Posts Tagged ‘Intellectual fascism’

Identity Politics: A Pretext To Teach Children Tribal Fascism & Simplemindedness. Crime Too. Most Indecent Submission Sought.

October 9, 2021

Identity Politics: A Pretext To Teach Children Tribal Fascism & Simplemindedness

In “Here’s the Mind-Set That’s Tearing Us Apart”, Oct. 7, 2021, David Brooks observes that:

“The world is complicated, and our minds have limited capacity, so we create categories to help us make sense of things. We divide, say, the social world into types — hipster, evangelical, nerd, white or Black — and associate traits or characteristics with each.

These judgments involve simplifications and generalizations. But we couldn’t make sense of the blizzard of sensory data each day if we couldn’t put things, situations and people into some form of conceptual boxes. As our old friend Immanuel Kant argued, perceptions without conceptions are blind.

It becomes a serious problem when people begin to believe that these mental constructs reflect underlying realities. This is called essentialism. It is the belief that each of the groups we identify with our labels actually has an “essential” and immutable nature, rooted in biology or in the nature of reality. In the worst kind of case, it’s the belief that Hutus are essentially different from Tutsis, that Christian Germans are innately superior to Jews….

… Essentialists may see the world divided into Manichaean dichotomies, and history as a clash of group-versus-group power struggles — clashes that demand utter group solidarity and give life meaning.

America is awash in essentialism. As the New York University philosophy professor Kwame Anthony Appiah, who writes the Ethicist column for The Times Magazine, has noted, before World War II few thought about identities the way we do today. But now it feels that contemporary politics is almost all about identity — about which type of person is going to dominate.

At some level this is necessary. The great project of the past 70 years or so has been to right the injustices that historical essentialists imposed on groups they labeled and oppressed.

The problem comes when people replicate the mind-set they are fighting against. “

This replication is not an accident. It is a method to achieve supremacy.

People often replicate mentalities they claim to fight against, as a strategy of domination. Indeed the pulsion to appear to rebel against what one wants to reproduce is elementary Machiavellianism, with its own seduction. If you can’t beat them, join them while appearing to fight them, they will like that.

***

David Brooks published the following comment of mine:

In political fascism, a hierarchy of “leaders” orders everybody around. In intellectual fascism, a few ideas order all spirituality. “Essentialism” flows from “intellectual fascism”. Simplemindedness is what intellectual fascism brings. 

Pogrom Lviv 1941. From a film discovered by US Forces in 1945. Notice Child On the right beating the Jewish woman. This is what identity politics brings, as intended…

How does simple mindedness appear? Mental laziness is one factor. Now laziness in mental matters, as in physical matters comes from lack of exertion. So one may trace US simplemindedness to schooling where not enough mental exertion occurred early on.

My daughter, 11 year old, was informed by teachers that the primary vocation of a school was to respect my child’s “identity”… Now my child has an intensely complicated background, spanning the world genetically and culturally. The head of a school, a standard liberal, privileged middle age Politically Correct WASP blonde cannot even guess how different my child’s world is. And so it is: in places such as California, the background of most children is distant and complicated. Calling for an identity is calling for mutilating simplification.  

Why would teachers think that the  identity of a student trumps education and instruction? Giving primacy to “identity” is saying that what matters most is not education, but identification. That, per se, reinforces racism and simplemindedness, because instead of broadening minds with new concepts, one is supposed to find an ethnic box in which to fit. Instead of  boxing people into prepackaging, schools should identify ideas and concepts, teach how to breed them, create new ones, think out of boxes.

***

In general, elites in power, absent an external threat, privilege staying in power. That’s best accomplished by making people stupid, ignorant and aspiring to submission. All this classical fascist monotheism accomplished.

Christianism was created, and imposed under the penalty of death by torture, by Roman imperial fascism to justify its plutocracy with a devil in heavens, playing god, ordering people to kill their children, promising torture to death as redemption for imperfect submission. Islam put part of that on steroids… That’s called Abrahamism, and rests on the advertised willingness to kill one’s children, an old pathway of antique societies to prosperity (the fact a sheep was substituted at the last instant doesn’t matter: it is the heart that counts). A deplorable necessity 3,000 years ago has been turned into a calling, a willingness to commit the most horrific crime which binds best. 

Identity politics leads to crime, and this is why it is so appealing to the elites, as they typically end up ruling with evil means, and they need crimes that bind. Besides, the easiest way to conquest is division of the potential opposition (“Divide et impera“… Tradition attributes the origin of the motto to Philip II of Macedon, who did just that to Greece…).

Want war? Identify friend and foe. Search for identification, not union.

Patrice Ayme

Fascinated By Intellectual Fascism

June 15, 2021

A “moderator” on a social media foamed at the mouth against yours truly, in a public post reacting to my preceding essay on the semantics of “Quantum Supremacy“, it was weird:

Do not direct your vile aspersions at me, nor imply that disagreement with your melodramatic phillipics [sic] is an indicator lack of wit. You know nothing of the conversation of moderators before action is taken, or how we reach consensus, nor can you hope to realize the amount of effort taken to give you leeway before speaking to you.

Truly, I did not know the existence of that excited character, and I had been (mostly) speaking of the irruption of cheap racism in fundamental physics, so I was a bit surprised. Why so much excitement? My reply (very slightly modified); to avoid accusations of defamation, although she made her attack public under her name for at least 1,600 readers I know of, I would call her Ms BSS, for obvious reasons:

“Vile”? “To you”? Where did I mention you, Ms BSS? I was not aware of your existence, prior to this, as I am noticing it presently. Thus I notice mosquitoes when they sting. Let me scream intellectually, out of politeness to you. I had no idea someone thought so lowly of me to call me “vile” in public. I guess that’s a compliment: vile creature denounced by the righteous moderators! Facebook told me I was suspended for 30 days for “Hate” reported in the Facebook group that you apparently help to “moderate”. Facebook was specific about “repeated violations” at that group, III; and quoted one such violation explicitly referring to the policy of the Nazis regarding Japan.

I had to send Facebook pages on the Nazi policy regarding Japan. They then recognized their mistake, recognized I had the right to inform the public about historical racism, and apologized to me, reinstating me immediately… after their apology.

In the preceding context, it is fascinating that you refer to “philippics” as Demosthene, who uttered them, is a philosopher and martyr whom I admire, and whom all genuine democrats should admire (and that the Macedonian fascist plutocratic Aristotle hated, naturally).

philippic is a fiery, damning speech, or tirade, condemning a political actor. The term originated with philosopher Demosthenes of ancient Athens. The term itself is derived from Demosthenes’ speeches in 351 BC denouncing the imperialist and fascist ambitions of Philip of Macedon. They later came to be known as The Philippics. Three centuries later the term qualified speeches of the famous lawyer and Consul Cicero of ancient Rome.

Demosthenes and his fiery philippics tried to get Athens to resist Macedon in a timely manner (the objective ally and ultimate insider and teacher of Macedon, Aristotle, had to flee Athens). Athens gave Demosthenes ambassadorial powers to argue with Macedon, but the philosopher was unsuccessful in getting Athens to go to war early enough. When finally Athens went to war belatedly she, Thebes and their allies nearly won, but a charge of Alexander won the day for Macedon. (The modern analogy is France accompanied by Britain, going to war against Nazism too late to avoid the Holocaust… But early enough to ultimately win thanks to their progeny, the USA…)

Fascinating as in fasces, of course. Democrat Demosthenes, an Athenian patriot and industrialist, was killed by the vile Macedonian fascists of the generalissimo Antipater, the senior general of (long dead) king Phillippe of Macedonia (in a refinement of cruelty, the Macedonian fascist, who had just defeated Athens militarily, actually sent an old friend of Demosthenes on an island to arrest him; so Demosthenes, after talking to his friend, expecting torture to death, committed suicide with the poison he carried with him at all times). The real history of philosophy is extremely violent: most of the great philosophers of the time were involved in the greatest forms of melodrama, including, but not limited to death, execution, large scale military action, fleeing for one’s life, or living with a husband who contradicted who may have been the greatest philosopher of antiquity, Aspasia. Aspasia’ life work was greatly demolished by her own husband… its greatest exponent!

Funny how some people get enraged… even when talked to kindly and reasonably, stooping down to lift the crushing ignorance under which they crawl. There again, it’s not an accident: ignorance causes pain to the beholders, so they hate. And they prefer to hate as a mob, that’s safer and mightier.

Here is a melodramatic example for you, Ms BSS, full of blood and gore.

Once I knew some racist fascists on another continent… I talked to them reasonably, several times, and they tolerated me: my arguments were powerful and their minds weaker. Ultimately, then, as the good Nazis they were, they resolved to use violence, the final solution. Moderated into oblivion, such is the way of the fasces.

In an academic setting (!), according to generally accepted classification, the world’s top college prep (8 Nobel Prize laureates), the Neo-Nazis attacked. Such was the paradox: the top school, attacked by the vilest minds. They threw a homemade bomb on me, and it was quite powerful. I lost my hearing for days. Very eerie. There were pieces of human flesh everywhere. From the guy who stepped in the way of the bomb. And that was not even the worst, which came later. So here you have it: supreme viciousness, and supreme goodness, entangled. Relativize, but don’t compromise on the basics, that’s should be the way (and was Demosthenes’).
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/aristotle-destr

Aristotle was the philosopher of monarchy (although his Macedonian buddies were more of a fascist oligarchy). In any case, he was favorable to intellectual fascism, hence his enduring favor with anti-democratic politicians in the last 24 centuries… But the “vile” critics are still around…

Emotion is more basic than reason, and the emotion of the sheep is all the reason it needs:

The ferocity people deploy in purely intellectual matters illustrates well the importance of intellectual debate for human beings. Intellectual supremacy is arguably the deepest specifically human instinct. Intellectual supremacy is the essence of humanity, it is always in conflict with the herd instinct with its countless sheep, barking dogs, and opportunistic fleas.

