):

  1. The USA is innocent in all matters pertaining to European insanity.
  2. Europeans are crazy, lethal nuts, much inferior to the wise and balanced American sort.
  3. All and any European democracies are not different from fascist, war criminally insane regimes such as the 1914 German dictatorship. It’s all a level playing field. Only the USA stands loftily above that mess.

The historical truth is completely different.

But, to find it, one has to look for those who had interest to launch a war. Clearly the Second Reich plutocracy (top capitalists, profiteers and generals) was aware, and declared, that the French Republic and democratizing Russia were overtaking Germany’s economic might. To the point the evil men who ruled Germany soon would not be sure to win a war against them. War was planned “within 18 months of December 11, 1912.

Moreover the German socialists were getting increasingly agitated, as they wonder aloud why Germany could not democratize too, or, even, become a Republic.

So German plutocracy was culprit. However, by June 1, 1914, no special preparation had been engaged. Three days earlier the Archiduke of Austro-Hungary had been assassinated.

That day, June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the envoy of the president of the USA, the world’s greatest economic power, met with the German dictator, the Kaiser. House did entertain the Kaiser ‘s racial folly and did promise military and civilian aid, which was delivered for the first three years of the war of fascist Germany against (much more) democratic France and Britain.

Colonel House did even more: House proposed to the Kaiser a world government of Britain, the USA and Germany, as long as Germany renounced its project to build the world’s premier military fleet, as it already had the world’s most powerful army.

In the law of the USA, if one drives the get-away car, while a murderous hold-up is conducted, one is viewed as a murderer too (at least by the prosecutors).

In this case the USA’s leadership presented the plan to the Kaiser. The plan of the mass murder hold-up of, not just Europe, but the entire world. With the help of the USA, the Kaiser and his murderous accomplices had a chance. Otherwise they would fall prey to the (German) Socialists. Assuredly.

Hitler and his top Nazis would make the same computation in the 1930s. The Nazis had every reason to believe the USA was playing a double game: claiming to stand against Hitler, while doing everything to help him for real. A bit more thinking would have led them to realize that, as in the First World War, the leadership of the USA (those who pull the strings of US presidents) was playing not a double, but a triple game. But thinking was hard for the Nazis, even when they survival depended upon it…

To come back to World War One, together the French and British high sea fleets had a crushing superiority on the Kaiser’s fleet. They could have blockaded Germany. The total blockade from France and Britain would have starved fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany out of the war in JUST ONE YEAR.

However, that was without counting the USA. Using the “neutral” Netherlands, the USA fed fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany as if it were a newborn baby. Including with several materials Germany absolutely needed to make AMMUNITIONS.

Ammunition  making materials were provided deliberately to the Kaiser, in spite of French and British protests to Washington. So were the USA and the Netherlands neutral in World War One? NoIf a country helps massively and crucially a mass murdering enterprise as the Kaiser’s Reich, it is an accomplice of said mass murdering enterprise. (Same holds for Sweden in the early years of WW2.)

One could argue that the Netherlands was afraid to be invaded, as courageous neutral Belgium was. That’s a mitigating circumstance, indeed. However, the invasion argument does not apply to the mighty USA.

I view the USA as the Deus Ex Machina of World War One. Or, more exactly, the USA’s corrupt plutocracy. helped make German plutocracy into a democracy destroying juggernaut. Right, France and Britain survived, but barely, and with crushing debts to their last minute ally, the USA. France’s demography would need more than a generation to recover.

US plutocracy would repeat the performance in the 1930s with Nazism (which US American plutocracy more or less instigated, financed, created, inspired, and even fed one-liners to, let alone Harvard songs)

So here we are.

And we are here, with a rising plutocracy (so-called “wealth inequality”), which has transformed the world in a sort of Kabuki theater, complete with elaborate make-up.

We are here because few perceive how manipulated not just the interpretation, but the very nature of the historical universe have been distorted.

Indeed the ambivalent role of the USA’s leadership, having not been suspected, detected, let alone analyzed, went on with its self-promoting ways, still unsuspected, undetected, let alone unanalyzed.

Over-simplistic conventional “anti-Americanism” or “anti-capitalism” is a friend of this cover-up, because it eschews serious, informed, in-depth revelation, and exposition of the profiteer class (now well hidden inside the Dark Pools of faceless money, more than half of the world’s money).

