KNOW, THUS SURVIVE

(Old Hominid adage…)

HUMANITY IS SCIENCE, SCIENCE IS HUMANITY, DARK AND LIGHT.

Primitives, oligarchs and their obsequious servants, regressives and obscurantists insist that science is something special, reserved to slightly deranged specialists, smelling of sulfur and devoid of feeling. Actually, that’s completely false, and an attempt by oligarchs to persuade their subjects that they can’t think. Humanity is science and science is humanity. It is important to understand this, because, if one doesn’t, not only progress is impossible, but what it means to be human, misundertood. One then goes around like the Absurdists, making a religion of Stalin, or Sysiphus, ready to become subjects of tyrants.

“Science” comes from scire, to know [1]. By this, all is said about why brains were evolved. Without knowledge, advanced animals are nothing, they die. That includes migratory birds. Migratory birds, from Europe to Africa, suffer as much as 70% mortality on their first attempted migration. What are they doing on their first migration? Following those they know who know. On the return trip, only 50% mortality: the birds are learning. 

Intelligence means adaptability. Many storks (cigognes) figure out that, considering climate warming, they will survive the winter better than the dangerous migration meant to avoid said winter. Thus some decide not to migrate, and, instead reside in Europe year round. This is a new phenomenon. This stork climate science is not fundamentally different from Kepler’s curve fitting in the discovery of his three laws that planet follow (equal areas, ellipses, relation between period and radius). Observe nature, model nature, draw conclusion (s).

***

HUMANITY IS THE KNOWLEDGE SPECIES:

The two species of chimpanzees and gorillas and the three species of orangutans are full of knowledge on their environment, including medicinal plants, and potential predators whom they are keen to confront, be they lions or tigers. However their mental capability does not exceed that of a five year old human, so there is only that much they can discover, and transmit through culture.

The earliest fossils argued by their discoverers to belong to the human lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus. The human peripatetic (walking on two legs, running), semi-predatory way of life was launched in those early times, making our ancestors into killer apes.

Humans learned sophisticated meat procurement strategies around three million years ago. We know this from the latest excavations revealing stone tools and weapons. Hunting enabled humans to grow more power hungry brains, in a virtuous circle of meat fueled culture feeding evolution and reciprocally. Then fire was conquered. Making fire in a wet wintry forest is more than an art: it had to be a science to insure survival. The temperate zone, with its rigorous winters, could be colonized only from mastering fire and the making of clothing. This happened two million years ago, with Homo Ergaster.

There is evidence of trade on huge distances, even 50,000 years ago, say in Australia. Thus humanity developed the knowledge, long ago, that trade enabled advanced technology.

The knowledge species became the planetary species. For example, all over the Pacific Ocean, which covers nearly half the globe, trade routes developed. The South American sweet potato ended in the Highlands of New Guinea… That was very mysterious until Thor Heyerdahl, a Norwegian adventurer and ethnographer with a background in zoology, botany and geography. Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki expedition in 1947, sailed 8,000 km across the Pacific Ocean in a hand-built raft from South America to the Tuamotu Islands. In truth, Polynesians had much more sophisticated ships. Seventy years later, Polynesian genes have been discovered in South America, demonstrating the existence of trade across the Pacific long before Magellan showed.

To sail the ocean required advanced astronomy. Some will scoff: we are much more advanced now, and they will chuckle. Oh yeah? Then explain why modern science can’t explain what most of the mass of the universe, Dark matter and Dark Energy possibly could be (excluding yours truly’s explanation: SQPR)… 

Humanity spread in areas without wood or fossil fuels, where, without technology, it could not have survived for more than a few hours: polar and desert areas, high seas, and high mountains ranges and plateaus. 

When we colonize the Solar System, it will be more of the same.

The most dangerous animal, we the cuddlies. For thousands of generations before the Neolithic and the emergence of civilizations, human females were as dangerous as human males, because females had access to extremely lethal poisoned weapons used to kill megafauna (which they probably made themselves). We have direct evidence of this in 20C hunting and gathering populations.

The modern submissive human female is a consequence of the rise of specialized civilization with warrior castes, and breeding armies of enslaved females. Female submission is a completely artificial artefact of a stage in civilization. Czarina Catherine the Great conquered Southern Ukraine, ethnic cleasing it, and calling it “Little Russia”… She was not even Russian… And Voltaire admired her…

***

Ian Miller replied: “The interesting question is what was the evolutionary force that led to humans to acquire enhanced brains? The usual proposition is that the ancestors of chimpanzees were happy where they were. Our ancestors tried new territory, and the prompt weeding out of those who were unsuitable led to more rapid evolutionary advancement.”

***

Happy where they were, and perhaps too happy… If you feel right always, you are not trying hard enough: this is our distant ancestors thought, as they headed away from the trees. Occupying a new ecological niche always favorizes new speciation. So a species niche making at will, will self-evolve, and exponentiate, this is indeed what happened: Will to power through the power of new niches. Amor Nidificans, not Amor Fati.  

The old proposition of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was that life tends to increase complexity. Lamarck observed that through his microscope, studying mollusks’ fossil evolution. Such a force is the opposite of entropy. To understand it we will have to get a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics and entanglement. As the complexifying force exerts itself upon the environment, new ecological niches are created, and then, occupied by life itself. 

***

Chimps love meat: it is more calorie laden than all other foods. Chimpanzees are also hyper aggressive. Chimpanzees also tend to spill out of the forest. I saw one large male chimp in savannah park, maybe 100 kilometers from the first serious forest, in an area full of lions and leopards. He demonstrated to me his unbelievable insanity, humongous strength, and delirious ferocity, half demolishing a solitary tree he had climbed on, in the process.  

Our ancestors were even more chimp-like than chimp themselves, on the Dark Side, and lived in the savannah more than other chimps. They could do so only if they were smarter and more violent. But then they prevented less smart and less violent chimps from joining. 

I suspect our ancestors used stones and branches as weapons early on, more than other primates: otherwise they would have been powerless and defenseless… And used them to the point that this usage drove human evolution. They had to keep at bay not only other chimps, but baboons and giant baboons (a species they dispatched early on). Baboons are hyper aggressive, to a ridiculous extent, but they fear chimps (who eat their young). Thus the human ancestors created a niche for themselves: hominoids are better at stone throwing than other primates because of the fact they can hang from their arms. Long arms swinging down give more momentum to stones (some baboons in Africa could testify to that fact when interacting with the ten year old version of yours truly). 

To survive in this more difficult niche, human created, our ancestors had to be smarter. The less bright ones got eaten. 

In any case, this is a story of extreme violence: failures don’t get to eat, let alone reproduce, and, instead, get eaten. 

I observed in the wild that psychology is very important. All brainy animals tend to do mental analysis, and they take the circumstances into context. I do not kill venomous snakes who do not engage in aggressive behavior. In general smart animals do not engage in aggressive behavior if the profit/risk ratio is not high enough. That’s what brains are for. But that profit/risk ratio is itself the fruit of a psychological evaluation, both from predator and prey. That’s why it’s in general a bad idea to run away from a predator. 

***

Humans Are The Most Violent Species:

Violence is fundamentally the application of force on the environment: what could be more human? What species has modified Earth more than humans? Blue green algae creating Earth’s oxygen? Vegans planting genetically engineered soy, drenched by toxic fertilizers, to the horizon, where there used to be forests, will deny this, and flaunt their sheepiness, forgetting in their self-celebration, that the goat is a satanic symbol. If beavers kill forests to shelter their dwellings with dams, that’s indeed a form of violence. 

Thus extreme violence, be it only on the environment, be it only by colonizing it, establishing new ecological niches, extreme smarts and refined psychological analysis pervading nature, human, animal or physical, were the engines driving humanity forward for millions of years. Spending a few hours in a totally wild place full of megafauna, and without weapons, reveals this in a hurry: only the threat of potential hyperviolence keeps predators at bay… As long as one knows them well.

Once, hiking up a mountain with my family, I have exchanged verbal threats with a converging brown bear (Eurasian grizzly) for more than half an hour in an Iranian forest… The most terrible scream I did ever manage finally got him to go away (nothing else worked). Once in Yosemite, a large and fast stone impacting on a charging ursine target did it. And I had to demonstrate stone power to threatening bears several times. Bears know stones perfectly well, and fear them; once they know that you are a stone master, with resounding impacts on a third object to reveal that notion to their thick skulls, they retreat. Indeed, making a demonstration of stone throwing generally gets bears to gallop away. Unassisted cross country mountain running with minimal equipment in forest full of inquiring bears was my passion for decades, and it reveals nature’s psychology: a sort of pantheism is eminently practical. Survival tricks are a must. They can be as simple as not wearing headphones, or never stepping not far from something that could hide a lethal snake waiting in ambush.

It goes without saying that being ruled by smarts and ready to engage in preventive violence are not exactly “woke” notions. Integrating that fundamental truth, that smarts and violence dominate, or denying that it exists, is exactly why China went down for centuries, when it was overrun by foreigners, or why Europe has been going down for more than a century, or why China is coming back up, and why the US exists, and why the US is on its way up, more than ever (Biden plays woke, but only on TV; otherwise Biden is Trump 2.0).

We are the knowledge species, and more knowledge is how, on the average, our ancestors learned to survive better. 

Now is not any different. It is actually much more so: the survival of the species was never in doubt, until today and only new and better knowledge will save it.

Ah, and what of Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am!”. Well, “I am” was never in doubt. Anybody who thinks a bit knows that “being”, perception, precedes thinking. And there are plenty of situations when one feels that one is, and one does not, or can’t, think. So, whatever Descartes tried to say, it’s neither here nor there.