Patrice Ayme

Supreme Idiocy: Claiming “Quantum Supremacy” Is A Racist Concept

June 13, 2021

Leonie Mueck, Carmen Palacios-Berraquero, Divya M Persaud wrote:

“In 2012 the theoretical physicist John Preskill from the California Institute of Technology coined the term “quantum supremacy”. It was introduced to represent the ability of quantum computers to solve problems faster than conventional supercomputers. The term quickly caught on and, after years of research in the field by scientists at universities and companies, Google in October 2019 announced it had achieved the breakthrough. The result sparked optimism about the future of quantum computing, but something was missing in the debate that followed, namely the uncomfortable association of the term with “white supremacy.”

su·prem·a·cy: “the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status.”

The white race obsessed (thus racist) authors instead propose to use “Quantum Advantage“. This is a mistake as far as physics is concerned: the Quantum is not just “advantageous”. It is a misunderstanding of physics to think so. Quantum Physics is not just advantageous relative to Classical mechanics, it thoroughly EXTINGUISHES it. Quantum Physics is the final solution of the problem of localization in classical mechanics. The joke is on us, the hilarious woman below, Divya Persaud “the third”, a doctoral student, claims a supremacy she does not have in science, because she obviously does not understand Quantum Physics:

Divya M. Persaud

Divya M. Persaud is a planetary scientist, writer, and composer. She is obviously NOT a physicist specializing in the foundation of physics. She is not afraid to leverage her brown skin by claiming Quantum Supremacy has to do with the white race. Reciprocated racism is still racism…

Refuting Quantum Supremacy on purely semantic grounds, because one does not like the notion of “supreme”, and call it racist is supremely stupid, indeed.

And idiotic, because those condemning “supremacy” do so by alleging their own supremacy. I recognize just one race: that of imbeciles.Tends to be hereditary too. It’s culturally, and epigenetically inherited.

I got some taste of this when some “moderators” complained  to Facebook that I was full of “Hate” because I reported (as an anti-Nazi) some well-known Nazi ideology. I got suspended for 30 days (!) as a result… Untill, several pages of complaints on my part later, Facebook recognized that reported Nazi ideology was not reason enough for suspension…

Superior and inferior simply mean one is in the presence of an ordered set, in the mathematical meaning of the term. Such sets are all over, and even bacteria recognize them as useful, when they swim up a food gradient.

But the supremos of muddled, dark thinking don’t recognize any order which they do not themselves rule…

The correctors of semantics want to achieve their own supremacy, through intellectual fascism, as the Nazis and Soviets wanted to do. Please read the excellent:

“Quantum Physics” is not just advantageous. It is true, and classical physics is not. In some situations, say Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Physics CANNOT be replicated by classical effects: this is the essence of the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (“EPR”) effect and the the John Bell theorem. And it has been experimentally demonstrated in thousands of experiments. Nor can the Casimir Effect, or the Bohm-Aharonov effects be duplicated by classical mechanics. There, in those various effects, which all involve forms of mysterious local-time flaunting nonlocality, Quantum Physics rule supreme.

In nonlocal matters, Quantum Physics rule not just supremely, but absolutely. Let’s then introduce the concept of QUANTUN ABSOLUTISM! (This way the silly ones will call me a monarchist!)

It is supremely fascist, idiotic and ignorant to try to cancel the purely physical concept of “Quantum Supremacy”, but I expect no less of those so inferior that they need to leverage their skin color to gain advantage in society.

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: John Preskill, professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology who coined “Quantum Supremacy”, proposed it to describe when a quantum computer performs a task that a classical computer never could. Preskill rejected the term ‘quantum advantage’: the word ‘advantage’ implies that a computer with quantum supremacy would have only an edge over a classical computer while the word ‘supremacy’ better conveys complete ascendancy over any classical computer. As I said, it’s not just ascendency, but also Quantum Computation which can’t exist classically.

Facebook Suspension For Informing Of Nazism. Facebook Calls True Facts About Nazism “Hate”

June 2, 2021

Two truthful (and not flattering) historical facts about Nazism, one of them in a private group, got me suspended from Facebook (one of the suspension was for 30 days). It is as if Facebook did not want its two billion participants to know about Nazism as it really was (that is even worse than people think… and all too familiar…). There are Holocaust Memorials, like there is matter. Now we have apparently anti-Holocaust anti-Memorials, like there is antimatter.

I am in no way a Nazi sympathizer: my family resisted to Nazism, some in uniform and in combat (an uncle, an officer was in uniform for 6 years, combating the Nazis in anti-tank units; he told me about successful “hedgehog defense” by using villages as fortresses in June 1940). The Gestapo hunted my family on my mother’s side through the woods for saving Jews and others. My father fought the Nazis in Italy and France and was bombed twice by Me 262 jets (he was in a flak unit).

On March 13 I said the Nazis praised the Japanese (as a master race, Herrenrasse). This is a historical fact. On June 1 I quoted the main Nazi slogan in 1933: “Deutschland erwache” (Germany awake). Facebook considered this “multiple violations”. Got history? We see violations!

Facebook suspended me for quoting the Nazi slogan of 1933-35: “Deutschland erwache”.. As if just quoting it made me approve of it! The rape victim is now identified to the rapist, after all, she mentioned rape! Violation! Facebook seems to be unaware that the main force behind Nazism, on the psychological level was sheer stupidity, like confusing reports and advocacy. 

Interestingly, Facebook uses the same exact colors, red, white and black… Of the Nazi flag. On the face of that book, it looks like Facebook will ban those who say bad things about Nazism…

If someone mentions Trump’s slogan MAGA, that doesn’t mean they are for Trump. I do not approve of Nazism, just the opposite: I have written hundreds of pages very very strongly AGAINST Nazism. I absolutely excoriate Nazism, and want to explain to other people why exactly. Facebook told me that mentioning a despicable Nazi “racial” policy constituted “hate” and that I “violated community standards”. So, if one explains what the Nazis did, that constitutes “hate”… even if one disagrees vehemently with what the Nazis did! 

My family resisted the Nazis, and suffered immensely as a result. Am I to understand that Nazism is a subject to be absolutely avoided at Facebook? Are we supposed to ignore what the Nazis said, felt and thought? Are we supposed to ignore the part of history impacted by the Nazis? As Santanya said, that would invite repetition. 

Facebook could check “Deutschland erwache”, and the other fact which Facebook defined as “hate” on my part, that the “Nazis extolled the Japanese”. Indeed, the Nazis claimed that the Japanese were a “master race” (Herrenrasse”). That claim enabled the Nazis to constitute with the Japanese what they called the “Axis”. I would have no problem publishing those well-known historical facts in, say, Israel. Saying what the Nazis did is not “hate”. If one describes the thousands of extermination camps the Nazis had (and to which part of my family was sent), that does not mean that this is hate speech (just the opposite). But now I am afraid that Facebook may decide that mentioning death camps is “hate”… On MY part. The end result of being unable to ever say what the Nazis did and held is going to be the exact opposite of what all Holocaust Memorials have been build to do, inform everybody of what happened under Nazism. 

Describing, and condemning, infamy should not be described as “hate” (as my descriptions were). This confuses facts and the one who reports them. I urge Facebook to reconsider and not describe descriptions of Nazism as “hate” on the part of those who report them. Otherwise, next we will be unable to describe what the Holy Inquisition did, and so on. 

If someone describes the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, that doesn’t mean that one approves of it, and a mention of the crucifixion should not be described as “hate” and earn a violation of community standards. I urge Facebook to remove both of my alleged violations, which were just descriptions of what should be well-known historical facts.  

My guess is that I am on a secret banishment list at Facebook, and it is just trying to ban me by claiming I am full of “hate” (and Nazism!)

Facebook functions as the world debate forum. Unfortunately it is also a private company with one man at the helm, who did not do more than a few months of formal college studies. How Facebook connects to the US Deep State is a matter of debate, but some believe that Facebook is an outgrowth of the US Deep State spy and dagger agencies. Having the whole world expressing ideas in one forum is ideal for spring, cataloging threats… And neutralizing them (some of my posts were discreetly removed; my public probably restrained). If one can never quote the Nazis, one cannot make analogies between the present situation and Nazism.

Over the years, I have been banned by many publications which claim to be guarantors of democracy and debate (say The Guardian in the UK, which got enormous sums of money from… Bill Gates; I was told one condition was to ban me from comments). In some cases powerful individuals intervened… Some of them bankers, or tech titans, to get me specifically banned. The list is long, the effects drastic, as I disappeared from much of the Internet…

I believe that I was not blocked from Facebook for these two quotes, but because I am on some sort of black list, and other statements. The account was blocked after I posted this:

Finnish homelessness solution can’t be duplicated here, too many influential “Democrats” being way right of Trump even at city council level (that’s why they claim to hate Trump so much). My local (“democrat”) city is finally building the cheapest housing ever below my eyes, and some of my neighbors think it’s just to bug me personally…

Like I saved the forested hill from developers of hyper wealthy homes, by organizing grassroot protests, and now the hill has been entirely poisoned…  Hundreds of trees are dead in one of the last western monarch butterfly refuges. Gee, I wonder how that happened… The city has hired a consultant to inquire…

https://www.weforum.org/…/how-finland-solved…/…

Or then:

Actually the worse there was not revealed; the judge who was offered 5 million dollars by FB (and more!) the very day of his last judgment hurtful to small tech companies… That judge is the friend of a friend…

And then of course:

Are Many “Liberals” Hiding Their Segregationism With Loud Vociferations?

I believe that it is essays, analyses and comments of mine like the preceding ones which truly triggered the ban… Because they have appeared on Facebook. Although Facebook cannot admit that it my domestic observations they are after. Because it will show itself for what it is: sheer political censorship, and steering of Democratic Party opinion towards simplifications compatible with plutocracy and tech monopolies…. and only them….

