Posts Tagged ‘Intellectual fascism’

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’

Obama Closes Yosemite

June 20, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation in these temporary closures.

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Military Industrial Complex: A Necessary Danger To Civilization

April 16, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So civilization needs MICs. No MIC, no civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Marcus Aurelius, INTELLECTUAL FASCIST: Why Rome Fell

February 16, 2016

Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (“Marcus Aurelius”) is generally revered as emperor and philosopher. Both attitudes are grievously erroneous, and have a bearing to what very serious people have considered, ever since, as the highest wisdom to be embraced. I will presently roll out some (new) reasons why this is so wrong.

What endangered the Roman State? The question has been considered since the Third Century’s turmoil, the time of the “Barrack Emperors”. In 360 CE emperor Julian explained why Christianism was bringing Romanitas down. Christians worshipped a secondary and “evil God” (and that the Serpent, bringing knowledge, was “good”!). Julian removed Christianism’s extravagant privileges (such as the right to execute heretics). However, Julian ruled only three years as Augustus. Immediately thereafter, the Christians came back with great vengeance, burning libraries to the ground.

Inventor Of Intellectual Fascism Catches Flies With Philosophical Honey

Inventor Of Intellectual Fascism Catches Flies With Philosophical Honey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Against Perceived Irrelevance Creative Thinkers Contend In Vain

August 7, 2015

The madness of crowds always rule: it’s a consequence of several deep instincts which made humanity possible. However, one hundred was an immense crowd, then. Evolution did not expect, because it never experienced with, crowds in the thousands. Now, we have crowds in the billions.

This is no exaggeration: several billion people supposedly follow and revere a religion founded by somebody who tied up his son, to slash his throat, like a vulgar goat. Then the “god” in his head told him not to do it, after all: why would that madness be revered for millennia, is a striking example of the madness of crowds.

There are even greater follies in power now: why would bankers and financial types be let to enjoy the power they do, in violation of the basic principle of democracy (which is that power, kratos, is to the people, demos)?

Another folly: that warming up the Earth’s polar regions by as much temperature difference as separates us from the last maximal glaciation, will have dramatic consequences in a few millennia… but not before.

An even greater madness is that none of this is very interesting, and it’s much better to read and fantasize about “Harry Potter” (not “Hairy Potter”).

The madness of crowds has been the argument of those who favor the madness of one, monarchy, or aristocracy, the power of the best. Of course, one has to determine who “the one” would be, or what “best” means. Most often, it turned out to be best born.

The “Internet”, in many countries means “Facebook”, a private company, which, historically has been used politically in many ways, including spying by the government of the USA. “Facebook” also spies on its customers’ “likes” and habits, and sells the information to advertisers, while tweaking what its customers see, in consideration of what they like, or apparently associate to. This amplifies the (already preexisting) bias towards tribalism.

So what of better thinking in all this? Or, more simply, what of creative thinking in all this?

It’s not favored. Indeed, only thoughts that please crowds get amplified. This tribal thinking is a form of intellectual fascism. Intellectual fascism: What concept is this? Subjugating all too much of one’s mind to all too few ideas, principles, or emotions.

Could technology help to foster (more) correct, (less) erroneous thinking, just as it has favored, so far, to all too great an extent, tribalism and intellectual fascism?

Yes. Original thinking could be determined by very sophisticated software. Software could also determine whether (supposedly) known facts are contradicted, and highlight them. Software could also being made to find META hierarchies, thus determining plausible depth of arguments.

Whereas software could not determine whether an argument is correct, it could determine if said argument satisfies the preconditions to be a paradigm jump. Including whether it involves new concepts, and, if so, what they appear to be. And whether the argument lives in another logical dimension (a precondition for originality).

A creative thinker can get discouraged when informed her thoughts are irrelevant. Claimed irrelevance is the first step towards complete impotence.

So technology could help fostering creative thinking considerably. However, the main point remains that ethics would have to change. The mood, at this point, is that thinking, cognition and association, all serve the most basic instincts of tribalism, and, more generally, intellectual fascism. We are far from having put TRUTH as the ultimate god we have to serve.

“Postmodernism” and “French Theory” instead insisted that truth was tribal. In truth, abusing truth is tribal. Truth itself is not tribal.

Verily, it’s a mark of particularly fanatical tribalism to insist that truth can only be tribal: “French Theory” is tribal.

It has always been true that discovering new concepts tends to be the mark of the ascetic ones: one has to be a monk to ferret the truth. Thus great creative thinkers discovering new truths tend to have had difficult lives. So one has to choose: creative thinking of the worthiest type, means a hard life. Marie Curie’s Nobel money was used to build the bathroom she did not have prior.

