Posts Tagged ‘PC’

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’

 

 

Scourge of PC Plutocratically Driven

March 9, 2017

Political Correctness has ruled the West for decades. It was a crime against thought, and civilization alike. It profited those who wanted to turn us into insects. Tellingly, so-called “liberals” (in the US) and progressives (elsewhere) feel that PC makes them just, moral, and strong. They have a point: the heavy chains slaves carry around, make them stronger (in a most demeaning sense). Political Correctness was a plot to make us all stupid and nasty, because stupid nastiness shared with all, is how plutocracy rules.

Brexit is the most striking example of PC gone all the way: it was alleged that the very idea of European Union was anti-democratic, and that the union had to be destroyed, for democracy’s sake (in truth, it was quite the opposite: plutocracy had penetrated the Union, but that plutocratic attack was pretty much directed from the City of London, a plutocracy (technically) and its many supports, admirers and co-conspirators…). The pretend the Union was intrinsically anti-democratic was a huge fraud, conducted in the name of democracy, and, of course, to serve the same old masters. After faking opposition to it, while conducting an extremely ineffective campaign against it, the entire British plutocracy lined up behind Brexit (even though technically the referendum was just “consultative” when conducted. Parliament decided it had force of law the following year! (If We The People had known it had force of law, We The People would have voted for “Remain”: it was sheer constitutional fraud!)

English Harbored Plutocrats Have Molded Minds, Through Media and Universities, For Brexit, Hoping To Avoid Potential EU Socialism By Making Britain Into A Giant Tax Haven and Pluto Paradise, Just Off Shore…

Not to say that the EU itself has not become a gigantic Pluto fraud. But the EU itself is governed by the national governments (thus the British government, which can pretty much veto anything important it does not like the EU to do). That was one of the many frauds hidden from the gullible British public…

***

Here is an example in The Independent, UK:

Brexit is not the high point of democracy – it’s the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in British politics:
“An irate local farmer told me he voted to leave as a protest against EU bureaucracy that delayed payments of his subsidies. He thought Defra was an EU department. He didn’t realise it was The Department for Rural Affairs and that the EU had fined our governmental department for its incompetent administration of subsidies.

No matter, we got our country back, even if it means losing the subsidies and keeping the incompetence.

British farmers received £2.4bn last year in EU payments and the National Farrmers’ Union has already warned that many farms would fail without these handouts.

Importantly, EU membership already has built-in border controls under the “right to reside” test. This provides conditions to entry, such as having a job or being financially self-sufficient. There are no immediate, automatic entitlements to benefits, which require further conditions. Most other EU states impose these controls rigorously but the UK has been less assiduous in their implementation.

There was no mandate to leave the single market, sell off the NHS to US private health insurers or to turn the UK into a tax haven. Brexit has divided the nation. For Theresa May to unite the country she must heal wounds and take the public with her.

As Churchill said, “Never give in – never, never, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense”. Brexit is neither, so I shan’t be giving in anytime soon.”

***

The Trump-Clinton dust-up was another example of fraud: Hillary was basically campaigning, she claimed, against (some) consequences of her own husband policies (which were an extension of those of Nixon-Reagan; Nixon himself was the architect of McCarthyism, and, sure enough, the cultural inheritance of the Clintons, coming straight from Nixon, has been revived, as ludicrously, Clinton promoters have revived McCarthyism… to disguise the fact they have no new ideas since Nixon in 1950).

***

The Politically Correct was a Perfect Con instigated by Plutocratic Conspirators. PC ^3.

Being trumped by Trump is just deserts for the brainless pigeons who supported the mindset the plutocratically owned press, media, universities, courts, deep state, pseudo-intellectuals, politicians and legislators endowed them with.

The weapons we need are deeper, more powerful ideas. Don’t expect them from the bleating sheep, and its meek heroes.

Expect the stronger ideas which will forge a better future to come from fiercer debate, where truth is told to those who have avoided it religiously.

Relative to the main course which is needed, old firebrands such as Michel Foucault or Camille Paglia are not even appetizers for hungry, rebelling minds. We need to devour the feeble-minded, and relish in that salubrious activity, be it only on moral grounds.

To want to devour the feeble-minded, we first need to throw Political Correctness to the winds…

No, I am not copying Donald Trump: “Devouring the Feeble Minded” was the old slogan of my ancient Tyranosopher site.