The Facebook review board is headed by Nick Clegg, the artisan, with David Cameron, of the Brexit referendum… Small world of violence and oversimplification, where, when one says what the Nazis did, one is a Nazi.

Intellectual fascism, pure and simple, arguably even worse than under Mccarthyism.

Patrice Ayme 

***

P/S: The next day and after many pages of protest letters in various places in Facebook:

Support Message
Today at 10:12 PM
Your post is back on Facebook
We’re sorry we got this wrong. We reviewed your post again and it does follow our Community Standards.
We appreciate you taking the time to request a review. Your feedback helps us do better.

[It was not just a post: some of the suspension were for entire capabilities, for 30 days… The fright that suddenly one cannot tell the truth about the Nazis: nothing like it…]

 

The 1609 Project: Cancel Culture And People, Maximize Profits

March 6, 2021

… Profits for the few that is…

Identity politics is tribalism by another name. Tribalism is as old as apes cancelling others for territory. Tribalism fosters simple-mindedness, cancellation, alienation, hatred, annihilation. Jane Goodall found it was systematic when chimpanzees interacted with other groups. Tribalism is the opposite of the open society and the most human activity, debate. It’s as inhuman as it gets.

As I show here, identity politics covers up its true aim, the advancement of the mentality that institutionalized the worst angels of our nature in the US power structure.

Identity politics built the US. In 1609 the English colony was a venture capital firm with state military assistance, the aim of which was gold and extermination of the Natives. Tobacco rendered profitable by inhuman slavery made the English colony profitable in the first half of the Seventeenth Century, creating a virtuous circle calling for ever more slaves. 

The English colony divided the population into indentured servants, red, black, white, slaves, slave owners, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, property owners, and “races” with no rights. Punishment was severe: English colonists going to the Indians were condemned to death, executed by quartering alive. 

The “Market” was “free” to proceed with “creative destruction”, buying and selling people and territory which white men did not own (that tradition continued until the late nineteenth century, when the US offered lots of 10,000 acres next to railroads, to… white men). Result? The American Natives were mostly exterminated… Exterminating most of the Natives is something that happened nowhere else in the world to that extent (except in Australia, also a British colony; in Tasmania, the Natives were exterminated to the last). 

Romans said:”Divide et impera”… Divide and command absolutely. Alienating and alienated identities divide. Who rules and commands (impera) then? The wealthiest families, controlling, and, or, owning all the media in the USA in particular, and the West in general, including Internet social networks. Liberty, Equality, Debate are their enemies.

Identity politics is how the USA was won: by cancelling the “wrong” “identities”, increasing the profits, thus the power, of the exterminators. It is the opposite of how France was created, 15 centuries ago. The Franks, who were originally German, integrated all the Gallo-Romans, accepted all religions and identities, equally, and then outlawed slavery.

The present cancel culture festering in the USA is more of the same alienation, tribalism, violence and destruction, to serve the owners. Far from being a rebellion against the established order, it serves it.

Patrice Ayme

1619. Coming of Africans. But whites and natives had been enslaved and exterminated in the prior decade, setting the tune.

Slavery in the USA, to the extent it happened, was a unique phenomenon. Thus, to speak about a European slavery problem is to divert attention to a secondary problem: although some European slave traders profited from the slave trade, and all Europeans enjoyed tobacco and sugar (and thus shortened life spans from these drugs), most of the profiteering from slavery and its institutions and associated constitutional structures was by white English speaking Americans… the same descendants of whom are giving lessons now.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/maps-reveal-slavery-expanded-across-united-states-180951452/

***

P/S: A much milder version of the preceding comment was sent to New York Times in answer to:

Is This the End of French Intellectual Life?
The country’s culture of argument has come under the sway of a more ideological, more identity-focused model imported from the United States.
By Christopher Caldwell. (Mr. Caldwell is a contributing opinion writer and the author of “Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West” and “The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties.”)

Mr. Caldwell did not publish my comment, nor any of the short and factual answers I made to other comments. This is a deliberate usage of vicious power to kill debate, which should be illegal (the NYT has state given privileges). Including the following correction, after it was asserted that France did not have female intellectuals:

There are several famous contemporary French intellectuals who are women, including the president of the French academy.

France has of course an immense tradition of female intellectuals, including the most important head of state ever:

@ES The French monarch, Queen Bathilde, outlawed slavery in 655 CE. As the “Renovated Roman Empire” of the Franks conquered Europe, slavery was outlawed all over Europe.

The article and its comments accused France of racism. The question is not whether racism was a force in the past. In truth, racism is, institutionally speaking, an English, and by extension, and reinforced, US invention. Neither Rome nor France had racist laws (with the ephemeral exception of laws passed against Jews under Saint Louis, Louis IX… Ironically and tellingly enough)  

The following comment was also blocked:

@rlschles Allegations of racism  against France have been used by the racist US elite, which ruled thanks to racist laws (that France never had). The US elite is much more abusive than the french one, and is afraid of LEF, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Hence its drive to disparage France (which does not have slavery since 655 CE, 14 centuries ago, at least formally)

What is going on? The New York Times is at the core of the US plutocratic establishment Its principal enemy is then LEF, Liberty Equality Fraternity. France was against the invasion of Iraq, and tried to block it. There was then a war between the New York Times and France. Now that the Iraq invasion president is ruling the USA, the New York Times is redoubling its efforts to destroy LEF. Catwell knows very well that I am for LEF, so he bans me. This is serious, it’s a war. It looks superficial like that, but, as during World War Two, it could end up with dozens of millions killed. No, the USA is not going to attack France. But the US elite is making it so to encourage others to go tribal, and that’s where future war lays. The NYT is telling Xi, the Chinese president, implicitly: go ahead, go tribal, you have the support of the USA… Go invade Taiwan… That’s your “identity right”. Then of course, there would be a big war. Guess who would come on top? Yes, the US plutocratic class, same as in 1945…

***

Here are extracts from the NYT article describing what is, from my perspective, triumphant intellectual, political and economic fascism:

After waging a decades-long twilight struggle against these movements, Le Débat has lost.

Intellectuals of all persuasions have been debating what that defeat means for France, and they have reached a conclusion: The country’s intellectual life has come under the sway of a more ideological, more identity-focused model imported from the United States.

Le Débat was always resistant to American imports. It never fully made its peace with the free market in the way that self-described social democrats in America did under Bill Clinton. Nor did it climb aboard the agenda of humanitarian invasions and democracy promotion, as left-leaning American intellectuals like Paul Berman and George Packer did. That was all fine.

***

The NYT turns me into an ally of Macron (should be rather vice versa, as I started decades ago…)

NYT: “Many French people see American-style social-justice politics as a change for the worse. President Emmanuel Macron does. In the wake of the death of George Floyd in police custody last spring, protests and riots across America brought the dismantling of statues and other public symbols — sometimes on the spot, sometimes after further campaigning and agitation. Aware that such actions had found a sympathetic echo among some of his fellow citizens, Mr. Macron warned that France would not follow suit. “It will not erase any trace or name from its history,” he said. “It will not forget any of its works. It will not topple any statues.”

By last fall Mr. Macron was also inveighing against foreign university traditions. “I’m thinking of the Anglo-Saxon tradition, which has another history, and it is not ours,” he said, before singling out “certain social-science theories imported from the United States of America.””

***

Debate is directly under attack, as a mental principle:

NYT: “To look at how Le Débat unraveled is to see that these tensions have been developing for years, if not decades. They bode poorly for the future of intellectual life in France — and elsewhere.

Not all what the NYT says is incorrect. The best lies are made with lots of truth therein. NYT: “Marcel Gauchet, is a philosopher of democracy and a historian of religion. Totalitarianism, and how to find a politics of the left that avoided it, absorbed Mr. Nora and Mr. Gauchet both.

Mr. Gauchet, for instance, has studied with alarm the slow ouster of democratic principles by the very different principles of human rights. “The touchstone in the system,” he warned in 2007, “is no longer the sovereignty of the people but the sovereignty of the individual, defined, ultimately, by the possibility of overruling the collective authority.” Human rights, often imposed by courts or centralized administrative bodies, could wind up pitting democracy against itself. 

***

Another perspective that is entirely correct is found in the NYT analysis. NYT: “The first sign in France of a politics focused on minority groups came in 1984. Activists close to the government of François Mitterrand sought to address the complex problem of assimilating France’s mostly North African immigrants by founding an American-style activist group called SOS Racisme. Le Débat reacted in 1993 by publishing a skeptical book by the sociologist Paul Yonnet. SOS Racisme was not replacing a stuffy idea of race with a hip one, Mr. Yonnet argued; it was introducing race theories into a country where they had lately been weak or absent, ethnicizing newcomers and natives alike, and encouraging the French to look at the minority groups in their midst (Jews, in particular) as somehow foreign.”

***

NYT:”Mr. Gauchet, Ms. Agacinski and many others in their intellectual circle have not changed their politics. Rather they have been outbid by radicals offering a more exciting, if not necessarily more rigorous, critique of society.

***

NYT:”One questions the “legitimacy”… Where did this very un-French attitude come from?an answer: America. A few days after announcing that the review would publish no more, Mr. Nora spoke about its closing on Alain Finkielkraut’s radio show. Mr. Finkielkraut was pointing to disturbing tendencies in French intellectual life, but Mr. Nora wanted to take the conversation in a different direction: to the “mouvements à l’américaine” that start on campuses across the ocean and tend to show up in France. “What they call,” he said, “to follow the argument to its logical conclusion, cancel culture, which is to say the extermination of culture, the will to. …

Here Mr. Nora paused before continuing: “Anyway, I daresay some of us are old enough to have echoes in our heads of Goebbels when he said, ‘When I hear the word “culture” I reach for my revolver.’”