And when one rolls out more famous thinkers whose lives were easier, it turns out, often, that a good case can be made that they were more opportunistic, or more lucky, or better tribally connected, or to a tribe which amplified renown better, than the ones who really originated the idea. I have documented this many times: Poincare’ originated Relativity, and not just its name, but even E = mcc. Yet, a German was attributed the discovery. The same German was fully attributed the theory of gravitation, although the main idea therein came from Riemann, another German who had the misfortune to die young. This is not just about being nice to pioneers: recognizing Riemann is recognizing that the fundamental idea of gravitation a la Einstein is a tautology. An all-too-easy way of thinking.

So what? Some will suggest to give time to time… And wisdom will blossom. But here is the problem: creating new truth could not change the world much in the past, and that world was rather static. However, now, both potential impact and the world, are highly dynamic. Pure thinking is extremely mighty, and thus, an ethical bomb. Which will expose ever worse, if not properly handled.

New truth can change everything fast. For example, if I am right, and I have exposed detailed reasons why,  Antarctica’s iceshelves can melt in decades rather than centuries, if that were a new truth, the impact on present civilization would be huge. I have even exposed how East Antarctica, supposed to last 5,000 years by conventional climatologists anxious to be taken very seriously, is actually already melting, below the surface. If I spent all my energy writing silly sorcery for little children, I would have, no doubt, more readers. But why to try to do what the tribe wants to honor, to justify its own existence? In the end we are all dead, as (plutocrat) Lord Keynes (not so) subtly noticed. So distinction is not about dying, but how we die.

How we enjoy living through suffering is how we reach for greater values, the highest gods. Camus famously said: The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”  

There is no need to “imagine” Sisyphus happy. It comes naturally. Struggling, even suffering, not too much, but enough, is necessary to fill a human beings’ mind, and generate happiness. Struggling and suffering  are even more necessary to creative thinking. (The pseudo philosopher BHL cannot replace them with the stimulants he takes, such as cocaine, amphetamines, and various illicit cocktails; struggling and suffering, for real, are much more potent.)

The world is changing fast. We are approaching various singularities of our making, none of them we can stop.  

The way out is straight, yet narrow: truth, and lots of it. Nothing superficiality can produce.

Against perceived irrelevance creative thinkers contend in vain. Yet, therein salvation, and only there.

Patrice Ayme’

One God, One Thought, All Submitted

June 24, 2015

God As A Conspiracy Of Plutocracy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Vegans Eat GMOs, Not Banksters

June 15, 2015

We live in the age of increasing intellectual fascism: the herds think all the same, and vigorously charge the same way all the time.

Some of the latest fashions in the USA consuming the progressive consumer, are: off with diet sodas, off with aspartame, off with gluten, off with meat, off with fish, off with eggs, off with cheese, in with vegans, in with LBTGs (Lesbian Bisexual Transexual Gays), in with wine, off with antibiotics, off with the French and their perverse stuffing of geese with food, in and now out with electric cars.

Hunt, Kill, & Eat, Or Plutocrats Will Do It to You

Hunt, Kill, & Eat, Or Plutocrats Will Do It to You

[Man evolved into, and as, a carnivorous ape. Deny thoroughly this most human of all natural traits, paradoxically, puts civilization at risk of falling into the most demonic hands.]

This tendency to ever greater mental fascism, is perversely augmented by the Internet social networks, which practice “curation”. “Curation” means you will see ever more what you “like”, a new form of mental masturbation. It’s very seriously studied by researchers employed by Facebook, and published in the best journals. Facebook says it’s not its fault.

As the USA leads the world’s intellectual fashion into nothingness, one must pay attention. If one pays enough attention to all the preceding, one will pay no attention whatsoever to what the illuminati in charge like Obama, do, for real. That’s actually the main interest of the preceding (as far as the oligarchy is concerned).

Many of the fashions are laudable (out with aspartame, diet sodas), or ridiculous (out with gluten). Fake sugars, it turns out, are pretty bad, and can lead to diabetes (just like the real thing). Gluten is bad for those suffering from celiac disease (although how that starts is probably related to an incidence worldwide going from 1/300 to 1/40). I myself caught a related disease in Africa, and I watched my diet as a hawk. However, in all these cases, the fashion is to replace the offending substance by something worse, namely large quantities of plain old sugar.

Today I will focus on vegans. Vegans abstain from animal products. The reasons they evoke have to do with one’s health and one’s ethics.

The problem with the later is that, when one think highly of oneself in ethical matters, one may be led to two flaws:

1) we live in a highly unethical civilization. The person with high ethics may be prone to suffer so much distress, just looking at that, that it could not possibly be contemplated, and, thus, understood.

2) it’s highly unethical because too many wolves have been left alone, as they came to rule the sheep (banksters, oilmen, etc.). There again, the one distressed by the contemplation of evil may even be unable to visualize the possibility of demonic creatures of human origin.