We are the knowledge species, we are potentially all scientists, critiques and thinkers. Except that oligarchs and plutocrats want us to believe most of us are no better, and at our best, as sheep… We will be, as a species, only if we think enough to know what is right, and important.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Old French science “knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge” (12 C.), from Latin scientia “knowledge, a knowing; expertness,” from sciens (genitive scientis) “intelligent, skilled,” present participle of scire “to know.”

HUMANITY IS A SINGULARITY. There Is Nobody Else. We Are The Only Masters Of Truth

Masters Of Truth Few In Milky Way.

We humans are masters of truth. 

Plutocrats are not, but then, by definition, are not truly human. 

The cult of Satan goes only that far. It lives a lie, that pain overrules all. Humanity will go much further. 

Prehistorically speaking, children need parents primordially. But, as adults, prehistoric people needed truth more than friends. This is how we humans became truth machines.

If there are masters, somewhere else in the galaxy,

They are also Masters of Truth, Wealth And Taste.

But they did not visit, so it’s only us,

And we have just one shot at it.

This is it.

So let’s not talk falsely now.

***

Where is everybody? … Said Enrico Fermi (Nobel for the neutron), seventy years ago, while considering the heavens and their lack of space alien civilizations. Since then the mystery, called the “Fermi Paradox” has thickened. Indeed many, if not most, single stars seem to have planets (however I think this is not clear for close binary systems, like Alpha and Beta Centauri [1]) .

    1) The same biological selection mechanism forcing the supreme species to become truth machines, would have occurred with any species which gave birth to civilizations… In other words any civilization is supremely intelligent. Mussels don’t a civilization make.

Civilization will tend to expand through the galaxy, because ecological exhaustion threatens any biological system, lest expansion is hard wired into its reality. Expanding in the galaxy would make a civilization successful forever. However: 

• 2) A civilization somewhere in the Milky Way would have spread:

Our giant galaxy is more than 10 billion years old. Let’s suppose a civilization had evolved somewhere in it. Let’s also suppose that all the technology we could deploy soon enough is all there is. Let’s not even suppose that a civilization could use antimatter propulsion… Although we could anticipate to have it some day soon (it consists into storing enough anti matter, and then slowly adding it to normal matter to obtain gigantic amount of energy).

But let’s assume that this civilization has nuclear propulsion…that can deliver a huge amount of power as the US NOVA project demonstrated… half a century ago. Nuclear propulsion should enable speed of the order of Earth to the Moon in one hour… For arbitrarily large vessels. 

So let’s say c/1000 is achievable. The galaxy is 100,000 light years across… So a civilization starting at one extremity could get to the opposite in 100 million years.

• 3) But Life evolved on Earth:

Another fact to ponder is that life evolved on Earth in a slow and very progressive fashion: there is no indication whatsoever of outside interference. Many species which turned into blind alleys are still found here and there, demonstrating that Earth was an in-house biological experiment; there is no need for transgalactic panspermia (although Earth life may have started on Mars) [2].

      4) Thus that there was no tinkering with terrestrial life, seems to imply, in first approximation, that there was, and probably there is, no other civilization in the entire galaxy. 

Granted, some civilization could have evolved somewhere in the last fifty million years and expanded at a snail pace, and we don’t know about it. But the probability of that is .5% (half a percent; just divide!)

To evolve its own life, endogenous life, sustainably, a planet needs to be big enough to have water… However, not so big that it is only an ocean

Some may object that civilization could well self-destruct on Earth before we expand among the stars. Well, a civilization which cannot expand beyond its home world will probably self-destruct, one way or another, so is it really a civilization? Is a destroyed creature still a creature?

***

Some will think of the “Prime Directive” of Star Trek: do not mess up with existing civilizations. Right. But the “Prime Directive” is not about primitive life forms.  Besides, Star Trek violates the Prime Directive all the time (interfering with the Borg, “Q”, etc.). 

So my point is this: few planets are as “goldilocks”, everything great and hospitable to life as Earth. If a civilization had expanded, it would have spotted Earth, and found it irresistible. To believe it would not have sojourned, and instead respectfully just withdraw away for three billion years and the apparition of the first sponges after a few bouts of great oxidations and snowball Earth… stretches credibility. Remember the putative extrasolar civilization would be extremely intelligent and into wealth and taste. It would not have passed Earth over. 

But it did.

So it does not exist [3].

*** 

Seriously: we took only 10,000 years between the first cities and expanding beyond the home world. In other words, 

HUMANITY HAS BEEN A SINGULARITY.  

We are singular in more ways than one.

We all need to meditate on what it means.

It means we have a single chance.

As it is, the singularity in consumption of various basic elements and features is a complete explosion at the geological time scale. We are peaking in our usage of fossil fuels, phosphates, countless metals, even… Uranium. We are also causing a mass extinction. I, yours truly, even claim the oxygen density is compromised (from combusting permafrost… while killing the seas with carbonic acid…).

We can do this, and we are doing it.

But we have to do it well.

That means we have to use the occasion, the occasion of the present singularity, to develop enough advanced science to become a multi-planet species.

This is why I am not criticizing the world’s wealthiest engineer, Elon Musk (I used to criticize him, more than a decade ago, when I thought he aimed too low technologically… He obviously changed that, by developing several advanced technologies that nearly nobody thought could be done…) 

More well financed technological adventuring is the solution… Torpedoing promising technologies is not. 

That real ecologists ask for perfect nuclear power is perfect. So am I, a real ecologist, so I ask for ecological perfection in nuclear matters. And it can be done.

Paradoxically, because it was not asked, it was not done. 

The fake ecologists, by shooting down nuclear, instead of calling to improve it, have made the Anthropocene’s ecological crisis much worse.

That ill-educated individuals earn respect by speaking about physics they can’t even imagine is contemptible,

But when, like Greta Thurnberg, powerful celebrities friendly with the most powerful, strike moral poses, while helping kill millions, with the fossil fuels they implicitly foster, they disrupt our singularity nefariously. We have to call nasty monkeys as they are, and so we do.   

We have had a singularity. With the help of the emerging science of the Quantum Computer, everything, and foremost our understanding of everything, is going to change much faster imminently. 

The singularity is upon us ever more.

We have to adapt to this singular ambiance.

Thus what, personally? It is high time for us to personally become more singular. 

Question Authority. Start with Identity and Identification.

You are what you are. Remember they cannot tell you who you are.

And that means how to debate. People like to debate, because people are, genetically, truth machines. Debate is how one can progress in understanding… Even if the debate is only with oneself… Real censorship kills the will to debate first. De-bate, beating thoroughly, is what we do with the universe… But out of beating the egg white comes a completely different geometrical and chemical structure, the meringue. So it is as we beat the universe completely: we create new structures… We better understand that, to create better structures… Some (nuns, Buddhists, despondent ecologists and their ilk) will suggest to do nothing. But doing nothing is still doing something… as long as one is not just feeding the worms…

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] 11 astronomical units, that is eleven times the Earth-Sun distance separate at their closest the two sun like stars Alpha and Beta Centauri (at their furthest, they are 33 AUs away, the closest distance of Pluto.). 11 AUs is the distance from the Sun to Saturn. But Beta Centauri is 10,000 times (very roughly) the mass of Saturn. Thus its disturbance would be 10,000 times greater, and it is imaginable that the putative planetary orbits would be 10,000 times less stable…. In other words the orbits would have to be, at the very least, in resonance. The existence of planets in close binaries needs investigation… Proxima Centauri, which is much further out, has at least two planets… 

***

[2] In “2001, A Space Odyssey” an extrasolar civilization messes up with primate evolution, creating humans. We know enough to know that this did not happen. However, intelligence did accelerate human evolution. Terrestrial intelligence: humanity’s own human intelligence self-selected for ever more human intelligence… No need for little green men… And yes, waging war successfully requires greater smarts…

***

[3] Mathematicians love this sort of reasoning, “ad absurdum“.

WE WANT IT DARKER

Should we fear the opprobium of those who are scared that others may become afraid of our thoughts? This is the latest hilarious twist of “identity politics” in the USA. “Identity politics”, also known as tribalism, in times less twisted by unhinged euphemisms. In other words, should we bow to the worst of the Middle Ages’ theological ways and means? Quite the opposite: it is high time to fight back against intellectual fascism of the basest kind, the kind which claims to defend the sheep, by preaching it to bleat, rather than teaching the sheep to learn to think. Creating thinking means learning to debate, unafraid of all and any possible logic. But for that one has to be in the right mood. So what is the proper mood for more advanced thinking? Here it is, and even “Scripture” agrees with us:

WE PHILOSOPHERS OF THE DANGEROUS MAYBES, WANT IT DARKER. 

Those who are afraid of getting afraid, maybe, perhaps, can now stop reading: they belong to what fails, and will always fail. That includes the lack of reading comprehension, which they delve in. Those robust enough to read the Book, can hang on. Our predecessors wanted it darker, because it was the only way to greater greatness. And greatness, is not just what we are. But greatness is what we need. 

Greatness is not just what we became, and are. It is what we, humanity as it stands today, needed to survive. We evolved into greatness. (Slogan for humanity: ‘make humanity great again!’)

We wanted it darker, otherwise, we would never have gone where those who did not become our ancestors  didn’t. They didn’t get there because they both did not want to, and thus, could not, dash through the dark. And feel the pull of the dark.

When our predecessors wanted to understand what others didn’t even suspect, they have got to have wanted it darker.

There is glory in the human species, only because we wanted it darker. It’s written in the scriptures, and yes, it’s no idle claim. We wrote, because we wanted it darker. Bacteria only search for more sugar. We searched darkness, through more darkness. Darkness is sugar for intelligence aspiring to ultimate greatness.