[Actually it was not Goebbels, but in a Nazi play with the following memorable: “No, let ’em keep their good distance with their whole ideological kettle of fish … I shoot with live ammunition! When I hear the word culture …, I release the safety on my Browning!” Notice that the gun is a US made gun, a “Browning”, because it’s US plutocracy which armed the Nazis, with contraband weapons”]

***

Cluelessly the ignorant brutes at the NYT observe: “The Goebbels quote may be apocryphal, but it is worth pausing to ask why Mr. Nora — born in the first half of the 20th century and preoccupied with the moral legacy of World War II — should call such a name to mind when discussing the influence of American culture on his own country’s.

Yes, vicious idiots, it is your party, the US plutocrats, the equivalent of whom the Romans used to call the “Optimates”, the “Best”, which gave the weapons to the Nazis! Precisely! As I just said. But of course the NYT blocked hundreds of my comments explaining this, so it can keep on pretending that only idiots would say this.

***

NYT: ““There is a mighty ideological wave coming from the United States,” the philosopher Yves Charles Zarka wrote last fall in an article about the death of Le Débat. “It brings rewriting history, censuring literature, toppling statues, and imposing a racialist vision of society.” Nor is it as iconoclastic as it looks, according to Luc Ferry, a philosopher and conservative columnist. “However anticapitalist and anti-American they may think themselves,” he wrote last year, “these activists are only aping whatever has been going on on campuses across the Atlantic over the last four decades.”

***

And the lying plutocratic New York Times to conclude, mixing the true, the ludicrous, the vicious, the real and the imaginary:

The shoe used to be on the other foot. The United States used to learn a lot from France. Until a generation ago, into the age of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, one could say America deferred to France on matters intellectual. It doesn’t any longer. The demise of Le Débat was marked by not a single mention in any major American newspaper or magazine.

There are still lessons Americans can learn from France, provided we approach it with the right questions in mind. A good one to start with might be whether the American academy of recent decades — with the culture it carries and the political behaviors it fosters — has been, in the wider world, a force for intellectual freedom or for its opposite.

Well, dear fascists, and obscene censors, what you are doing called intellectual fascism, and the day you see thermonuclear suns rising over your cities, don’t say the others came for you, they came from you. In particular, you are teaching Mr. Xi that he is right, and democracy is wrong, that the debate is wrong. There is only one way out of that: violent mass death.

“CRETIN” Comes From “CHRISTIAN”. A Deep & Revealing Truth From The European Middle Ages

January 15, 2021

Créstin From Chréstien. Calling Cretins Cretins, Starting With Christians, Made Europe Smart, Thus Strong

European supremacy (now quickly vanishing) rested on mental supremacy, and that, in turn demanded, and demands, a colossal contempt for superstitious religion [1].

Colossal contempt for superstition is why the word Chréstien became a pejorative, Créstin, now simplified as cretin (just as the Latin hospitale became modern French hopital).

Europe has been vastly misunderstood. It is usually viewed as “Christian”. Nietzsche correctly thought that the naive vision of Christianism ruling Europe, was just propaganda by the true masters of Europe (the “Lords” who were in plain sight, but, thanks to Christianism succeeded to make the Commons believe in the virtue of enslavement).

Christianism was just the superstition the slaves were supposed to be guided by, to “believe” in. Jesus urged his followers to act like slaves, implementing a slave morality… Meanwhile, in truth the nobles followed a morality more akin to that of the “blonde beast” (the lion), as Nietzsche put it. Indeed nothing stopped the aristocracy. Aristocrats, if hungry, would roast children (this happened during some Crusades, for nourishment of the hungry Frankish warriors… No, this is not a piece of Islamist propaganda: the Crusaders themselves related the facts, read Jean de Joinville and his friends…) 

Here I will present a further datapoint supporting the perspective that the literary class of the Middle Ages was perfectly aware of, despised and rejected Christianism, which they perceived as hypocrisy, exploitation and mental retardation combined. We owe those critics of Christianism a convenient concept and word, cretin. Amusingly Nietzsche, a French speaking philologist (i.e., linguist) did not think of this argument.

Incontrovertible! Thank You, Professor! Paris University Professor Bernard Cerquiglini, a top linguist, former director of the National Institute for the French language, confirms my long held interpretation.

In the early Middle Ages (500 CE to 1,000 CE), Europe was devastated. Population had collapsed, or was collapsing, well in excess of 50%. Say from perhaps 80 millions to just 18 millions (here is a link with some data and erroneous albeit interesting logic).    

I am aware of the explanation of crétin as a depiction of hypothyroidism and enthusiastic prolonged interbreeding… but medical science does not explain where the word came from.  

The usual, and true, and yet fake, story is that cretin comes from 1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, “a dwarfed and deformed idiot” of a type formerly often found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, and lack of iodine. After brandishing that medical description from the Nineteenth Century, the Christian apologists pretend that the word is of uncertain origin. They are trying to hide the auditory evidence: in Old French, “créstin” and Chréstien (christian) have the exact same pronunciation.

Indeed defining “cretin” as a mental condition, does not explain where the word  comes from. I am a native French speaker (learned in Black Africa as a child, indeed). I also studied the question in depth, because, well, that’s what I do. “Cretin” comes from chréstien… “Christian” in English. In Vulgar Latin *christianus “a Christian” had generally the sense of poor fellow… or, in context, poor idiotic fellow. Throughout the Middle Ages, “Christianus” had a connotation of simpleton or mental retard. Here is a French specialists’ abstract confirming that observation:

Plusieurs spécialistes contemporains de l’étymologie du français, tels Alain Reya ou Walther von Wartburg, estiment que l’explication la plus vraisemblable est de faire dériver crétin de chrétien, par euphémisation, un crétin étant considéré comme un innocent, un bienheureux 3,4,5,6, ou parce que les arriérés étaient recueillis dans les monastères au Moyen Age.

(Several specialists of French etymology, such as Ar or WvW, ascertain that the most likely explanation is to make cretin derive from christian, by euphemization, a cretin being considered an innocent, a happy person, or because mental retards were welcome in the monasteries of the Middle Ages.)

Well, and if it was not just an euphemization? A look at the factual history and historiography of the middle Middle Ages shows that it is not just those in command who despised and did not obey Christianism. Those who wrote also loudly shared in the rejection and contempt of the religion which supposedly ruled the souls.

***

Below the Word Cretin, What Saved Europe; Hateful Contempt For the Fanatics:

So the origin of the word “Cretin” adds a new dimension to… the understanding of Europe. Indeed, here is another explanation, this one with full semantic dimensionality: the hatred and utter contempt with which priests and their ilk were viewed in the middle Middle Ages by most of the population, and, in particular, by the intellectuals who depicted the situation then.

Remember: late Middle Aged Christianism was a killing machine (just go ask Middle Easterners). The priests and their military allies ended up killing many millions, as the Middle Ages progressed. Burning at the stake for heresy reappeared in 1026 CE, after a Frankish imposed hiatus of more than five centuries. The full Christian insanity got unleashed with the First Crusade: as the Crusade started, so did the mass killing of European Jews (who were probably, at least in part, European by ancestry, and Jewish by conversion of said ancestor… so the conventional terminology of “anti-Semitism”, to qualify anti-Judaism, is misleading).

How do I know this of this hatred against the theocrats? It was a sane reaction to Christianism as war and genocide, the vision promoted by Saint Bernard (personal enemy of the great philosopher cum songwriter Abelard). The hatred against Christianism a la Saint Bernard was more than justified. Just an example: the (Fourth) Crusade against the Cathars killed as much if not more, in percentage terms, as the Nazis did… But the Christian leaders were themselves unhinged. To look at the Cathars again, Catharism was thoroughly annihilated, over several generations of relentless persecution. From Turkey to Spain. Not one book survived. Five millions Cathars died (at least).

I have next to my bed all the oldest French literature surviving, including the famed “Fabliaux”, in the original 9 centuries old French.

In these books, priests, chaplains and author church authorities are central. They are depicted engaging in relentless sexual adventures and fornication, murders, tortures, rape and castration, in the most comical way… It’s all roaring comical. A priest, surprised by the incoming husband, disguises himself in a statue. The enraged husband sees the statue, which reminds him of the priest, so he cuts its appendages. The fake statue says nothing to save his life, while losing wiener and jewels.

And so on. Most devious wives have a lecherous priest in their beds. Priests are depicted as terminally cretinous. This approach to religion was not new. Although (bishop) Gregory of Tours’ book on the history of the Franks, written six centuries earlier, is full of martyrs and saints, a robust reading shows many of the admirable characters, even saints, engaged in depredation… And some priests are represented in the worst light imaginable, killing for greed in extensive conspiracies. 

What is the conclusion? We The People of the Middle Ages had a robustly correct view of the theocrats. One has to realize that those writing horrors about people of the church belong to the most intellectual part of the population. Also we know that church summities as Beranger, an abbot basically said that the entire Christian religion worked only if one realized that reason should be divine. Beranger had a powerful ally: the conquering Duke of Normandy. Beranger fought the Pope… and was not defeated. 

The literal roasting of nobles during the “jacqueries’ of the Fourteenth Century (which extended to England) proves the point that there was tremendous opposition to the establishment throughout the Middle Ages (the existence of the Cathars, and the strike of the University of Paris for a full year around 1200 CE to be taught Aristotle, demonstrates the same point). After the jacqueries, which extended to England, the nobles lived in fear of a popular revolt until the final retribution of 1789… 

It took that long, because, just as in the Late Roman empire, cretinism was a method of governance. The more cretinous the people, the easier it is to rule over them.

So we see that the middle Middle Age society was such that intellectual positioning highly critical of Christianism was, de facto, tolerated, and pervasive. Calling cretins cretins and Christians, cretins, was missing in the Fourth and Fifth Century Rome: doing so after 380 CE, under the Roman emperors Theodosius I, Gratian and Valentinian was a capital crime. 

In France, the core of Western Europe, in the middle Middle Ages, a healthy contempt for superstitious religion flourished. This was a return to an old spirit. 