All deep questions ponder what was the logic precedingly involved. Thus the deepest questions are always historical in nature to some extent.

Therefore, the inability, or lack of inclination, to be as critical of history feeds the inability and lack of inclination to tackle the deepest questions… Such as the survival of humanity, presently at play.

Ah, and what of the main cause of evil in the world? It’s not, as the trite truth has it, that good human beings did nothing, when they could have. It’s rather that, good people, deciding to know nothing, refuse to check out the details. As everybody knows, this is akin to leaving the Devil alone, free to go on with His machinations and His not-so subtle lies.

US plutocracy helped to manipulate Europe into disaster in World War One, and World War Two. Whether that was a deliberate, conscious plot from major US actors, from US plutocrats and their administrative enablers, is besides the point. It should have been seen, it was not, and it is still not seen. Essay like the present one are ignored, and viewed as the work of silly lunatics (supposing there is more than yours truly).

Patrice Ayme’

One God, One Thought, All Submitted

June 24, 2015

God As A Conspiracy Of Plutocracy:

You want guidance, oh souls who are lost? Then it’s best to stay away from stupidity.

It’s rather daft to believe that not believing in gods, which are human inventions, somehow misses upon some of the human condition by not taking fairy tales as real. Make no mistakes: fairy tales are useful. It’s good to believe a little bit in them.

To act, to proceed into any action, we have, somehow to believe, that engaging in it will make a difference. Beliefs are good, indispensable. It’s not just those who believe in superstition(s), who believe in something. We all do.

But when potentates try to sell a particular brand of belief as the end-all, be-all, they are deluded. Or, worse, they want us to be deluded. What for? Once we are made stupid, we can be exploited. (A live example of incredible exploitation is the situation in Greece, where an enormous conspiracy makes an entire people pay for financial plots they did not engage in.)

That Son, Crispus, Was Really Killed By His Christian Father, Constantine

That Son, Crispus, Was Really Killed By His Christian Father, Constantine

[Solidus representing Caesar Crispus, Constantine’s first son, assassinated by his father in 326 CE. Constantine is a “Saint” of Orthodox Christianity: if you believe in Constantine’s sainthood, you are ready to die for banksters, and, or, monks.]

Most of the 10,000 or so religions we know of had, each, many “gods”. However not so the religion of Abraham. Who imposed that? Generals. Constantine was a general, he took over the Roman empire in his twenties. Later he steamed his wife alive, killed his nephew, and his gifted son (who did not like his father’s “Catholicism”).

The other great general was Muhammad himself (and his successors, aka Caliphs).

The one and only god was imposed, because he was an excellent role model for the one and only fascist in power: fascist on the throne, fascist in the sky. It just fit. The religion founded by one general is naturally one with a general on the top.

That does not mean one should not look positively to the present pope: he makes a nice Father Christmas. (And has many excellent ideas, such as cap and trade of carbon perm its being a sin… As I long believed.)

India has a million gods. But the fascist military structure implicit in Christianism helped Europeans to conquer the world. With Biblical efficiency.

How? India, under polytheism, had zero religious wars (as Partha a commenter to this site, pointed out). Why? Polytheism accommodates many feelings, ideas, dispositions, characters, and divinize them all. This insures tolerance where it is the most important to have it, in the heart.

However, under the fascist god, any slip of interpretation of proper worship may result in divine annihilation, thus it’s of the essence to kill unbelievers. That’s why religious wars and holocausts (as happened to the Samaritans) started in the Roman empire after Constantine imposed Christianism. Before that there had been none since the Romans had done away with human sacrifice religions (Gaul, Carthage), four centuries prior.

The essence of monotheistic theology is, if you will forgive the neologism, fascitology. It’s military pathology in disguise, and how to make intolerance divine. Killing god is a must for those who want to be free.

And that’s exactly why the SS adopted in 1933 “Gott Mit Uns!” (God With US) and the Congress of the USA goose-stepped behind in 1954 with “In God We Trust”.

Making We The People stupid with god enables masters to manipulate it down into complete impotence and destitution. As observed.

And this is precisely while the malignant cult of god grew in the USA, as plutocracy came to rule ever more (the initial establishment of the American Republic, was all about “Nature’s God”, not about the Christian fascist superstition).

To goose step behind banksters, all you need is god.

Patrice Ayme’


Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century