The Gate May Be Golden, But Surviving Is The Only Manifest Destiny Of A World Around A Star. We Want It Darker, Be It Only Because We Need A Rest From The Light, And Need To Go To The Bottom Of Things.

Some have meekly whined that philosophers (yours truly, Patrice Aymé, much later Slavoj Žižek) went to the Dark Side by demolishing the Democratic party, this horror of the demonic side, hidden in the light of its self-glorification. However, only philosophers who love to understand the Dark Side with undisguised enthusiasm, sanctifying thoroughness, could expose the viciousness of the Democratic Party.

And thus helping to get Trump elected, over the twitching bodies of countless, half-wit, rich, politically connected entertainers, globalocrats, and wealthiest people in the world. (A difference between me and Slavoj Žižek is that The Guardian or the New  York Times interview Slavoj Žižek, whereas they censor all and any of my comments relentlessly; those pseudo-left, plutocratically owned, Main Stream Media have, correctly, perceived that I am  better informed, and thus much more dangerous, than the relatively meek, much more predictable, very official Žižek ; The Guardian is financed by Plutos like the holy  Gates conspirators. The same Plutos have owned, mostly, the New York Times, since the Nineteenth Century…)

Ah, and yes, Trump is supposed to be the Dark Side. Little do these little ones know. What Dark really is. (There is a whole tradition, dating to Rousseau, to refuse to look at the Dark Side, and, instead, of accusing civilization; De Sade excoriated Rousseau for his criminal naivety; in this, and many other related matters pertaining to the Revolution of 1789, De Sade would be proven right. Sade was right about the Revolution, because he was a specialist of the Dark Side, and thus could easily predict how the calculus of Evil would turn out, in consequence of apparently innocuous strategies full of goodness, but, also, full of long-term idiocy!)

The Romans knew well how dark darkness was: right from the start, king Tarquinus Superbus threatened their freedoms. Thereafter, over the centuries, in many wars Rome’s very existence was called into question (Gauls from the Paris area even conquered Rome around 390 CE).

When finally Rome became master of the world, ‘man is a wolf for man‘ (Homo Homini Lupus) had become a motto never to be forgotten. Judeo-Christian ideology then augmented Rome, and spread, far out of the Roman empire, even before the Roman state morphed into the Frankish state.  It is fascinating that Jews and Romans came to the same conclusion. But they were war people, that’s how they survived. And why they merged: made for each other (the Franks were even more war-like, allowing them to gobble everybody happily, in a digestive consensus).

Countless thinkers and philosophers have been tortured to death, through the ages. Just because they wanted it darker, they had to want it darker, and the commons hated them for it. (The superiority of the West mostly originates from just enough original thinking squeaking through to save the progress of civilization.)

The truth always starts dark, and in the dark. The Enlightenment always starts the hard way, in the Dark. It is the first thing they have to do: creative thinkers stop fearing the Dark Side. They have this in common with little children.

Thus, Dark Side tourism is necessary for depth. So what? No Dark Side, no humanity. (Actually this propensity and necessity, this breathing of fear, is why people love horror stories, scary movies, cliffhangers, dangerous sports, bad news, etc.)

Notice that this interest for all things dark, is a much greater vision than the well-known observation that the Dark Side is necessary for goodness to triumph over evil. Carpet bombing with flowers did not deconstruct Nazism, right. Eradication of evil, is no evil. One just want to make sure.

But physical power of evil is not all what there is to destroy. Even worse is the power of evil ideas.  We will destroy evil ideas, we can only destroy them, by bringing the fury of light, on the darkest dark.

Let’s spell it shockingly enough to leave a trace: To put it roughly, changing one’s mind, and the minds of others, is all about destroying brain tissue. One has to wreck the old mind, to build a better one. This is really about the most delicate circuitry being wiped out, and setting up a new one.

Too much light brings blindness, thus darkness. We have seen this in the US election: sixty million Americans, including millions of Obama lovers, wanted to “shake things up”. At any cost. The 60 millions who voted Trump had finally seen through the darkness, because they had not been afraid of the dark: they wanted, they had got ready for darker explanations of what was really going on. One has to love conspiracies, to bring them to light.

Blinded by this undeniable light, many Clinton fanatics went completely berserk, heaping insults on their fellow Americans, in the name, they claimed, of the goodness which defined them. Enraged Clinton supporters are pushed, by the light, into ignominous darkness. Enlightened into a darkness they are ill-trained to handle properly. Why? Because they never visited darkness before, they denied its very existence, at least inside themselves. They denied it, because they did not want it. They did not want to consider it so much, they did not see it grow into themselves and their hearts, or from the policies the “Democratic” Party supported sometimes for more than 40 years (like invading Afghanistan). 

So why do we want it darker? Not just because there is no light without dark. Not just because no ying, no yang.

WE WANT IT DARKER, BECAUSE WE WANT TO TURN ON THE MOOD, THE MOOD WHICH REALITY INFLICTS, SO MUCH WE ARE IT.

Now that I got accused of blatant Nazism, antisemitism, xenophobia, OCD, and exuberant SSitude, by crazed pseudo-progressives, let me add to the torture of my moaning victims, by rolling out a Cohen, (Hebrew: כֹּהֵן, kōhēn, “priest“), to my rescue.

Indeed, the late, great, Leonard Cohen came partly to some of the conclusions in the present essay, in his last work, released a few weeks ago: You Want It Darker. One point Leonard Cohen makes is that the Judeo-Christian scriptures depicted an intrinsically very dark picture of the human condition. Hey, don’t look at us funny: the divine condition itself is strikingly dark, so this is essay is not just a justification of man, but even god! (Yes, I am an “atheist”. Of sorts. In practice, though, and hard-core atheists don’t understand this, god exists, it’s a useful abbreviation). Here is Leonard Cohen latest, and last, title track:

“If you are the dealer, I’m out of the game

If you are the healer, it means I’m broken and lame

If thine is the glory then mine must be the shame

You want it darker

We kill the flame

Magnified, sanctified, be thy holy name

Vilified, crucified, in the human frame

A million candles burning for the help that never came

You want it darker

Hineni, hineni

I’m ready, my lord”

All right, full stop, let me provide readers with a text explanation many are going to need. Hineni, Hineni means: “Here I am, here I am”… in Hebrew.; “Hineni” was supposedly uttered by Moses. And also for Abraham, when god felt like killing his child.

“We Want It Darker” is serious psychobiology, it does not get any more serious. It is evolutionary, it is how we were made: with an irresistible attraction for what is out there in the dark. Curiosity may kill the cat, but curiosity enabled us to set a trap for the cat. By forgetting this, mad bull has lost his way.  

Back to Leonard Cohen, and his song, We Want It Darker:

“There’s a lover in the story

But the story’s still the same

There’s a lullaby for suffering

And a paradox to blame

But it’s written in the scriptures

And it’s not some idle claim

You want it darker

We kill the flame”

“It is written in the scriptures and it’s not some idle claim” You want it darker.” Yes, we want it darker, and please kill the flame. Kill that light from out there, and let’s please concentrate on what we are. What you are, yes.

Watch those ridiculous protesters in the streets, finally waking up to the fact they need to help the president of the USA, with healthy protests. Where were they, eight years ago, when Obama needed their help? To protest against the pro-plutocratic policies which were forced (let’s say) onto Obama? When a lonely and misdirected Obama was sucking at the teat of hedge funds, to better prepare him for his presidency of shoe shining? And nobody protested? (OK, I did, but I am nothing.) Why did the protesters not help Obama to stay honest and true? Why so keen to help keep Trump honest, with their unhinged Dark Side?  

They say with undiscerning grammar: ‘Trump Hate’. But that’s rather ambiguous. Where were they, for all these long years, when Obama was doing nothing? What did they advocate when a dictator started to ravage Syria? Or when billions were sent to health care plutocrats, in the guise of “covering everybody”?

Instead of protesting then, they were blinded, blinded by the light from Obama’s brown skin, and Michelle’s magnificently empty, astounding rhetoric. We want it darker, turn those lights off, and reflect on what has been really going on: a globalocracy on a worldwide satanic rampage. And even the poles are melting.

Leonard Cohen’s We Want It Darker:

“They’re lining up the prisoners

And the guards are taking aim

I struggled with some demons

They were middle class and tame

I didn’t know I had permission to murder and to maim

You want it darker

Hineni, hineni

I’m ready, my lord”

Here Leonard Cohen alludes to a precise historical facts, or how the Jews stayed supine, while the Nazis roamed. Jewish silence, or even collaboration, made Hitler’s full folly possible, historical evidence shows. Hannah Arendt wrote: “the Zionists could, for a time, at least, engage in a certain amount of non-criminal cooperation with the Nazi authorities; the Zionists too believed that ‘dissimilation’, combined with the emigration to Palestine of Jewish youngsters and, they hoped, Jewish capitalists, could be a ‘mutually fair solution.’  At the time, many German officials held this opinion…” What happened? Nobody wanted it darker. It was kept pleasant. Germans were told Jews were removed “for their safety“.

Cohen also alludes to the fact that big time murderers get away with it. That’s why the God of the Jews in the Bible gets enraged against King David. God had ordered David to massacre a tribe, and David had refused to do so. Why can’t you kill, when ordered to do so? By superior principle (“God”)? This was an important principle God tried to teach to David (and the Abraham, and to all Judeo-Christians and Jews following the “Scripture”): there are circumstances when you have permission, and even when you ought, to murder and aim.