The Romans of the Republic often exhibited a critical distanciation for their own original Roman religion. The examples abound: an admiral, furious that the sacred chicken will not eat, a bad auguri, threw them in the sea, observing they would be forced to drink now. Caesar, invading Africa, stumbles and falls during disembarkment, a bad omen. So he grabs the sand, and says: now I hold you, Africa. Or Cicero, having become a supreme augur, in charge of interpreting the signs, observes that this is the most powerful position of the Roman Republic… As, for example, it enables the augur to validate, or not, the elections.  

When the Roman dictatorship became a Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, all distanciation from religion was gone: only Catholicism was the state religion (and the status of Judaism was unclear).  Everybody was supposed to subscribe to that superstition and its absurd orders (such as you shall not execute murderous highway robbers). The prompt result (it took only months, starting in 395 CE) was the collapse of the Roman state and civilization, led by the collapse of secularism. 

A mind freed of superstition is freer to observe the world. China and its satellites, the only center of civilization rivalling the Indo-European ensemble, was also never too subjected to terroristic superstition. So, whereas cannibalism ruled the Americas, under a superstitious umbrella, Eastern Asians did not eat their fellow man. Foot binding was enough to satisfy the sadistic instincts. 

So what happened, starting in 1026 CE, when burning people for heresy was re-engaged? The feudal order, a plutocratic system, was fundamentally resting on inequality. It needed a fascist god to justify itself. The more fascist the god, the more fascist the plutocracy could get. Hence the Cathar insurrection… and that was broken by plutocracy, for example, the king of France who had interest in breaking the super powerful county of Toulouse, a de facto parliamentary power… And Catharism was an excellent reason to do so, once its annihilation became the object of an official crusade.

However, there is something called CULTURAL INERTIA. Once contempt had been heaped on religion, for centuries, it could not be dispelled with the magic of terror. Resistance to Catholicism, obvious by the Eleventh Century, soon became frantic, and millions were killed. After four centuries of Protestantism, potentates in Western Europe (following some in North-Eastern Europe, see the Hus affair and consequences) promoted Calvin and Luther… This time reform worked enough, to cause centuries of religious wars… instead of the simple extermination by Catholic terror of its opponents.

Resistance to superstition and authority made Europe culturally smarter. It also probably made Europe EPIGENETICALLY smarter. Because there is no doubt that stupidity can be epigenetically imposed.

Oh, by the way, Christianism, as practiced by Roman tyrants, was theocratic fascism. A particular case of intellectual fascism. Now social network monopolies are imposing their own intellectual fascism… a particular case of which being what a growing group of contemporary French intellectuals call “Pensée unique… The single thought, supported by the single emotion, hatred against The Malicious One… a characteristic of the Middle Ages. 

Calling cretins cretins is at the core of making the advancement of civilization possible. Yes, it’s not Politically Correct, or, more exactly, plutocratically correct, of calling cretins cretin, but it is philosophically correct. If one cannot call idiocy idiotic, there is no wisdom.

Idiocy is not just to be avoided, it is a teacher. Thinkers, in particular mathematicians, learn that error is a friend, a teacher. Only those who want to protect idiocy, cover it up.

Ah, and why is European supremacy vanishing? Because, precisely, Europe had increasingly learned to tolerate, or even revere cretinism. But the US President got blocked on “social media”, when all sorts of monstrosities and threats are not, and, suddenly struck by an epiphany, many leaders of European  cultural descent, worldwide, condemned the censorship. This is an encouraging sign, as censorship is the first step towards cretinism.

Our species is defined by wisdom. Cretinism is not just the religion of error embraced, it is as inhuman as one gets. This point of view carries real humanistic power. Take for example Nazism. Not too many whined that it looked cruel. But of course the Nazis got elected by pretending that they were good people, keen to resurrect Germany (defending minorities, of all things). So to counteract the nazis by claiming they were bad, when they claimed to be good, was not a powerful argument. Instead the very powerful argument was to point out that Nazism was a form of cretinism. Why? Because it did not have a snowball chance in hell to defeat the entente cordiale of France and Great Britain… all the more as their progeny, the USA, could not be really too far behind helping its parents. To this the Nazis replied with the cretinous argument that France and England, the two most aggressive, and deeply entangled nations of the last millennium, were actually degenerate, unwilling and unable, all of a sudden, to make war… although they had the largest empires the world had ever seen, and France spent 15 centuries at war, and counting… And this was just one aspect of Nazi cretinism, there were many others, like killing off intellectuals (in particular Jews), or depending upon US plutocracy to have an economy…

Fighting cretinism is most humanitarian, and most useful, in to achieve a more human civilization. One has to realize that Christianism was a slave religion, and taught this, not just by teaching to be slapped all day long, which was already cretinous, but by an entire arsenal of stupidities which were already denounced 18 centuries ago by Celsus… If one is dumb like an ass, one can be used like an ass. In these end of times times, it is high time to give cretins their marching orders towards a more meaningful future.

Cretinism is not just a secondary effect of Christianism. It is its principal raison d’être.

Demolishing cretinism has to start by not being afraid to search for, identify, and denounce stupid ideas. That’s where much of the learning is.

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] Some Americans knowing vaguely the history of English America, will object that it was founded by Pilgrims…. Who were full of respect for Christianism. That’s only SC, Superficially Correct. In truth the Pilgrims were integrated in military-plutocratic investment venture. Once the first Pilgrims landed (not to well, and not where the army had sent them), they wrote back to their fellows in Europe to boast of the immense riches of the continent. Simultaneously, the Pilgrims discovered some English heathens who had intermarried with Native women. Revolted by these sins, they massacred them all. The same reasoning was then extended to the entire continent. Thus Christianism was used to give the good conscience necessary to massacre enthusiastically anybody who was in the way of greater riches. This was what the Late Roman and Feudal systems had done, by using the Inquisition, but on a much greater scale.

Where is the contempt for Christianism in the behavior of the English colonizers? Well, by using Christianism mostly as a sword. If one extracts the best of Christianism, all the talk about love, pardoning, mercifulness, etc… One obtains positive Christianism, so to speak, and one can do the same with other religions. However, the weaponization of Christianism, by using its Dark Side, is what the Pilgrims and their descendants human, or institutional, did. That shows contempt for the positive side of Christ.

Considering what the European colonizers did with Christianism demonstrates the point that Christianism was an instrument of subjugation. Lethal, if need be, as symbolized by the cult object of the Christians, torture to death by crucifixion. If one is greedy enough, that’s not cretinous.

If Israel Is The Elected People Why Vote Again? (Thus,) Does the Biblical God Want To Kill The Jews?

July 28, 2018

Israeli philosopher Omri Boehm asks in the New York Times: “Did Israel Just Stop Trying to Be a Democracy”?

I generally do not comment much on Israel. My reasons are deep, tenebrous, far inside the vigorous flames of the circles of hell at the center of my philosophical system, sustaining the whole thing, just as the sun-like molten iron heart of Earth supports the heavenly biosphere… Just as the Dark Side supports the Enlightenment, as the Yin and Yang define each other…

But, as the New York Times itself decides to show some guts, so must I… I will not be outdone by commoners! (A very extended version of my published comment is below; it was approved by just 2 people, whereas comments in the Israel Uber Alles style, were approved by more than 100… Serious Jews are into introspection…)

Satrapies (subordinated plutocracies) were small in the West immense in the east. In any case, the Achaemenid (“Persian”) empire was extremely multiethnic… And extremely advanced: news came from all over the empire to Persepolis in one week with an efficient road network, and a pony express… (The real extent of the empire was even greater than that, going all the way to Ethiopia, and Oman was part of it…)

Dr, Boehm writes:”Last week, Israel’s government pushed through Parliament a new law calling Israel the “nation-state of the Jewish people.” That statement may sound like a truism — and in some respects it is one — but the implications of it officially being made are monumental.

In 1948, the Declaration of Independence, the text that marks the founding of Israel, created a Jewish state that would ensure “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” Since then, the question of how Israel could be both Jewish and democratic has been the object of fierce controversy.

The effort to guarantee equal rights for non-Jews has at times seemed like trying to square a circle. Last week, Israel gave up on even trying.

implicit nod to Palestinian self-determination was driven by an overriding concern for Jewish interests, not Arab rights. In May 1948, there were about 600,000 Jews and some 1.2 million Arabs living within Palestine’s borders. With Jews in the minority, the Jewishness of a democratic Israel could only be ensured if Palestinians had a chance at self-determination. In other words, Israel’s foundational twin pledge (to be both Jewish and democratic) was hypocritical…

The system’s original contradictions are now being laid bare. Of the more than 8.2 million people living in Israel’s recognized borders today, roughly 73 percent are Jewish and 22 percent are Arab. But of the 11.8 million people who live in Israel and the West Bank, roughly 56 percent are Jewish and 40 percent are Arab. And as the prospect of a viable two-state solution has receded, so has Israel’s promise that it would provide full equality to non-Jews.

In keeping with this evolution, last week’s nation-state law says that, “The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”

***

This picture symbolizes the problem. The two mosques visible (gold Dome of the Rock, etc.) were built on TOP of the Jewish Temple. OK, it may be better than latrines. But when we read that Muhammad, after his death, flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse… a heady mix of Judaism and Hellenism (remember Pegasus?)… one finds itself confronted to a fable for little children having turned lethal, for real… The Star of David is nearly two millennia older than Islam….

The theory that ethnicity commands citizenship was made most famous by the Nazis. However tribalism above anything else is one of the oldest, most primitive, and deleterious, not to say savage, lethal and criminal, ideologies. All great empires triumphed, because they rejected it, wholesale. This is what made them great. For example, the Achaemenid empire, which extended from Greece to India and Ethiopia to Central Asia, was extremely multiethnic. The Greco-Roman empire was extremely multiethnic (and so is its descendant empire, “The West”). China and India were multiethnic.