Mental progress has always devoured the feeble-mindedness of the present, let alone the idiocies of the past. Political Correctness, also known as mental fascism, has always been in the way…

Patrice Ayme’

I Am Not Your Negro: Don’t Face, Don’t Change

February 6, 2017

WHAT YOU CAN’T FACE, YOU CAN’T CHANGE.

“There are days, this is one of them, when you wonder what your role is in this country and what your future is in it. How precisely you’re going to reconcile yourself to your situation here and how you are going to communicate to the vast, heedless, unthinking, cruel white majority that you are here. I’m terrified at the moral apathy – the death of the heart – which is happening in my country. These people have deluded themselves for so long that they really don’t think I’m human.”

So I could say, speaking about the interaction I had with some “friends” recently, but it is James Baldwin who wrote these words, decades ago. I saw Baldwin in the excellent documentary “I Am Not Your Negro”. (Actually Baldwin said “nigger”, but that was too much for PC America, although it’s just a matter of switching from English, to Latin with a typo…)

Baldwin Gave The Philosophical Back-Up The Civil Right Movement Needed. Baldwin Was Very Close To The Main (Assassinated) Actors, MLK, Malcom X, Evers, Who Were Younger

James Baldwin (left) Gave The Philosophical Back-Up The Civil Right Movement Needed. Baldwin Was Very Close To The Main (Assassinated) Actors, Martin Luther King (right), Malcolm X, Evers, Who Were Younger

WHAT YOU CAN’T FACE, YOU CAN’T CHANGE: Call that the most human principle.

Obscurantist idiots prone to call everybody they disagree with, a racist, can’t get it: facing what you need to change is the opposite of (the usual interpretation of) Politically Correct they subscribe to. PC, or Perfect Cretinism, consists in believing that, if it feels good, it’s right. Little do idiots understand that what feels good, in the long-term, and the deepest way, ought to be right, to start with. Evolution, sustainability, reality and morality are closely related. That’s why Political Correctness is, fundamentally, immoral.

This basic principle, In The Face When Up To Change,  is indeed the driving choice that created, evolutionarily speaking, humanity itself. In particular, science and philosophy. I went to see the documentary made by a Haitian, part of it wonderfully narrated by Samuel Jackson, of the philosopher James Baldwin. Baldwin put it thus: “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

They actually deluded themselves for so long that they really don’t think that they are human

“I Am Not Your Negro” is not just a movie about race relations, as most US commentators will pretend. It’s actually hilarious what bad faith – or is it just stupidity?- US mainstream commentators exhibit when some pretend that  I Am Not Your Negro is just about negroes. It’s not, it’s about the USA.

I have written down a lot of the ideas shown in the I Am Not Your Negro, not knowing Baldwin wrote them before. Those things are often seen as racist. This is how deluded the USA, and in particular the pseudo-left, has become. Baldwin, who was older, inspired Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and many others. As far as I can see, he is the best, deepest US philosopher.  

Patrice Ayme’

Political Correctness, Philosophical Correctness, & The “Miniature Nuclear Attack In London”

January 21, 2016

How The Rise Of Political Correctness, So Hostile To Philosophical Correctness, Led To The Mood That Brought Us The “Miniature Nuclear Attack In London”:

Nearly ten years after, a British judge, Sir Robert Owen, looking as grave, serious, gloomy and ponderous as a human being can ever be, formally accused Vladimir Putin to have ‘probably’ ordered what a British Parliamentary committee called “a miniature nuclear attack in London”.

Meanwhile the second largest lake in Bolivia, lake Pupo, is fully dry. This has to do with the fact, announced simultaneously by the highest scientific authorities in the USA and the European Union, that 2015 was, BY FAR, much warmer than 2014, previously the warmest year ever.

How did we get there? Political Correctness has a lot to do with it. Political Correctness was always the Trojan Horse of evil. Plutocracy cannot do without Political Correctness. PC is a notion which implies its own demise. In contrast to its opposite, PhC, Philosophical Correctness.

Putin At Work. Putin Loves the Fresh Bellies Of Boys. And Dead Rivals. Alexander Litvinenko Dying From Nuclear Poisoning In London.

Putin At Work. Putin Loves the Fresh Bellies Of Boys. And Dead Rivals. Alexander Litvinenko Dying From Nuclear Poisoning In London.