3) For goodness to triumph, war is necessary. One should envision wisdom as Mars and Apollo, condemned to apply war, in the Sisyphean task of ever more clever progress, thanks to Prometheus’ gifts.

And now, having dealt with ethical health, let’s address physical health.

***

We Are Not Cows:

It’s well known vegans run out of basic vitamins and minerals. B12, calcium, zinc, are examples. Vegans counter that they can apply crafty vegetable assemblies. They often roll-out soy, as the do-all, be-all vegetable protein.

Unfortunately, soy act like an estrogen: at three quarts a day, soy milk will feminize a full special forces superman, complete with breasts. It has been done in Texas (unwittingly). Scaled down to a child’s weight, the danger is obvious: relatively small quantities of soy will feminize a pre-puberty child intensely.

How do cows digest grass? They eat lots of little beasties; snails, insects, etc., to start with. So they are not really vegetarian (that’s why Thatcher gave them insufficiently cooked cow meat, in “free market” anxiety). Moreover cows have special supplementary stomachs, and their gut is equipped with special bacteria prone to digest tough vegetable fiber.

How, and, by the way, most foods vegans eat are actually Genetically Modified Organisms. Beans were invented by the Franks in the Tenth Century, exploding quality and quantity of the population. Similarly for rice in South-East Asia a century later: that exploded the population there.

So had corn, much earlier, in Mesoamerica, and North America: Native Americans became very numerous, because corn provides lots with lots of calories. However, corn eaters suffered from the vegan disease: Native Americans degenerated physically. They became short and weak, at least those heavily dependent upon corn.

We know how the smart Aztecs resolved their (very bad) protein crisis…

Agriculture is nearly 100% Genetically Modified Organisms. Wild almond ancestors will kill you before they feed you. OK, there are GMOs and GMOs, depending upon which modifications are done. But I am making a philosophical point here: GMOs are not necessarily bad… and the VEGAN DIET is thoroughly ARTIFICIAL. (That makes it thoroughly human, as man is scientific and technological, by evolutionary definition.)

***

We Are Hunters:

We are the product of ten million years, at least, of carnivorous evolution from fruit eating apes. That is why we do need to eat Vitamin C (our ape ancestors got it from fruits), but also L Carnitin (our ancestors have been getting it from meat for at least five million years; without it, muscles break down).

I have known, for a very long time, climbers who got on a vegan diet. Although younger than me, their bodies literally fell apart. Specialists have been asking them to eat cartilage and bone soup (beyond being put on Glucosamine-Chondroitin treatment). Why? Our ancestors, for millions of years did not just eat meat, but bones, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, etc.

And now we need to hunt banksters and their supports, their lovers and admirers. To make this civilization as human as it needs, just to survive. Human ethology is what it is. Learning to live, is learning to live with it, instead of fastening for ourselves new chains from an imagination running on empty.Obsessing about tiny details such as getting enough B12 vitamin, is an unwelcome distraction. To be fully human, is, first, extending that courtesy, to ourselves.

(It did not escape me that banksters hunting is as dangerous as mammoth hunting; thus much of these obsessions with the most ridiculous fads is a rather successful attempt to distract oneself with innocuous subjects, and to display one’s innocuousness, for all to see. Thus, deep down inside, shallow fads are all about cowardice and laziness.)

Patrice Ayme’

Krugman: “Obama Is Awkward Mumbling”

January 3, 2015

In the Hindu Holy Scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita, Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty. To spook the monarch, Vishnu takes on his multi-armed form and says: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

When plutocrats don’t get it, destroying their world is the way to go. There is no other. Just ask the Yuan, when the Ming took over. Or read the Mongol Khan’s speech to the doomed Caliph, while the anti-Muslim forces were destroying civilized Baghdad.

All of this was just fun and game, relative to the potential catastrophe ahead, where our despicable leaders are leading us towards, obliviously.

The plutocrats and their attendants in the media, universities, governments and administrations have reached such a critical mass, that they have ignited the plutocratic chain reaction. This is the sense of TARP of 2009 (Transferring Assets to Rich People): some plutocrats and their CEOs had lost trillions to other plutocrats. The Public was ordered to restore their wealth, and austerity programs all over the world have blossomed to make it so.

Hope reside in having enough people of influence realizing, and persuading common citizens that they have been played, and that plutocracy is leading us to gloom and doom.

According to polls, Paul Krugman is the most trusted voice on the left in Europe. I like Paul very much, especially when he is blind, and I have to guide him. However, he is learning the extent of the conspiracy of the wealthiest people in the world are engaged in (conspirare means simply breathing together; eating caviar and drinking Champagne together makes it worse, let alone getting money from each other on the back of the public!).