Multiethnicity is not the end all, be all: it doesn’t prevent intellectual fascism, nor, of course, the political type of fascism, as the Persians obdurately demonstrated in the last three millennia…. However, it is conducive to it…

A multiethnic empire is forced to admit that there are higher principles than origins and appearances.

Those higher principles are well-known: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

These principles are secular, they don’t depend upon the common superstition that the tribe at hand was chosen by “god” to be tops! Or the elected people”, or even the definition of “man” (as happened in many tribes).

The “Elected People” theory backfired spectacularly in the confrontation between the Jews and their mental offspring. First in the Fourth Century, Roman emperor Theodosius I legislated that the Christians were the Elected People, and “heretics” (“those who made a choice”) were to be burned. Finally the “Elected People” theory, reinforced by the Christo-Darwinist mindset led to apply the “selection of the fittest” to Judaism: the Nazis insisted that they were the “Elected People”, elected by their own will, not a “god” scared of shrimps and hogs who insisted on sexual mutilations…

The irony, then, is that the Jewish god is of an inferior sort, scared of hogs and shrimps. Hence the Jewish god favors superstition heavily: doesn’t it favor its “elected people”?  Actually it’s no favor to believe in all the stupidities in the Bible: it makes those who believe in them incredibly dumb. One may argue that they are made dumb on details. No. They are made dumb on the principle that dumbness has to be the ultimate ruler.

Thus, paradoxically, the Jewish god, who defines Israel, is its worse enemy. How did that occur? The vicious tribal fascism and exterminationism found in the Bible was a great help in the dog eat dog world which followed the simultaneous collapse of all the civilizations of the Middle Earth around 1117 BCE and, or, from the “conspiracy of the Sea People” (Pharaoh dixit)… Although versions of desiccated Egypt survived, and Greece would revive, mightier than ever, within three centuries.

The vicious exterminationism found in the Bible provided a justification for the methods Israel had to use, simply to exist. Before the Muslims crow:’We told you so!’, let me point out the original, literal version of Islam has exactly the same problem… And just as with Israel, that was the key to its early success. It’s no coincidence, but causation: in the grander scheme of thing, Islam is just a variant of Judaism, endowed with a similar ultra-violence (the Qur’an quotes approvingly Lot in the Bible on how to treat homosexuals:”with a rain of stones”; the Bible is the constant context of all of Islam, the “Messenger of god” Muhammad’s fundamental theme being that Jews and Christians didn’t abide correctly by the unvarnished Bible).

All this ultra-violence and ultra-discrimination? All the way to the ovens.

***

So why am I (nevertheless) pro-Israel? (But one should push my patience too far…) It’s not just a question of the enemy of my enemy being my friend. (Moreover, it’s not clear who is friend, who is enemy!) It’s not just a question of historical justice: Judaism is more than twice older than Islam. When the Islamists established mosques on top of THE temple of the Jews, they were symbolically put their feet on Israel’s face.

The Roman emperor Hadrian had kicked the Jews out of Jerusalem after the second Judaic War (135 CE). However, the decision, applauded by the fanatical Saint Augustine after 400 CE, didn’t have to be definitive: Roman emperor Julian had ordered the reconstruction of the Great Temple in 362 CE. Julian in the surviving Fragment of a Letter to a (Pagan) Priest: “I myself…intended to restore it [the Jerusalem Temple], in honor of the god whose name has been associated with it.” (Works, vol. 2., pp. 297–339.) Sixth-century historian Lydus quotes him, “I raise with the utmost zeal the Temple of the Highest God.

Some may scoff:’Who cares about a Roman emperor?’ Well, our present regimes are descendants from Rome… As our law is, in its fundamental nature, Roman (extended to women and children). Moreover, morality (the mores) is entangled with law: what we consider legal is moral, and reciprocally.

In the best of possible world, the Middle East would free itself from the Biblical god: Arabic speaking peoples would harness the know-how of the Hebrew speaking people… But the complexity arises when one realizes that (some, many) Israelis, or, at least, Israeli companies, are so smart, precisely because their lives depend upon their smarts. The Dark Side, violence requires, enables and invigorates, higher mental functions. Such is the darkest of the dark.

Abominable are the flowers of infamy, yet beautifully mighty!

***

Conclusion? Tribalists are worse than fascists, or racists: they are followers of principles which reduce mental diversity, thus intelligence. Hence, in the end, tribalists are those whom much higher principles, which they are busy denying, subjugate. Israel may thrive right now by going solo in the world of decency and common sense. But solo is solo, and that’s dangerous, as all dead solo climbers, my friends, can testify.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: The NYT decided the following comment was to be lauded (and it was approved by 100 times more readers than mine!). I reproduce it as it is, complete with its atrocious orthography (the New York Times has to live according to its picks:

pirranha299

PhiladelphiaJuly 26

Times Pick

Why is Israel, a country the relative size of a postage stamp, the Worlds one and only Jewish state always singled out for opprobrium no matter what it does.  The Arabs have 28 plus countries. Is it too much to ask that they can have a law that makes it official that its a Jewish State? Can’t Jews have one little state of their own?

Israel is a Democracy..This law does not change that.  It has a vibrant press, minority represention in its democratically elected legislature, and an independent judicial system that acts as check on the executive and legislative branches. As is typical, If Israel is not perfect the anti-Semites and Anti-zionists will take one element they disagree with and conglate it to portray all of Israel as “a Nazi state” and demonize it as a threat to World peace. Of course they say nothing when the true dictatorships demonize Israel, point out Israel’s flaws as existential threats to “their Palestinian brothers” while ignoring  their own brethrens terrorism, racism, and militirism.

Israel as the only Jewish State will always be outvoted by the far more numerous Arab and Muslim States. The author cites ” Israel’s right wing government” in a pejorative sense. If it can be categorized that way it’s because the People democratically voted it in. If it fails it can be voted out. Thats democracy.

***

The answer to this sort of logic is that we have seen it before, with Sparta. There was only one Spartan state. Sparta enslaved another city-state: Messene, to its west, a unique case in Greece. It didn’t finish well for Sparta… Although Sparta was an independent state for more than a millenium (longer than Israel), it ultimately disappeared. Athens didn’t: in the middle Middle Ages, Paris was considered to be the “imperial translation” of Athens: many of the best principles of Athens were taken over by Paris, a rebirth of Athens. Sparta though was dead, and stayed dead… Except if Israel takes itself as the new Sparta? Well, Sparta didn’t have the equivalent of Orthodox Jews: they would have been put to death immediately…

 

PC = Political Correctness = PERFECTLY CLOSED Minds

March 12, 2017

PC, Perfectly Closed Intellectual Fascism, key to total civilizational collapse…

“Politically Correct” is a euphemism for “Perfectly Closed”:

In first approach, PC consists in a set of taboos, places where one should never go mentally. For example, if one evokes colonialism or slavery, the PC crowd bleats: condemn Europe. Never mind the fact that Europe was the only slave-free place in the world, then. PC is not about facts, logic. It’s about what makes the powers that be feel good about you, and you can join the mass of sheep, and happily bleat together.

SDM, a commenter on this site, asked: “What exactly do you consider to be PC? you seem to be all over the place without defining your terms.” There are many definitions of “PC” (see Wikipedia on the subject). Here is mine: PC = PERFECTLY CLOSED [MIND].

My definition of Political Correctness is maximal, as general as possible. The beauty, and power, of generalization is something one learns by studying modern mathematics: Generalizing simplifies. Ever since Cardano, a surgeon, took square roots of negative numbers in the 16th Century, mathematics has been generalizing.

“PC”, usually the abbreviation for “Politically Correct”, is, in truth, the exact opposite: “Political Correctness” is extremely detrimental to the Polis…For very deep, neurological, and physical reasons, the “Politically Correct” is an addictive drug, which brings quickly the fall of the polis that it pretends to protect.

***

PC censored minds are closed to what opens the world of understanding, debate: What is the interest of that? Who profits from the crime?

As usual, as Nietzsche would tell you, one has to distinguish the interest of the masters from that of the slaves, just as one has to distinguish the morality of the slaves and the morality of the masters.

Closed minds have fewer dimensions, they are easy to rule. They offer stable homes for intellectual fascism. The PC doctrine is one of the oldest tricks of the greatest dictators. In the past, violating it often meant death.

In Europe and the Middle Earth, for more than a millennium, “Politically Correct” meant being a (well-behaved) Christian or a Muslim. That correctness was enforced by the death penalty (laws of emperor Theodosius against heresy (390 CE), and Muhammad, emperor of Arabia, starting around 630 CE, for disrespect against Islam.)

*** 

Intellectual Fascism Costs Less and Attack More! Real Thinking goes in all directions. Intellectual Fascism entertains just a few. The simplest, most hare-brained tribalism unites the empire around these few ideas. The most intelligent empires, like the Athenian empire, enact just the exact opposite.

PC forces to focus on what should be non-subjects.

For example, Europe and its presumed culpability about slavery: Europe outlawed slavery in 650 CE, nearly 14 centuries ago.  (European colons, far from the arm of European law, reintroduced slavery, mostly because it was the usage all over, outside of Europe.)

Examples of non-subject and disinformation: the very word “antisemitism” (by which is meant “anti-judaism”). US and EU media love to accuse everybody they don’t like of “antisemitism”(for example Trump was accused of antisemitism, when his closest family is Jewish; in France opponents of Emmanuel Macron are accused of “antisemitism”… even though Macron is not Jewish).

The Politically Correct obsession enables the pseudo-left to pontificate about red herrings. And thus to avoid the important subjects, the simple evocation of which would endanger the plutocracy.

The case of Islam is typical : Islam is an ideology which orders to kill many categories of people. Such preaching should be subjected to the same penalties as if a Nazi were doing it. Instead, and although Islamists and Nazis were allied in World War Two, one is, mysteriously, accused of “racism” if one fears Islam.

The mystery is part of the indoctrination. As people are made to ponder pseudo-mysteries elaborated precisely to mystify them,  all and any genuine progress on important subjects is avoided.