Evolutionarily, massacring lesser human beings has been much of how humanity progressed (hence the God of the Bible insistence upon it; Mayas, Aztecs, Incas, and 99% of the world’s known religions would agree…)

However, now we know more. Not all of evolution happened that way by a long shot: ethologically driven epigenetics played an important role… for example in the disappearing act of Neanderthals (which vanished inside ourselves, I have suggested, and the most recent science increasingly confirms).

What “scripture” guessed was that the Dark Side was not just an essential characteristic of humanity, but also essential to the human condition. This is found in the Hebrew Bible, and in the older Homer. Actually the general orientation in that sinister way is found in the even more ancient Hindu scriptures and the roots of Zoroastrianism, the root of all Indo-European religions (and by “Indo-European” here I mean the region, not just the languages).

Before the pseudo-scientists start to cackle away in derision for all this mythology, let me point out that those who spent millennia concocting logic with myths did not get it all wrong. The Dark Side phenomenon is essentially evolutionary. “Evolution” is not nice. It just is. It just is God: The One who created us.

If you want it funny, watch all the Clinton fanatics crying ignominiously, all over the world, after the defeat of their demiurge. I went to harass a few with the most courteous presentation of serious data, rolling out graphs, just to see them become even more dishevelled, haggard, disconsolate. Yet, they stopped crying, as they left their dream to enter the nightmare of reality. It’s not just that I like it Dark, but I study stupidity. As it is a part of darkness which needs to be enlightened.

But let’s reconsider what happened to the Jews under Nazism. Hannah Arendt (& others) accused the “Judenraten”, the Jewish Councils, to have helped the Nazis (I discovered this independently by reading original literature; I was pretty surprised by it; I learned of Arendt’s views decades later; she missed some documents I think even more important).

Zoroastrianism viewed the human condition as a struggle to help the God of Light against the God of the Dark Side, thanks to Truth.

Well, in truth, the God of Truth needs Light and Dark to write upon the world, with the world. The world is a book for the mind.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin, a Latvian-British Jew, was dismayed after the creation of Israel: ‘They listened to Hitler, they did not listen to us.’ Yes, well, thank you, my Lord.

Berlin could have guessed why he had made a darker interpretation of his own writings. “Moral conflicts are an intrinsic, irremovable element in human life”. “These collisions of values are of the essence of what they are and what we are.” he wrote in “The proper study of mankind” For Berlin, this clashing of incommensurate values within, and between, individuals, constitutes the tragedy of human life.

There are all sort of philosophers: some are giants straddling across the stars, like Giordano Bruno. Most of them are smaller fry, like those who brandish the ‘human good’ like the measure of all things. It’s not. They forget that knowledge often precedes goodness.

Israel did not listen to the fry ready to get fried, because, it decided that, to survive, and, even better, to be reborn, it wanted it darker:

The Jews, waiting for Hitler like others for Godot, had forgotten that they had permission to murder and to maim. Israel now knows this. It was in the scripture, all along, and no idle claim. Philosophers of the possible want it darker, ever since their ancestors crawled on land through the mud.

The pseudo-progressives who claimed to “be with her“, are part of a vast movement which want to interdict anything which could make themselves, or someone else, afraid. This includes, naturally enough, all and any critical thinking.  So now Donald Trump will do the thinking.

Meanwhile, the Artificial Intelligence Industry (AII) has depicted itself as goodness incarnate (old slogan of Google: ‘don’t be evil’). They scream, all over:’We Want It Lighter!’. Lighter taxes, certainly: Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, have been cheating massively with the taxes they owe, worldwide (this will change with the reign of Trump).

Not only those companies, the most powerful in the world, under Obama, and the richest, are viewed as intrinsically good (thus harboring no interesting darkness), but view themselves as such. Hence the silly-colonization(Silicolonization) of the world, above all laws, has proceeded, in plain sight, and not seen. The globalocracy has persuaded everybody that there is no darkness anywhere having to do with themselves: in particular all and any tribalism (such as Wahhabism), is fine.

They all supported Hillary Clinton, and proclaimed themselves to be ultimate good, light personified. Thanks to control of the Main Stream Media by global plutocrats, all over (the paymasters of Clinton), they wiped their blind supporters in a frenzy. For them, the Dark Side is not interesting, it’s an object of horror. Thus, who they were imprinted to support, Clinton, her Goldman government, her plutocrats, and her globalocrats, were all goodness, and Trump and his supporters, and ideas, all Darkness, something to refuse to consider at all cost.

It’s revealing how the hatred of pseudo-liberal posers has thus no limit: they are all light, them and their celebrities, and their Silicon Valley fascist corporations, and their opponents, ultimate evil. As all and any people in such a mood, their hatred has no limit. It goes all the way to genocide. Hollywood actor Michael Shannon wants all Trump supporters to die: “But if you’re voting for Trump, it’s time for the urn.” Michael Shannon has just a high school education (no college), but is “worth” eight million dollars. (As many of the rich celebrities out there, he then is offered the supplementary power of being taken seriously, advertised widely.)

At this point, some may say:’Oh, but didn’t you want it darker? Is not a would-be genocider like Shannon, right up your alley?” No. Michael Shannon understands so little, he sees monsters all over, where, if he could see through the Darkness of those who own and created him, he would just see only transparent logic. Shannon and his ilk are afraid to learn that all they made their mental circuitry from, all they are, are lies. If they had wanted it Darker, they would have been more suspicious of the bromine of the Main Stream Media. (As indeed happened to many people who voted for Obama, and, still loving Obama as a person, voted for Trump, as they were rightly suspicious of the motives of Obama calling them to vote for Clinton/Goldman Sachs…)

Yes, we want it darker, because we are not afraid to look into the dark. Take Turkey: I am not afraid to consider the darkness, I look at what is happening there now (although I have Turkish friends who loved Erdogan, and now we avoid the subject). I know what is going-on in Turkey means: if I look at the Caliphate in Turkey, I will look deep in the dark, and questions like favoring a coup in Turkey will, eventually, arise.

(Or even expelling Turkey from NATO, and war.) I know Islam is not a religion in all ways wonderful. And I am not afraid to look inside Islam: because I like it dark. If you want to rape a child in Turkey, the ruling AKP Party suggests now that you only have to marry her: a proposed Turkish bill clears men of statutory rape if they marry (18 November 2016). As the BBC puts it:

“A bill which would allow men accused of raping underage girls to be cleared if they marry the girl has been preliminarily backed by Turkish MPs. The bill would pardon men only if they had sex without “force or threat” and if they married the victim. Critics say it legitimises rape and child marriage, and lets off men who are aware of their crime.

[OK, there are 3,000 children from underage unions, in Turkey, each year. Right now, fathers go to jail. Not good.]
Violence against women in Turkey has increased in the past decade – 40% of women report sexual or physical abuse. Statistics also show the murder rate of women increased by 1,400% between 2003 and 2010.”

Evil, the power of Pluto, Pluto-kratos, has grown and ruled ever more, because all too many did not want it darker, and thus, they averted their eyes, wishfully. Because those who do not want to harbor ill-feeling, and see it as it is, dark as it is, cannot think it, as it is.

Whereever it is very dark, it’s good to look carefully. Take the iceshelves around Antarctica. Yes, it’s dark down there in the ocean, below half a mile of ice, 500 miles from the shore. There, in the dark, much is happening: all too much warmth, 100 millions of climate in question. But we have to ask, and we have to look.

If Obama had wanted it darker, he would have the desire to break a few shells, and made an omelette: his presidency would have amounted to something, perhaps even something digestible. Instead, most of its ineffectual, slow and paralysed presidency is going to be vomited all over the south lawn of the White House starting in two months, and one day. Doing anything serious in plain sight, requires serious destruction, in plain sight (annihilating weddings in Yemen by drones does not qualify).  When president Johnson wanted to pass the Civil Rights Act and other “Great Society” laws LBJ turned off the lights, and used the Dark Side (LBJ did not have thoughts which were dark enough about Vietnam, with catastrophic consequences).

Consider terror. Right now, it’s associated to Literal Islam: a bomb here, a shooting there, collapsing buildings, here and there. Small terror relative to the one a dictator getting excited with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles would bring. Thus a deeper problem. Fighting terror is a great idea. Fighting savagery would be an even greater idea. But for that, one has to look first at darkness in the eye.

The will to see only goodness out there, the will to be afraid of fear itself at the cost of reality, is a will to idiocy, and, thus, in the end, a will to full immorality, degeneracy, despondency, annihilation…. (For annihilation, see the Democratic Party.)

The will to refuse to want it darker brings forth impotence, and hatred. And even the threat of extinction. Sea ice finds difficult to form this year, in part because scientists refuse to want it as dark as they should have wished for (and I predicted that Antarctica ice system may significantly collapse in our lifetime, because I wanted my predictions as dark as they needed to be).

Yes, the preceding has to do with epistemology, the logic of knowledge. There is no knowledge acquisition, if we are not drawn, not just to the unknown, but to the dark. The most powerful epistemology is born from the darkest mood.

Pragmatically, people who do not want to look at reality, who orders the only reality they deign to perceive to be rosy, are bound to moral impotency. They’re the ultimate nihilists.

We Want It Darker. We Need It Darker.

Patrice Aymé

FLASH CRASH Of Civilization Risked. And Why.

CRETINISM, COMPUTER GLITCHES, WILL TO ANNIHILATION, & OUR SATANIC LEADERSHIP

Are Our Idiotic Leaders Playing With Computer Fire? A Financial “Glitch” Last Week Is Most Telling: 

In the famous Terminator movie, a worldwide automated defense net takes over and launches strategic missiles all over, annihilating much of humanity and nearly all of civilization. Science-fiction? Not at all.