This is the second part of analyzing Krugman’s latest editorial, “Twin Peaks Planet”. Here is Krugman:

“… the travails of workers in rich countries are, in important ways, the flip side of the gains above and below them. Competition from emerging-economy exports has surely been a factor depressing wages in wealthier nations, although probably not the dominant force. More important, soaring incomes at the top were achieved, in large part, by squeezing those below: by cutting wages, slashing benefits, crushing unions, and diverting a rising share of national resources to financial wheeling and dealing.”

I have been saying this for years. GDP is the sum of all transactions in the real economy. The GDP of financial derivatives is 13 times that of real world GDP. In other words, only 8% of money goes to the real economy. Piketty will not tell you that. Nor Krugman. Not yet.

Krugman is getting aware that the elite discourse, the one held in places such as Harvard, and the hallowed halls of the Nobels is as much of a lie, in its own world, than the one of the Islamist State is, in its own hell.

Krugman:Perhaps more important still, the wealthy exert a vastly disproportionate effect on policy. And elite priorities — obsessive concern with budget deficits, with the supposed need to slash social programs — have done a lot to deepen the valley of despond.”

What is the proper ethics in such a case? Shall we do as the morally despondent Jesus Christ did, and pontificate that one should leave to Caesar what he owns? Or shall we rebel? Rebellion has to start with a discourse, to guide but this is lacking:

“So who speaks for those left behind in this twin-peaked world? You might have expected conventional parties of the left to take a populist stance on behalf of their domestic working classes. But mostly what you get instead — from leaders ranging from François Hollande of France to Ed Milliband of Britain to, yes, PRESIDENT OBAMA — IS AWKWARD MUMBLING. (Mr. Obama has, in fact, done a lot to help working Americans, but he’s remarkably bad at making his own case.)

The problem with these conventional leaders, I’d argue, is that they’re afraid to challenge elite priorities, in particular the obsession with budget deficits, for fear of being considered irresponsible. And that leaves the field open for unconventional leaders —“

The argument can be done that such leaders have been selected, by the elite, precisely because they were afraid, and anxious to please the masters (I have a little essay on a personal experience that way, waiting in the wings).

Krugman: “All of this suggests some uncomfortable historical analogies. Remember, this is the second time we’ve had a global financial crisis followed by a prolonged worldwide slump. Then, as now, any effective response to the crisis was blocked by elite demands for balanced budgets and stable currencies. And the eventual result was to deliver power into the hands of people who were, shall we say, not very nice.

I’m not suggesting that we’re on the verge of fully replaying the 1930s. But I would argue that political and opinion leaders need to face up to the reality that our current global setup isn’t working for everyone. It’s great for the elite and has done a lot of good for emerging nations, but that valley of despond is very real. And bad things will happen if we don’t do something about it.”

Calling this a financial crisis is covering-up the truth: yes, a financial crisis, but it originated from plutocracy. A financial plus ecological crisis, also destroyed the Roman state. Then, too, the origin was run-away plutocracy.

The Roman economy got struck because technological stagnation implied by scientific and philosophical stagnation, caused by fascization implied and related to decerebration, all of them propped by a plutocracy so strong even clear minded Emperors, and Founders of the Church, were powerless to inflect it. Although our present crisis is not as far evolved as Rome in the Fourth Century, we clearly are on our way, under the same forces, and history moves faster nowadays, as we are closer to the singularity.

A troubling analogy, in the detail, with the 1930s has been the behavior of Putin, Assad, and Xi. Those three are tied with international plutocracy (and succeeded leaders much less tied that way, more enlightened, and less aggressive). The former two centered on London, the last one, with the USA. Those three have engaged in behavior eerily familiar to those who have studied Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco (and some of their less well known contemporary dictators).

And I am not even mentioning the thermonuclear maniac in North Korea. Fortunately, in the latter case, Obama, just escaped from Oahu, took some measures.

Some may be baffled: how are financial derivatives badness related to Kim’s badness? Plutocracy is a mood. Putin, or Kim, see what plutocrats are getting away with in the West, and they feel: ”Why can’t I do the same? After all, I can get people killed at will, so I am ahead in that game?”

Obama did not have the balls to take on the big financiers, and barely scratched the health care plutocrats. But maybe he can leave a mark, finally, by knocking off Kim. Kim, a killer of his own family, cannot be left in command of nukes (the situation is similar, but worse than Iran, as the fascist index of North Korea is much higher).

Bad things are already happening. However, they are so enormously bad, that they have a lot of inertia. So badness has moved little yet, in spite of the enormous forces pushing it forward. When its motion is noticeable, it will be an unstoppable force. Or let’s say, very hard to stop, like climate change, and CO2 pile-up.

Patrice Ayme’