Hurling insults such as “racist” and “antisemite”, “colonialist” prevents We The People to be even aware that one should be passionate about such subjects such as HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING.

Why? Because high frequency trading  is one of the ways the plutocracy uses to become ever more powerful, year after year. Abuse such as high frequency trading is today’s slavery, today’s colonialism (colonizing the world). But if all what people worry about is slow slave trading two centuries ago, they don’t have the mental space to know even of the existence of high frequency trading.

***

“Political Correctness” is nothing new: it has existed ever since there were dictators, and that’s how they ruled:

Ruling over the Polis, implies forbidding We The Sheeple to have inadmissible thoughts, or broaching some taboo subjects. The very fact that the pseudo-left has embraced Political Correctness demonstrates that their mannerism is just a travesty of plutocracy. Shame on them!

By excluding from debates entire subjects, the Jihadists of wealth, the PC whip masters, prevent the analysis of the exploitation schemes plutocracy organizes. (This is not an outrageous analogy. Real Islamist Jihadists worked real hard for the US fracking industry, by forcing the price of oil at extravagant level for those years where fracking rigs were paid for, built, and deployed in the USA; I am not choosing my words at random. It’s hilarious to realize that those who died screaming Alluha Akbar, God is Great, died for US oil men and their co-conspirators… GIs, who were also killed and maimed, may find this less hilarious. What I just wrote is highly Politically Incorrect, of course, as are all serious truths not previously revealed…)

***  

Intellectual Fascism: it deserves its own essay. Political fascism arises from Ethological Fascism, the fact that social animals fight better when they ACT as a super-organism (the mass with the greatest mass wins, even hyenas versus lions).

Excluding entire subjects from debate closes the minds to external influences. That stabilizes the Intellectual Fascism. A fascist mind needs to be protected from exterior influences.

An open mind does not need to be protected. By definition, an open mind is open to all influences.

Mental, and Intellectual fascisms proceed of an even more general principle, the Principle of Least Action. Brains try to do as little as possible, so adopting others’ ideas is all the more irresistible, when they come from one’s superiors.

***

Tribalism rests most economically, most stupidly, upon Political Correctness:

ASPASIA WAS A PHILOSOPHER WHO WROTE THE BEST SPEECHES OF HER HUSBAND, Pericles. She promoted the “OPEN SOCIETY”, the exact opposite of “Political Correctness” (“We throw our city open to the world”). Thus she was put on trial on a number of charges, including , of course, “impiety”.

Impiety? Tribalism is the basic religion. Always has, always will be. It defines the “Politically Correct”, what one has to believe rather than explain.

***

Those who rule, rule best, when they rule over the minds of their slaves, training them like dogs. This is what “Political Correctness” does. PC is the melodious barking of those dogs. Always has been, always will be. Instead, really philosophy is a discordance.

Even if, at some point of history a Polis (City-State in Greek; by generalization a nation, or empire) had achieved perfect morality (and this never happened), this would have been unsustainable. Politics is always geometrodynamics, because so is the environment. And it’s nonlinear, because it self-interacts, be it only through the ecology which it ravages  

Civilization is never a closed box, as it bursts, Plus Ultra, through all the bounds, even if successful, especially if successful. Political Correctness.  

Calling things by the opposite of what they are is the basis of deception. See the “Affordable Care Act” (The ACA did not have much cost control of the world’s most expensive health care; thus some of the world’s greatest plutocrats supported it, just as they support Brexit, for the same exact reason: augmenting their power).

By calling things by the opposite of what they are, way the sheeple cannot suspect the enormity of the lie, as Adolf Hitler explained in detail in his famous book “Mein Kampf”. This has long been used by US plutocratically owned media (my own “Mediating Pluto” from 2013, explains why the New York Times has banned me).

Examples of mislabelling abound: “Catholicism” means “Universalism” (in Greek): yet the “Catholics” immediately proceeded to exterminate any understanding of the world beyond their Qur’an (Qur’an means “recitation” in Arabic. So my usage here is not just biting irony, but translating in Arabic Catholic practice. Actually “Islam” is pretty much “Catholicism” translated in Arabic, for the desert).

Similarly “Communism” was the opposite of what happened with Stalinism and Maoism, or “National-Socialism” just the opposite of what it claimed to be, as it was revealed to be anti-national, and anti-socialist. Much of what is called “capitalism” and “liberalism” right now is neither.  

***

Worrying about Political Correctness, is even older than Socrates’ murky drama. The case of Socrates shows, indeed, a dearth of PC can bring death and become criminal (Socrates was condemned to death for “corrupting the youth”: his students and lovers, 50 years younger than him, were central to the near-annihilation of Athens in Peloponnesian War, and Socrates was obstinately democidal, a tradition Plato and Aristotle pursued until the official subjection of Athens to Macedonian overviewed plutocracy).

In March 1968,  Michel Foucault, a psychiatrically trained French philosopher, said: “a political thought can be politically correct (‘politiquement correcte’) only if it is scientifically painstaking“. So the term actually originated in France. Only if it scientifically proven, painstakingly. ONLY IF!

In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush excoriated Political Correctness  in his speech: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.”

(I officially hate Prescott Bush, H.W.’s father, a criminal-against humanity from his extreme collaboration with Adolf Hitler, and I despise W. Bush, another criminal against humanity, for his fracking-promoting invasion of Iraq; but I respect H. W. Bush, the navy’s youngest pilot, he had cheated to enroll… H. W. Bush would have never dismantled FDR’s Banking Act of 1933, as Bill Clinton and his goons did)

Earlier Blum had written “The Closing Of The American Mind” (1987; I bought the book, but didn’t read it really very much, too boring and too…closed)

Seen my way, Political Correctness, this Perfect Closure, is closely tied to Intellectual Fascism ( a precursor of, but much more general than, political fascism).

***

Political Correctness, Perfect Closure makes Intellectual Fascism not only possible, but sustainable. However, Intellectual Fascism, by reducing intelligence, makes the Polis, the City, the Nation, the Empire, Civilization, even less sustainable than Political Fascism does.

Many civilizations went on, sometimes for millennia, as Political Fascism: the obvious example are muscular, well-organized empires such as Egypt and China (although “China” was often several). However, when either engaged in Intellectual Fascism (having not enough correct, fresh ideas), they quickly went down.

Europe after the collapse of Athens under Macedonia, knew hope for real democracy with the Roman Republic, which had very strong anti-plutocratic laws. However, once those were removed, de facto, from globalization (circa 150 CE), Rome survived as a Republic In Name Only (RINO).

Intellectual Fascism is self-amplifying: hence emperor Theodosius anti-heresy laws of 390 CE made the empire collapse in a few years. Within ten years, the bishops who governed the empire gave power to the Franks, in the North-West, as they had no ideas, no choice, no money, no army, and neither the taste nor capability to do what their government of bishops needed to do.

The Franks, a recently unified confederation of Dutch (or ‘lower Germans’), legislated under a law written for them by Roman lawyer-generals, brought back tolerance for diversified people and their variegated ideas by clamping down on Jihad Christianism.

Since then Europe clamped down enough on Intellectual Fascism to produce mental progress. 

But full democracy a la Athens, 25 centuries ago, has not been re-established. Worse: the Politically Correct resurfacing today, is reminiscent of the monks dressed all in black who destroyed thinkers and their books, around 400 CE (especially in places such as Egypt).  Those monks in black were the main cause of the Dark Ages.  

While we are supposed to vilify Europe for all it did not really do, and certainly for a very long time, there is a New Force on Wall Street: The ‘Family Office’, reveals the Wall Street Journal:
‘Clans with nine-figure fortunes are increasingly investing through unregulated firms known as family offices, impinging on the business of investment banking and private equity.’ It turns out that they conspire…

“On a warm October day in 2014, envoys from 15 of America’s wealthiest families gathered at Circle T, Ross Perot Jr.’s 2,500-acre ranch outside Dallas. Skeet-shooting was on the agenda, but the real purpose of the two-day retreat was for the families to get acquainted and eventually team up to pursue investments.

From that exclusive gathering, attended by people investing the fortunes of Michael Bloomberg and other billionaires, sprang a broader network of 150 families that have since participated in more than 10 deals together, including acquisitions.

Such transactions traditionally were the province of big companies or private-equity firms. But a disruptive force has emerged on Wall Street: the family office. These entities, set up to manage the fortunes of the wealthy, and able to operate under the radar, are making their presence felt with their growing numbers, fat wallets and hunger for deals.”

Meanwhile the PC cultural retards don’t have any notion of the preceding, busy as they are calling everybody a racist, not knowing that it was exactly what the Nazis were doing during their ascent (more bad news for the PC crowd: the Nazis were very loudly defending minority rights, the environment and the rights of animals. Hitler was a vegetarian; all of this PC distractions deliberately planted to make the German people lose sight of what was essential…)

The reign of the non-censored Internet gives hope, though. Now at last, and at least, we can debate, no holds barred, a few squeaks in the darkness… While our masters laugh, martinis in hand, watching the sun set from their private islands, secure from their vast conspiracies, protected by their private armies, jetting around in their private jet fleets, as the little ones down there are calling each other names…

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

How Social Media Fosters Intellectual Fascism

February 4, 2017

Social media, as presently practiced, is without appropriate moral guidance: no philosopher has come and established what proper behavior ought to be (here I am, like Zorro!)  First, one should avoid alienation. Instead alienation is presently encouraged.

Social media, as presently practiced, encourages intellectual fascism, from lack of wisdom, education, poor mastery of the participants’ own emotional systems, lack of understanding of how one gets to superior knowledge, etc..

Such is the present state of affairs.

It needs to be rectified, otherwise nukes will fly. Can it be rectified?

29 Year Old Attacker Of The Louvres, Son Of A General. People Become Like This, Because they Have Not Been Taught Alternative Knowledge From The Hatred, Disguised As Coming From The Great Dog In The Sky...