In 1979, the strategic command of the USA saw on its screens a Russian attack by 200 intercontinental missiles, enough to annihilate the USA. There were only minutes to launch a counter-strike. Panic ensued. Bombers were scrambled. The presidential plane took off, without the president. And so on! A smart general found that a training tape had been inserted by mistake. Alleluia! Nuclear Armageddon avoided this time.

The financial system has been riddled with “computer glitches”. Except they are not really glitches, but part of the war hyper rich financiers are waging against We The People.

Here is what happens when computers and plutocrats rule: 

Friday October 7, 2016, The British Pound, Hence Great Britain, Lost Up To 8% of Its Value, In Minutes, Thanks To Robots In Command

The robots we have put in charge do not have to respect Asimov’s First Law Of Robotics, which is that a robot should not hurt a human.

Ok, let’s give more details of this latest example, Friday October 7, 2016, as described by the Wall Street Journal:

“Computers Seen as a Culprit in Pound’s Plunge

Unusual intraday move of 6% triggers concerns about automated trading

By Mike Bird and  Saumya Vaishampayan (Updated Oct. 7, 2016 6:44 p.m. ET)

LONDON—For a startling moment on Friday, the British pound crashed. In just three minutes shortly after 7 a.m. Hong Kong time, the pound sank 6% to as low as $1.18, according to Thomson Reuters data. Some electronic platforms recorded scattered trades near $1.15. For the currency markets, where moves are recorded in thousandths of a penny, it seemed that currency traders were all hiding under their desks. The most accepted scenario was that computers, not humans, were the ones that refused to buy. Coming at the most thinly traded moment of the global trading day, the latest “FLASH CRASH” once again showed how algorithmically driven trading programs have rewired the global finance game.

The pound’s gyration Friday was the second largest intraday move from its highest to lowest point in the past nine years, according to FactSet. The biggest move came when sterling swung down by as much as 11% the day after Britain’s June vote to leave the European Union.”

So why do we have hair-trigger systems all around the planet, with malevolent robots in charge?

The basic trick is this: hyper rich individuals, employing armies of physicists, mathematicians and programmers have set-up automatic systems to trade faster than individuals can. That’s called “high frequency” trading. High frequency trading is made possible by NOT taxing the sort of transactions the hyper wealthy are allowed to do. Normal people get taxed, the financially wealthy do not.

Flashback on 10,000 years of civilization: when the hyper wealthy does not get taxed, one has an aristocratic system: that is both the major cause, and major symptom.

Taxing small financial transactions would limit their speed, hence re-establish the notion of causality (that fact comes straight from knowing the fundamental physics which is deeper than the Theory of Relativity).

We are led by cretins. Russia and the USA have produced magnificent examples of complete cretins, put in command to instill deeply flawed strategies. And no, I am not just thinking of Trump, Clinton, Putin, Obama, etc.   

Let me go back on my question earlier, and generalize it a bit: Why do we have hair-trigger systems all around the planet, with malevolence in charge?

At first sight, it is because we are led by cretins, who do not see the danger. That certainly is partly true, but it’s not the whole truth: how could they be that dumb? Indeed, the danger is surely obvious, from the financial markets to nuclear war. Then what? We are led by people who do not mind the danger that they inflict to humanity and civilization, because, meanwhile they satisfy their greed, or will to power. In a way, to help engineer a giant catastrophe is surely a way to satisfy one’s ultimate will to power. As the French King Louis XV used to say:”Apres moi, le deluge” (“After me, the flood”).

An even deeper question is why did it come to this. Societies have moods. Those moods are caused by (imaginary or not) facts, habits, experiences, hopes. In the end, they influence hormones, not just in the masses, but in the individuals. Those hormones, some of them neurohormones, in turn change the logic individuals are capable of. When he was still facing some opposition inside Germany, Adolf Hitler sneered that his opponents did not matter because “we already own the youth”. Hitler knew that he had molded  the minds of German youth by creating an emotional ambiance which had turned into a mass driven hormonal, not just logical, Nazi setup. It was a case of mass procreation of Nazism.

After Thatcher and Reagan came to power, they imposed the mood that greed and the will to power was the ultimate motivation of human beings. (The Nazis were all about the will to power AND race; except “race’ does not really exist, as the Nazis found out all too soon, and the SS was forced to employ elite soldiers from all over!)

That Thatcher-Reagan-Neoconservatives mindset forsaken by humanity, propagated around the planet: France, Russia, fell to it later, with catastrophic results . That mindset focused on greed as the ultimate motivation is why Obama, a great admirer of Ronald Reagan, setup Obamacare the way he did, articulated by private companies looking for profits.

In other words, the ultimate good motivations of humanity, are supposed to be greed, and the closely related, and more general, will to power. The ultimate motivations are not supposed to be the will to care, or love. (Whereas, in truth, without love and care, there can be no humanity, to start with! Greed and the Will To Power are secondary motivations, sorry, Friedrich Nietzsche).

So here we are with more and more hair-trigger system. What is the interest of hair trigger systems, holding the entire civilization in its cross-hairs, or cross-hair systems making society ever more unjust, with some having all the power? The interest of hair-trigger systems as gods is that it tells everybody, deep down in their bones, at the deepest level of the emotional system, that greed and will to power are the ultimate good: they are worth going back to the Middle Ages, in a flash, with massive inequalities, or even back to the Stone Age (for the few survivors). Hair trigger, total destruction systems do not just celebrate will to power in its ultimate form, extermination. Having everything, from liberty, to equality, to fraternity, and even survival, at the whim of computer glitches is an expression of the will to collective suicide, and mass mayhem.

Some will say, such desire for appalling destruction is surely not an instinct? Quite the opposite. The will to appalling destruction is the ultimate human, all too human, instinct. Let me sketch the explanation. It goes deep in the bowels of evolutionary psychology, in its all too human variant, which no other animal has to that extent.

For millions of years, humanity has ruled the Earth, and increasingly so. The enemy of humanity was humanity itself, too much humanity, way too many humans. (At some point, a bit more than a million years ago, there were 14 humanoid species in East Africa alone.) To re-establish an ecological balance, humanity had to be culled. Now there are thousands of times more humans, so we need industrial means, computer glitches, nuclear war, and massive inequality.

However, understanding this will to collective suicide and mass mayhem logically will unbalance our stealthy collective subconscious, and the pernicious topology of its emotional ways. Something excellent philosophy has always done.

It goes without saying that all too traditional humanism has nothing to say about the preceding. And that is why it has become so irrelevant to what seriously matters, and why ‘progressives’ are so adrift. Humanism is not static. As technology progresses, our humanism has to become ever more subtle and powerful, just as, and because, our technology does so. Ever more power is what has defined ever more humanity, but all that ever increasing power, can only be managed with ever more intelligence.

Patrice Ayme’  

HUMANITY: A SINGULARITY

HUMANITY: Not Just Singular.

The Human Condition: never so contingent, that we are forever prisoner of it.

Some worry about, others anticipate “the singularity”, when human technology exponentiates for all to see. Many expect that it is coming soon. But “the singularity” has long been around. We have been living through it, ever since human evolved, and they started to think in all-devouring ways, a couple of million years ago. The invention of mass transmissible global culture, hundreds of thousands of years ago, launched us towards the stars.

What’s science for? Aside from keeping our world up in the air? Science is what is known for sure. A (good) mom knows to love for sure. So, alright, there is a science of love. Human beings, as are many animals, all the way down to insects, are naturally equipped not just to know, but to understand what they needed to understand to survive as a species.

Art: Beautiful & Interesting, In Part Because It Reveals Logic Never before Suspected, Or Because It Reminds Us Of Them. When God Is Shows His Consideration For Us, We Are Made Into The Crown Of Creation & The Transmission of Power, Knowledge Are Impressed Upon Us As The Most Important Activities Worthy Of The Gods We Are

Orphaned earwigs, a type of insect, are at a disadvantage and exhibit reduced maternal skills. Beauty and love are everywhere. Transmission of knowledge is what brains do.

Humanity itself is a singularity of mind the evolution of creation  (“life”) has blossomed into. Our technologies (“specialized discourses”) expanded over all of Earth, and expanded what Earth could be for us, as Earth itself became our province. And this physical empire did so because our minds expanded. Earth became an empire of reason (in particular, very hot, crazy reasons). Our minds expanded so much that they not just revealed, but caused, accordingly, new, spectacular problems… which we presently enjoy ever more.

Science is not just a knowledge of facts, but a knowledge of beauty which would not have been otherwise revealed. Science is also the uncovering of logic of previously unsuspected subtlety, for all to see. Thus subjects as esoteric as how exactly supernovae explode can reveal how explanations can go about things.

Beauty itself, is partly a matter of logic: when god touches humanity with its finger in Michelangelo’s famous painting, the beauty depicts a logic, and it is what makes it, in part, beautiful.

On March 21, 2016, NASA and its (crippled, but reconfigured for doing other things) Kepler telescope, revealed the visualization of the explosions of some supernovae.

Knowing about supernovae is not just knowing how the chemistry which made Earth possible was created. It is not just about knowing the size of the universe, and how fast it is changing. It is also knowing about analogies, metaphors, logics and possibilities we never suspected, and also about our naivety, to never have suspected they were.

Our knowledge of facts and logics, and of the beauty and possibilities they entail, are indeed exponentiating (or more). They long have been, it’s our definition.

However, it is now clear that, within a decade or so, most work will be taken over by machines, even work of a creative nature. The human work will have to be the all too human crazy creativity of geniuses, art never thought of before. It is already the case: the economic success of a city such as San Francisco is now mostly from the creation of so-called “apps” which are little computer programs for doing little things one never thought of, or could do, before (or assemblies thereof, such as the notorious “Uber” with its astounding 65 billion dollars market cap).

And we can’t turn back, because it’s what we are: ”Plus Oultre!”. As Charles Quint put it in his native French: Plus Ultra (Motto Of Spain), Plus Meta,

And the biosphere could not handle a U-turn on humanity’s part, weirdly enough. Actually, handling the CO2 crisis will have to be done the old fashion way: through brand new technological means, the exact way in which life already deals with it (after all, plants use CO2 to build themselves with it… although CO2 is notoriously chemically inert, thus nearly useless industrially… so far. But, philosophically speaking, there is no reason why human science can duplicate with CO2 what 4 billion years of molecular biology succeeded to achieve.)

Some may object that the preceding, however alluring, is a sort of sing-song, Patrice perched on a branch, singing to the stars, human, all too human (thus not really marketable).

However, not so. The poorly parented earwigs, these modest insects with big pincers for a tail, are themselves poor parents, because they have undergone genetic changes. They are victims, or, more exactly, creations of epigenetics, what controls genetic itself (and which Lamarck had anticipated). We, the genus Homo, have gone through 100,000 generations of intense selection according to our capability to outsmart our opponents (other, less performing humans, mostly). So we are the mental species, in all sense of the term: crazily creative, and creatively crazy.

This is not just a song, it’s a reality. Our reality. Not just our ethics, but our esthetics are dependent upon the sum of all our evolutionary histories, our genetics and epigenetics, and those progress to ever more understanding, and mastery of the universe, therefrom.

Thus, all speed ahead, we are special, we may as well admit that violating old norms and creating new ones is not just what we do, but what we are.

Patrice Ayme’   

Solstice Song

So this is the Solstice,

And what have we done,

We, the civilization of Humanity,

The only one there is,

Our Earth, her Moon, our biosphere,

Once more around the Sun: another year over, a new one just begun.

In this dark universe, we have brought our lights, our lonely lights,

Gentler than all others, peering through the night,

Dark Universe, Enlightening Humanity. Light of Moon, Enlightenment of Thinking, Throwing Light On A Fragile Future That Better Be Human

To our Moon, we may owe our life, the Enlightenment of Humanity, the snows of temperate climate, which helped.

Merry Christmas, Roman Saturnials, Celtic Yule,

Our northern ancestors celebrated that birth of the year, ever since they created edible plants, and took care of them,

Eons ago,

Well before their words could come to us.

I hope you have fun,

The far and the dear one, the old and the young,

A very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year,

Let’s hope it’s a good one, without any fear,

To use your minds as much as,

This civilization needs to keep on going,

Minimizing pain, maximixing love.

And so this is Christmas,

Verily We are the Anointed Ones.

For weak and for strong, for rich poor alike

The world is so wrong, yet so right.

No doubt a heavy, confusing, exhilarating,

Cross for us to bear,

No need to go the gym,

Exercising our minds is plenty.

And so happy Christmas,

For black and for white, for yellow and red ones,

Let’s stop all the fighting, which brought nothing good

And start those Jihads we really need,

Smartly discarding those we don’t.

A Happy New Year, let’s hope it’s a good one

Without any fear, to assume what we are,

Anointed to pursue,

Thought in the universe.

We hope you have fun

The near and the dear one, the old and the young,

A very Merry Christmas, a happy new year, let’s hope it’s a good one.

Those wars we don’t need are over, if you want it,

New wars have begun, which we really need,

Just to save our biosphere, our sanity, our civilization.

Merry Christmas:

It’s not a question of never more wars over the horizon,

It’s a question of how we fight, and why.

Humanity never rests,

Thinking is a debate,

Debate is combat,

Humanity means ever more dashing,

Incomprehensible, yet enlightening thoughts,

Where gods never threaded before,

Made obvious for all to see.

Humanity means ever more science, and fiction,

Humanity means going to Mars,

And well beyond, Plus Oultre, as Charles V put it,

Humanity means going thermonuclear,

Humanity means never aging,

Humanity means ever anew,

Thinking through everything.

Humanity means never any return of the same,

Humanity means there is no horizon,

But for the next one,

And the one after that.

Humanity means love for us shall lead us,

Ever after.

So enjoy,

Enjoy your Earth and her Moon, ever rotating around their Sun.

Life has been an ever-changing journey,

Ever since it started to evolve, more than four billion years ago,

Ever faster,

Ever more potent,

The greatest change is upon us now,

Life, thought,

Will blossom across the galaxy,

They have to, just to survive,

And we are in charge,

So happy Solstice,

We are going to need ever more happiness,

To conquer all,

Starting with ourselves.

Patrice Ayme’

Politics By Representatives Is Inhuman.

The lack of integrity of the “representative” politicians “we” elect now is intrinsic. The process itself creates the lack of integrity. Politics is intrinsically about multiple, fractured personalities, saying, and superficially doing, whatever people (have been made to believe they) want.

Integrity means in one piece. Namely one has just one personality, one character, one psychology, one system of mind, one system of thought, one system of emotion. Practically, the emotions one exhibits are exactly those one has.

Whereas the essence of the modern politician is to present a public persona that can be sold, and has nothing to do with who they truly are, what they truly believe, what motivates them.

Six Foot Two, Telegenic, 30 Years After His Dad The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

I of course supports many of the aims of Justin Trudeau, the new Canadian PM. Yet, being led by a New Man, son of the Old Man (and thus, not at all a New Man, in the Roman sense of the term!) is no real progress.

Canada fell deep in the abyss. Seeing the light again, after falling in the abyss, does not a paradise make.

The ecological policies of high CO2 emission countries (Australia, Canada, USA) are nothing short of criminal on the largest imaginable scale, that of melting icecaps.

Analogies have long been made between humans and wolves (Homo homini lupus: man is a wolf for man… and reciprocally, added the French comic Coluche). Another tendency is believe dogs are, somehow, a “species” we could emulate. Yet, dogs are not really a species. Dogs gives a false impression: we don’t know how stable dogs are, as a species. After all, dogs are the product of artificial selection. In the wild, dogs can be very nasty. I knew some geologists who got attacked, in Iran, by four wild dogs (domesticated doggies returned to the wilds). The geologists had to kill them one by one, with geological hammers, to not finish as canine dinner.

Dogs come from European wolves. American wolves have been studied in the wild, especially in Yellowstone (because scientists wanted to study the ecological impact of their return, which turned out to be considerable). The “alpha” position is stable, until the next mayhem. Researchers were aghast to find the alpha female they beloved dying of her wounds in a ditch, after she had been replaced from her previous executive position.

In many primates, it is true that leadership tends to be hereditary (through moms’ influences). Comparing wolves and advanced primates help us guess that human are ethologically made for rather pacific, democratic, leadership. This conclusion is accentuated by recent research on baboons: decisions where to forage tend to be taken by “initiators” (who are not particularly “alpha”), It is also implied by the small sexual dimorphism in the human species.

This is all important, because it means our present political system, which is more similar to lupine society, is not adapted to our genetic heritage. The latter did not arise just by happenstance, either. It is a consequence of the rise of intelligence. We became democratic, because we needed that, collective thinking and debate, to become more intelligent.

Thus present world political organization is evil in the deepest sense, and contradicts human nature, also in the deepest sense. We truly are imposed EVIL RULE (Pluto Cracy) not the rule of conversation, debate and thinking, the essence of humanity.

As a a noun integrity came to mean, “adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.” This interpretation is derivative from the original sense, literally un-touched. That came then to mean both “whole” (entier in French), and integer (also entier in French). The original meaning is important to understand that the essence of immorality has long been perceived to be double faced, or worse.

(I often use etymology. Not to tell me what words mean on the surface but how the wisdom of the ages conferred to them what they are. It is related to the “Sum Over Histories” of Quantum Mechanics.)

How to gat out of all this?

New men are nothing, but more of the same old crime. We have to call upon a new process, DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

Geeks swimming in their new noise, claim the Internet will change everything. No, it does not. Not yet. It will, when people can directly DEBATE, and vote, in plebiscites, using the Internet. As the noun indicates, plebiscites, when the plebs directly voted, were already known in Republican Rome. But they were hard to organize, just as they were hard to organize in democratic Athens (where they were required).

The average Athenian farmer needed a day trip to get to the Athenian Assembly. Now the Internet will allow us to vote with a simple click.

And what of the excess of Athens’ National Assembly of the People? Just youthful troubles: similar troubles did not happen during the centuries of Republican rule in Rome.

Moreover, we presently have huge political structures full of professional politicians. They will not disappear overnight. Just as in Switzerland now, they will persist, giving us plenty of safety during the transition from the dictates of the oligarchs, to the People Rule (Demo Cracy).

Patrice Ayme’

Baboon Philosophy Needed

Many people hold a cynical attitude about Cynicism. They hold that it’s nothing other than an unwarranted, exaggerated, mostly negative attitude, non-constructive way to live, feel and think.

And, as Scientia Salon puts it “if they think they’re talking about Cynicism the philosophy, with a capital C, they’re dead wrong“.

I propose to go much further than simply rehashing cynicism.

Baboons Are A better Model Than Dogs To Understand Humans

Cynics, kynikos, means “dog-like”. The main idea was for humans to live according to nature… And thus reject the “nomos” (the way things are managed), when it does not fit nature. In extreme form, it meant living like dogs (that Diogenes embraced, and so did the enemies of cynicism).

The question arises: what is it, to live according to nature? Rousseau thought it was to live like angels. Sade replied that Rousseau had no idea what he was talking about. Voltaire (a friend of Sade) told Rousseau that “jamais autant d’intelligence” had been deployed to make us all stupid, and he felt like “marcher a quatre pattes” after reading his book.