29 Year Old Attacker Of The Louvres, Son Of An Egyptian General. People Become Like This, Because they Have Not Been Taught Alternative Knowledge From The Hatred, Disguised As Coming From The Great Dog In The Sky…

Yes. Studies such as the one in the Guardian have to be advertized, debated. “Twitter accounts really are echo chambers, study finds

As in ancient human cultures, users of the social media site interact most with those who share their political views, Demos report reveals

When it comes to politics and the internet, birds of a feather really do flock together, according to research confirming the existence of online echo chambers among the most politically engaged Twitter users.

A study of 2,000 Twitter users who publicly identified as either Labour, Tory, Ukip or SNP supporters has found they are far more likely to interact with others from the same party and to share articles from publications that match their views. Ukip supporters are also far more engaged with “alternative” media outlets, including Breitbart and Infowars, two US-based sites identified with the alt-right that have been regularly accused of publishing misleading or false stories.

The research was carried out by the thinktank Demos, which looked at the tweets sent between May and August last year by 2,000 people who have publicly stated their political allegiance on their profiles and who had at some point addressed a member of parliament in their tweets.

Report author Krasodomski-Jones said the behaviour was exacerbated by some media outlets using polarised views to attract audiences. “This attention economy, vying for clicks, eyeballs, pushes people into very confirmatory outlets. The rising popularity of this sort of alternative news is something that caters specifically to a specific group. It’s more than just news – it’s ideologically driven.

…Tom Stafford, a cognitive scientist at Sheffield University, said that those who had already shared their political allegiance in their Twitter profile could be even more likely to use the articles they shared to reinforce that identity… Stafford added: “Homophily, where we hang out with people like us, is an ancient human trait, resulting from our basic psychology. That applies to segmentation of media as well.”

It’s not just in the matter of politics: after I exposed letters of Marcus Aurelius, showing his burning hatred of Christians, a philosopher in New York, Massimo P. banned and blocked me angrily from diverse sites he commands. (Marcus Aurelius is the Muhammad of “stoics”.)

Another name for homophily (loving the same) is tribalism.

I have observed the social media madness as a personal victim of it in the last six months. I saw individuals who I long considered to be friends engage in public campaigns against me, calling me a lot of things they admitted (even then!) that I was not (such as a “racist troll”). One of them who has a significant management position in New York (plutocratic) media confided he had to do so, because his employers read his Twitter and Facebook accounts! “Nice” excuse. Meanwhile, thousands of people who don’t know me, nor what I write, were told I am a racist, and that’s all they know about me. Those thousands in the public who don’t know me were also informed I am anti-Muslim (I am anti-Literal Islam, and that’s just the opposite! I have at least a dozen very close “Muslim” friends… all of them, like me, critical about the Islamist ideology! Ironically, I share housing with them, especially on vacation. I was educated in “Muslim” countries…)

The result of the campaign of hatred against me was that several social media contacts I had in Academia “blocked” me (some were physicists, other philosophers). Thus my alternative version of reality, which would otherwise have added dimensions to their minds, has been annihilated. I am also now deprived of their views, which, however silly, I often found interesting.

I am not a racist. My family is multi-racial from three continents and Pacific islands. Many pseudo-leftists call people they don’t like “racist”, these days, using the word for whatever, including the weather.

So why is the insult “racist” hurled at me so often these days? Their excuse, beside plain rage? As I said above, some cynically some told me:’my job depends upon it!‘ My superiors, bemoaned the art director in New York, watch my social web activity, so I had to publicly hate you, renounce you, condemn you… I have been told this, and was supposed, me the hated one, to show empathy… to my haters. It sounds straight out of a passage in the Bible, the Last Supper…

Another cause of the rage is plain incomprehension. Not only they do not understand what I say, but when they start to understand a bit, the first thing they understand, is that there are very important things they did not even know existed. These huge gaps in understanding have to do with their (mostly self-imposed) tribalism and their closely related alienation (to reality in this case). Tribalism is an addiction, it probably excites the same rewarding circuits in the brain as other drugs.

If one wants to make war to people, the first step is to alienate them. This is French for cutting “Liens” (bounds, relationships).

The present mentality to insult, block, & not reflectively debate, contradictors on the Internet boosts & teaches alienation, violence, war.

Real damage is done when real debate is made impossible. Worse: alienation is presently viewed as glorious. The damage is not just to individuals, but to the collective. Tribalism makes the collective stupid, aggressive. 

Intellectual fascism consists in being led by only a few ideas. The best way is to tweet like a bird, exclusively among one’s flock.

The arch-typical leading fascist idea is that of Judeo-Christo-Islamist metaprinciple: “God is great, Allahu Akbar”. A friend of his being: “Dieu le veut, God wills it, Inch Allah”.Those are traditionally uttered, while committing the greatest infamies. They excuse them all.

The attacker of the Louvres in Paris tweeted less than 20 minutes before attack:…His last tweet posted before the attack, shows on the account a smiling El-Hamahmy leaning against a wall, a number of angry messages, including: ‘No negotiation, no compromise, no letting up, certainly no climb down, relentless war.’

His father is an Egyptian general. The enthusiastic Islamist rented a $2000/week apartment in the center of Paris. He went to the French Republic from Dubai, to attack the world’s most visited museum (justly so!) Hamahmy was following the most glorified mood of Muhammad, made explicit in the Qur’an, of hatred for the Republic and secular law. Yes, Islamism has to be eradicated, and it’s, first, a philosophical problem: one cannot put soldiers everywhere. All the more as such individuals are not just Islamists, or terrorists, they are TWITTERRORISTS.

Patrice Ayme’

Real Science Hates Tribalism

August 24, 2016

To teach science, scientist should mimic the way children learn the best. And they should avoid precisely what they have been doing, pontificating as if they were superior beings belonging to a superior tribe. I have pounded this message in the past, and I was happily surprised that it is found in “Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public.” By Richard P Grant.  

The argument is that “scientists and science communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that’s an approach doomed to failure”.

Making science attractive by despising the plebs is doomed to failure, because it turns knowledge, the highest calling, into a “us” versus “them” struggle. And that, in turn, and indeed, comes from the fact that many who work in science are driven more by self-glory, tribalism, hence intellectual fascism, guys all looking together in the same direction, than they care to admit. 

Real Thinkers Look Everywhere Different. That’s Why Meerkats Are Meerkats, and Humans, Human.

Real Thinkers Look Everywhere Different. That’s Why Meerkats Are Meerkats, and Humans, Human.

A video did the rounds a couple of years ago, of some self-styled “skeptic” disagreeing – robustly, shall we say – with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone sharing the video – he sure put that idiot in their place!

Scientists love to argue. Cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description. So it’s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy, or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food.

It makes sense. You’ve got a population that is – on the whole – not scientifically literate, and you want to persuade them that they should be doing a and b (but not c) so that they/you/their children can have a better life.

[British Celebrity physicist] Brian Cox was at it last week, performing a “smackdown” on a climate change denier…He brought graphs! Knockout blow. And yet … it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing, changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow… And I don’t think it’s as simple as people rejecting science.

What people increasingly dislike, nowadays, and rightly so, is members of the establishment, pontificating. And the so-called “scientific community” is fully part of it. … As Grant puts it: “Most science communication isn’t about persuading people; it’s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us, it says, aren’t we clever? We are exclusive, we are a gang, we are family.

That’s not communication. It’s not changing minds and it’s certainly not winning hearts and minds.

It’s tribalism.”

I have used nearly the same discourse many times in the past. Indeed, the scientists, and mathematicians clamor, all too much: We are a gang, we are family, you are not; you are outsiders, inferior types, you are (chuckle) ignorant buffoons whose ignorance amuse us.

This is wrong in two completely different dimensions: it does not persuade, quite the opposite, because it uses the Authority Principle, instead of the Scientific Principle.

***

Tribalism is fundamentally opposed to science:

Science is, and develops, knowledge. Science requires an open mind. That means a mind ready to change. Science, honestly pursued, requires to be skeptical about what one knows. Science is about going beyond. Beyond one’s own mind, away from common thought… Exactly not like meerkats looking all in the same direction.

Instead, tribalism is not questioning where we come from. Just the opposite; the tribe is god. Tribalism is about war, exclusion, xenophobia, intellectual fascism. And tribalism is not about the truth: tribalism is about one’s country, right or wrong, being always right.

Thus a brain in a scientific mood is fundamentally transverse to a brain in a tribal mood.

Tribalism has slowed science immensely. For example, the tribal Roman Catholic church tried to kill scientific inquiry at every chance it got. Why? Because a superstition in place, like Catholicism, claims to have the one and only truth, it’s not about ever better truths..

Yet, all too many scientists are about tribalism, indeed. Why? Because tribalism augments one’s power. Richard Feynman resigned from the US Academy of Science, after he discovered that most of the activity there was struggling for the fittest tribal promotion, to enhance the power of the group one belonged to.

Scientists love to evoke their appurtenance to the “scientific community”. In truth, that’s offensive; we, humans, are all scientists. We, indeed, all belong to THE scientific species.

Yet, as their usage of the expression “scientific community” demonstrates, many scientists flaunt their tribalism, and the power they have of excluding “non-scientists”.

Whereas, if really keen to advance science, they should exhibit humility, and understanding, not just for what they learned by rote, but humility and understanding when interacting with others, and of skepticism itself. Debates about GMOs or new insecticides such as neonicotinoids exemplify this: many scientists are pontificating, in spite of shaky evidence for their positions. So doing, they endanger science itself.

Verily, today’s scientists know all too little. In all too many ways. Arguably, The scientists’ own global ignorance about all too many things, is what science, and science communication, paradoxically suffers from the most.

Patrice Ayme’


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

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

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

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

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

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

Learning from Dogs

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

ianmillerblog

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

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

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

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

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

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

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

Learning from Dogs

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

ianmillerblog

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

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

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

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

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

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

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

Learning from Dogs

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

ianmillerblog

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century