French sailors, fresh from believing Rousseau, discovered Tasmania. The French has dressed au naturel, as they expected that the Natives, being the most primitives on Earth, would be happy and welcoming. Instead, the Tasmanian tried to kill the French in a massive premeditated ambush, and the sailors came back to France, announcing Rousseau had been found incorrect.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/tasmanian-effect/

So is the nature of man that of a dog, or wolf? Is the famous Roman “Homo Homini Lupus”, true?

Well Ancient Greeks knew dogs, but not baboons. Baboons technical name is “cynocephali” (dog-heads). In more ways than simple appearances, they are half-way between dog and men. As I grew up in Africa, I observed baboons in the wild, or captivity. I was struck by their humaneness.

Recently the great apes were re-labelled as “Hominidae”, to remind us of their humaneness. However, in one important way, baboons are closer to man than to any other species. Both man and baboons have evolved to make a living in the savannah, instead of among the trees. This brought to bear on the species the same evolutionary pressures, hence the same solutions. Particularly in the realms of defense, attack, group-think (and specifically what I call intellectual fascism).

To do so, to live in the savannah, where they go drink everyday, in a killing gallery, baboons had to evolve not just an omnivorous way of life, but super-predatory ways, all the way to the fascist, military instinct some insist could NOT possibly be human. As they move about, baboons form well organized armies, and the fierce military spirit to go with them. The larger, the noisier, the more horrific the army, led by seemingly crazed leaders, mad with uncontrollable hatred and rage, the better, to put all predators to flight.

Back in Africa, it seemed to me that no philosophy that did not understand baboons could pretend to understand man. Thus a philosophy of origins had to encompass baboons. Conversely, baboons are easier to understand than people: people hide behind complicated cultures and their various make-belief “creators”, whereas baboons do not have this sort of arrogance.

The zoologist Buffon pontificated that baboons were “too obscene to describe”. Baboons were an experimental model contradicting Rousseau. A progress from the Greeks, I would respectfully suggest, would be to graduate from dog to baboon, as a philosophical paradigm, a simpler model of Homo Sapiens.

Once one has understood that people are super-baboons, one has made a gigantic step forward in the true nature of humanity, and its “nomos”. As we bring the greatest crisis in 65 million years, it’s high time.

Patrice Ayme’

WAR CAN BE GOOD. Never So Political Correctness.

War can be many things. It’s fundamental to humanity in all ways, bad or good, smart of dumb, but always at the core. We make war, as we make ideas. We adulate celebrities, precisely because we are ready to adulate war chiefs. The astronomical genius Kepler declared, and waged, his “war on Mars”. It lasted 30 year . Kepler won: Mars followed an ellipse, not a circle, or some weird oval.

That war can be many things, some of them good, many necessary was understood by prophets such as Jesus, and Muhammad (or the much earlier and deeply influential Zoroaster). The Qur’an advocates “Jihad”, a war-like effort, as a core duty of the faithful. Some situations, those prophets said, are best dealt with the sword (for the record I do not approve of using the sword against “unbelievers” as Jesus and Muhammad seems to have advocated; instead I propose to smother unbelievers with ideas… of course, we don’t have the same notion of unbeliever).

Real war can sometimes be, not just justified, or justifiable, but the one and only solution: only heavy bombing persuaded the Nazis of the error of their ways, nothing else could have. War against those who want to wage nasty war for no good reason whatsoever is always justified. In front of ultimate evil, turning the other cheek won’t help the good, just quite the opposite: it will help the worst.

War Is The Essence Of Plutocracy

Dean Mitchell: “I have to disagree. The history of war shows us that there is always a vested interest in war that has nothing at all to do with justice. Justified war seems like madness to me.”

Nathan Daniel Curry: “…To turn the other cheek requires a very deep metaphysics to make any sense. The problem is why war repeats. The reason is our societal models. Patriarchy does not work. Only a triune society can intuit the complexity of human nature and hear the sense of lack that breed the myopia that leads to helpless people lashing out in cruel and pitiful ways. The truth is they are not helpless. It is the ego that preaches that doctrine.”

Hearing this argument, Florent Boyer smiled: “What about the Amazons?” Indeed, the Amazons! They really existed. Women princess warriors buried with weapons. So much for the patriarchy thing.

My Arrows Pierce Sexist Males

[470 BCE Greek vase representing an Amazon. Notice the pants, the skirt, the shield, and the arrows’ quiver.]

And so forth. With all due respect, all the objections above remind me of someone protesting a thunderstorm by pointing out that it damages leaves, except that smart insects can crawl and hangs below the other side. All true, indeed, but irrelevant to a family whose roof is been taken apart by a tornado.

Stopping war is not about calling Hitler “my friend”, and sending him love letters as the Mahatma Gandhi did. Stopping war is done by launching efficient systems of thoughts and mood.

The Franks shadowed the retreating Huns after helping to get them out of Orleans. A few weeks later, with the standard Roman legions headed by Aetius, and the Visigoths, the Franks crushed the Huns. 375 years later, or so, the Franks penetrated the three concentric rings that defended the Avars in Hungary, and destroyed them.

The Mongols of Genghis Khan, who descended directly from the Huns and Avars, remembered all this. So, after reaching the Adriatic in present day Croatia in the Thirteenth Century, they reminded each other that their weapons had proven of little use against the Franks (who had invented tactics the Mongols adopted). It was decided to stop the Mongol advance, and stay in the steppe.

That’s how one stops war. Through terror. Through past shock, future awe.

This master idea, that “Justified war seems like madness to us” was held by Central European Jews when confronted to Hitler. They clang to it with the intelligence of barnacles lashed by waves.

As I have observed, seconded by Hannah Arendt, that those “Jewish Councils” collaborators of Adolf Hitler. This deliberate, willing collaboration only incited the Nazis to go further. Instead, the Jewish Councils ought to have screamed bloody murder, and screamed for help from the French Republic. That would have made it easier for the French to declare war unilaterally on Hitler, without waiting for British agreement.

Those who believe there are no justifiable war, are not just mad, they are, with all due respect, the sort of people who enabled Adolf Hitler. And the like. And there are really a lot of Hitler-like leaders out there.

As I explained in the Will To Extermination, man is all about exterminating man. Complaining about war, is complaining about man. Instead of begging not to take part in war, ask what war is worth fighting, and which one to avoid.

In this light, Nathan’s eternal return of a state of war, sounds like the eternal return of man. That war repeats is not a problem. The problem is that the problems that made war the only solution, keep on repeating. Fortunately, change is in the wings. When the ocean starts rising 10 centimeters a year, and a billion people catch the fancy that they are not fishes, and would rather live somewhere else, while energy supplies get constricted, the military is going to be busy. The false debate of whether war is just in the mind, will vanish.

Especially as countries that have purchased pieces of other countries, try to impose their sovereignty.

Dean Mitchell: “I understand that position, Patrice, but the problem with Hitler was wholly contrived. Sniff out the danger when it is obviously there instead of encouraging it and there is no need for millions to die.

War is never an “only solution” except as a profiteering racket. Men go to war to act as pawns of the puppet masters.”

Patrice Ayme: Sniff out danger? Whatever, Dean, whatever. It did not happen like that. Hitler was not a the monster out of the depths, who surfaced like Godzilla, taking over the world. Quite the opposite. Hitler was the master tool of a massive conspiracy that involved Soviets, American, English, and even German overlords.

To this day, that conspiracy has not been “sniffed”. Mention it to the average Joe, and the reaction will be hostile: the notion disrupts the established order of thought.

The Devil is in the details, camping on one’s own good will, and self-admiration, is not a solution.

War is a solution, but it is rarely tried first.

The best example is France, from 1919 to 1939. France knew that the Germanoid superiority monsters, having got away with their demented crimes in World War ONE, would try again. The help of the British aristocracy (Lord Russel, Keynes are some of these famous double agents, on the intellectual side), and American plutocrats completely blocked the French Republic (Hitler got colossal financing from Henry Ford as early as 1920; while the entire government of the USA expropriated Germany before redistributing the proceeds to some of the most evil men in the USA… who found German henchmen to serve them, such as Schacht).

The French republic tried to stop Hitler and his fascist mentors for 20 years. Finally, on September 1, 1939, France gave Hitler with a 48 hours ultimatum to get out of Poland. On September 3, around 11 am, Great Britain and then France, declared war to Germany.

Yes, the Nazis were right, they did not want that world war (not yet! They were not ready). Yes, France started it. But it was a matter of survival.

Dean Mitchell: “Remove Hitler and the likelihood was that there would have been no war.”

Patrice Ayme: Once again, France tried her best. But France had in her way London, Wall Street, and even mighty German-American Jewish (!) plutocrats as the Warburgs. Yes, the Warburgs collaborated with Hitler, not, as the “Jewish Councils”, with the rat-like wishful desire of survival, but out of sheer greed for money and power.

The French secret services tried to break the Warburgs as early as 1934, while the French government tried to persuade Washington D.C. to stop the USA’s plutocrats support of Hitler. All that did was to make Washington hate Paris.

Dowd, historian at the University of Chicago and then USA ambassador in Berlin agreed 100% with the French. His best friend was Francois-Poncet, the French ambassador. Both used to amble the close by Tiergarten, the Berlin zoo, to escape Nazi eavesdropping, while fearing assassination.

Furious that Dowd could NOT get along the Nazi government, and his dire warning about those thugs, Roosevelt removed Dowd in 1937, and replace him by a pro-Nazi: Roosevelt was into helping his plutocratic class. In London Roosevelt put the outrageously pro-Nazi Kennedy as ambassador. And so on.

Hitler annexed 3 countries, invaded a fourth. Finally, Britain found its spine. At that point, France could only attack. What did the USA (plutocrats) do? Provide crucial military support to Hitler.

All of this has been occulted in official history.

But, yes, there are just wars, even if they killed 70 million, 4% of humanity. The Secession War, according to the latest, best estimates killed 3% of the USA. That, too, was a just war.

Bismarck said: ”Real philanthropy consists all too often into knowing to shed blood”. Bismarck, who was a great man in many ways, launched a lot of wars, and an empire, all quite successful, from his point of view, and yet bound to cause catastrophe because all too many Germans ended up confusing war and philanthropy. (Just as the present USA confuse plutocracy and philanthropy.)

So there is clearly a risk to overdo it. War can be an eternal return of the same, just worst: after two millennia of intense military activity, France has not recovered, by a long shot, the borders that Gallia (“Gaul”) had when the Romans started to invade it (Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Northern Italy… The natural borders, in other words, used to be in it, when the Romans were made to pay ransom to the Celts).

But then, again, when the Prussians attacked in August 1914, they committed war crimes and atrocities on a deliberate, industrial basis, as ordered from above, as soon as the first few days of the conflict. Surrendering to them, at that point was surrendering to barbarity (that was naturally the notion advocated by Lord Russell, a highest British noble, and thus a relative, spiritually speaking, of the Prussian aristocrats; the Kaiser was a descendant of Queen Victoria).

So it’s not just that “war is a continuation of politics by other means” (Carl Von Clausewitz’s Vom Kriege (On War) published posthumously in 1832). It’s not just that Bismarck’s more radical expression was correct. Let me go all the way, all the evolutionary way:

War is the continuation of life by the means of death, it’s what humans do. Forgetting this, is forgetting not just what humanity does, but what humanity is.

As I explained before, the unique position of humans as the apex creature for millions of years, has made it so. War is how man is regulated. Just as there is the law of the jungle, there is the law of man, and its name is war.

To ignore this, and switch to the “politically correct” mode, where wishful thinking is the absolute good, facetiously brings, even more war. The Nazis said so much about themselves that they were and wanted to be, “immer correct” (always correct), that they forgot the big picture.

That sea, now rising by nearly two centimeters a year in Bangladesh, means war. Those who ignore it, are collaborating with the coming war, the greatest humanity will have ever brought.

And those who want to mitigate the coming disturbance, need to be armed with the correct theory of war, instead of just making war to reality, armed with comfortably numb illusions.

Patrice Ayme’

Note On Amazons: Advanced technology, namely the bow and the horse, made women into as capable warriors as men. Women ride better than men, and they can be just as precise, if not more so. Some empires that brought the Amazon phenomenon were distinguished by multi-decadal war expeditions by their men folk (up to a documented 28 years in one case), so the women had to do everything, including procreating with alien warriors.

1914, 2014: Pluto Versus Homo

What was the cause of World War One? The correct description, thus lesson, has not been drawn, because the most significant cause has not been exhibited, let alone analyzed. The cause was plutocracy, and its associated fascism. As fascism and plutocracy impose their ways again, it’s timely to revisit what really happened in 1914.

Here is the official history: WWI was an accident caused by too much militarism, imperialism, and a tangle of alliances. Right. But not the most significant cause, which is swept under the rug of consciousness: the official version elides the fact that Germany was ruled by a gang of mass murdering fascist plutocrats refusing elementary rights to their population has nothing to do with a World War.

There is a lesson there, according to the official propaganda: if a powerful country is ruled by a gang of fascist, criminally inclined plutocrats, resting on the military while refusing elementary rights to the population, it has nothing to do with a potential world war, it’s safe for the rest of the world.

That fascism and plutocracy have nothing to do with war is the mightiest, and most lethal, myth of the Twentieth Century.

And then there is my version of history, reflecting ALL known facts, of how World War One was generated. According to which the war was the ineluctable result of the political system in Germany in 1914, and the generations before.

The crucial observation is that Russia is in a similar situation today to that Germany was in, a century ago. Russia is ruled by a Caesar (= Kaiser, Czar), Vlad the Mad Bomber, supported by a horde of plutocrats. Western plutocracy has been an accomplice, as it profits from Russian plutocrats squirreling away, and buying influence, by storing their criminally generated gains in the… European Union (mostly).

My friend Paul Handover, author of the web site “Learning From Dogs” chimes in: “There is a new, compelling and very frightening series on BBC television called 37 Days, about the days leading up to the First World War.

Episode One shows, presumably accurately, the wheelings and dealings of leaders, politicians, ambassadors, and more without any thought for, or care of, democratic principles.

One hundred years on, has anything changed?”

My (expanded) answer: I have not seen the series. However, this is of crucial importance as we confront a crisis reminiscent to that in Munich in 1938. Except, this time, Hitler attacked first, and talked later.

The title of the series, by itself, is misleading. 37 days since what? The assassination in Sarajevo? That’s what the title implies. Thus it feeds the myth that World War One was accidental. Just like Putin’s serial invasions, and massive re-armament, there is nothing accidental about it.

Those who claim that World War One was accidental are poor scholars, idiots, or the agents of vested interests (that could be as simple as their university, say Harvard, want them to teach and preach lies about the goodness of fascism and plutocracy, throughout the ages).

Claiming World War One was accidental misses three ULTRA MAJOR FACTS:

1) On December 11, 1912 (it was a Sunday), after talks at the highest level, it had become Klar to the Kaiser, that Great Britain would not stop being friendly to France. Thus WORLD war was decided within two years. It sounds incredible, but that’s what happened.

The Kaiser and his top generals agreed more “work” had to be done with the German media, so it would not appear as if they, the leaders of Germany, had attacked the world deliberately.

2) On June 1, 1914, exactly two months before the Kaisereich’s invasion, the envoy of the USA president, Colonel House, proposed an alliance to the Kaiser, with Britain, against France. At that point the Kaiser knew the USA would stand by him, and feed him during the war. They did.

Selling directly to Germany and using the fake neutral Netherlands, the USA made a fortune supporting the Kaisereich by selling it all it needed, for years, including material to make explosives.

When it became clear that the French southern strategy of attacking through the Balkans was going to cut-off most of Germany and Austria food imports, and thus victory was coming to the democracies, the USA joined victory (in the all-out Second Battle of the Marne, in July 1918, a couple of USA divisions were engaged (and forced to attack in a corps comprising a French Senegalese division. The American divisions were completely destroyed, but picked up the Senegalese habit, well reciprocated by the Germans, of making no prisoners whatsoever).

At that battle, the German army was led in by a tactical retreat of the French, before being destroyed by French artillery, and counter-attacked in a double pincer with 50 divisions (the Americans known the battle as “Soissons”, per the locale of the US divisions).

Thus, just the title the BBC chose, 37 days, is full of propaganda and massive deviation from the truth. But it is of the interest of the commanding elite to claim that past commanding elites (even if Prussian) did not deliberately plan a WORLD war (although they did, explicitly).

The truth is that the Kaisereich was a fascist dictatorial plutocracy, and hated the democratic French Republic next door, doing all it could to destroy it, before, from its own secret assessment, France, with the help of its democratizing ally, Russia, would leave fascist Germany so far behind economically, that there would have been no hope to win a war.

I have written about this many times before, for many years.

Here is a recent essay:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/1914-imprinting-emotions-rule-iii/

Unsurprisingly, this all encompassing point of view is not taught in Harvard.

What is taught, instead, on most “left”, “progressive”, “liberal” propaganda centers is that, in World War One, just as in World War Two, there were “no bad guys versus good guys”… As some self glorifying smart fascist heading the ANC, Anti-Neo-Con network put it. The same fascist, and many like him, claim the USA has killed 200,000 in Syria, and Putin did not invade Crimea.

Unbelievably, the same creep, Ray Dawdson, or whatever he is called, and his accomplice, added that “29 journalists were assassinated under Putin’s reign, and apartment buildings bombed is disturbing. So is the open alliance between Putin with organized crime. He sold his soul to the devil. Putin is not clean. It compares to Bush Senior, who also got people killed.” Then the same “ANC” smart ass, presenting himself as a specialist of Eastern Europe adds: “I dropped stories about Putin because I did not want to be killed.”

And he adds: “People sleep-walked into WWI… The USA gains nothing. The USA failed in Syria. It’s almost as if they wanted to restart the cold war.
I don’t know what’s making the foreign policy in the US. This is not going to come out well. Give away sections of Ukraine like it was done in Georgia: that is the less bloody answer.”

Well, there are more important things than blood. I believe that such pro-fascist guys are actually well financed pro-plutocratic plants (deep down, their reasonings are in no significant way different from the Vichy propaganda). They are all over the left, and, to a great extent, the New York Times is culprit in the same way.

Who is making the foreign policy of the USA? What about smart philosophy, for the grandest schemes? Even Hillary Clinton compared Putin’s train of thought to Hitler’s, exactly as I put it on this site. That’s smart, accurate and deeply human. (That is much more human than seditiously supporting the Kremlin’s dictator.)

With the sort of attitude stridently proclaimed by much of the pseudo-left, had it ruled our ancestors’ behavior, we would all have remained chimpanzees. It is as inhuman as one can get. Instead, the correct, and wisest morality, when Pluto, the Darkest Side of horror, tries to rule, the best side of the genus Homo has to rise in arms.

Seditiously pleasing Putin is not just a betrayal of democracy, it’s a betrayal of humanity.

Just as it was a betrayal of humanity to serve the Kaiser in 1914, or Hitler in 1939.

Patrice Aymé