What is Political Correctness? The history of the term is revealing. “PC” in Latin derived grammar is for “Parti Communiste”. It is indeed how the term “Political Correctness” started, in the first half of the Twentieth Century: as “Party Correctness”. The Communist Party required to toe the “Party” line. And that meant, in practice, to obey Stalin (not his real name), the “Man of Steel”, who was often allied with evil preaching the exact opposite of real communism, for all to see. Stalin was born from an alliance with German fascists for decades, culminating in an official military alliance with Hitler against France and Poland (August 1939). In the 1950s, the Moscow “Communists” allied themselves, for all to see, with president Eisenhower and Nazi collaborator Allan Dulles’ USA against France, Britain and Israel.

Following the Communist Party’s doctrine thus became an exercise in Intellectual Fascism in its purest form: follow the Leader, not matter what. Intellectual Fascism uses the principle of “Pensée unique“. An example is Margaret Thatcher’s slogan “There is no alternative”, parroted later by German Kanzler Gerhard Schröder’s “Es gibt keine Alternative”.

In recent usage, the term was introduced in the USA by the Supreme Court, and came to the fore with debates on books such as Allan Bloom‘s The Closing of the American Mind (1987), Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990), and Dinesh D’Souza’s book Illiberal Education (1991). None of this sharp criticism stopped the Political Correctness movement. It has blossomed further recently with “Safe-spacers”, a new sort of anti-intellectual critters infesting Anglo-Saxon campuses.

Safe-spacers” believe they need space free from all and any debate adverse to their beliefs.

I have myself advocated that some forms of propaganda should be unlawful. The archetype is the Wahhabist propaganda from Saudi Arabia, which has perverted the practice of Islam, worldwide. Instead of having ever more modern Islam (which used to exist), we got a completely enraged, horrendously obsolete Islam… Which goes hand in hand with the Politically Correct mood.

In both cases, radical Islam and radical Political Correctness, youth has been oriented towards frantically loud protests about completely unreal, if not surreal issues, turning into completely useless protests of no bearing whatsoever. And not just youth: watch the British Parliament debate about banning Trump for banning some (Muslim) visitors, although that is not as outrageous as Britain’s proposed banning of other Europeans. Trump’s proposed ban is perfectly legal, what Britain proposes is perfectly illegal (in light of European law).

Compare today’s youth with that of the 1960s. Then youth was protesting stridently to force the governments in the West to do the exact opposite of what they were doing. Be in France, Czechoslovakia, the USA, etc. Where is youth now? With few exceptions, nowhere, youth is too busy with inconsequential matters. (When Bush decided to attack, invade and occupy Iraq, only San Francisco erupted seriously in the USA: there were 5,000 arrests, all discreetly amnestied later, to criminal Bush’s rage.)

Vladimir Putin apparently ordered the murder of Alexander Litvinenko after the latter claimed the Russian President was a practising paedophile, and claiming a film of him abusing young boys existed. Litvinenko had made many shocking allegations against Putin and the nasty ways of the FSB, many with long tendrils all over the West. In short, the holocaust in Chechnya  was organized in Moscow (with real Muslim Fundamentalist attacks in Russia, organized by the FSB, to feed the mood for a mighty counter-attack).

Mr Litvinenko accused his KGB rival of abusing children just weeks before two assassins slipped radioactive polonium 210 into his cup of tea in a London hotel in October 2006: “He (Putin) was a paedophile”.

Former High Court Judge Robert Owen started the inquiry on Litvinenko’s assassination as a coroner. His 320 page report ignited a war of words between Britain and Russia with his conclusion President Putin had ‘probably’ personally ordered the killing of Alexander Litvinenko.

  • The report found Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun. (One is a businessman, the other a Russian MP.)
  • It is a strong probability that Mr Lugovoi poisoned Mr Litvinenko under the direction of Moscow’s FSB intelligence service. Mr Kovtun was also acting under FSB direction.
  • The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by then-FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev and also by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The accusations were confirmed by the British Interior Minister.

Putin made his miniature nuclear attack in London in 2007, after years of G. W. Bush’s strong approval (Bush had “looked into Putin’s eyes, and seen his soul”). Both Putin and Bush used similar methods.

So the lack of protest against G. W. Bush in the West fed a mood which led Mr. Putin to believe he could get away with anything.

The rise of plutocracy in the 1990s, in the USA, Russia, Britain and the world was related. And related to the rise of Bush and Putin. Advisers to Russian president Yeltsin were rabid free marketers from Harvard. At the same time, the same mood that the allegedly free market was all the brain, mind, soul and guide we needed, affected other countries: in France, Prime Minister Balladur was privatizing along the same lines as Yeltsin in Russia (with the same result: collapse).

This friendliness to plutocracy boosted the wealth of London (maybe not Londoners). by selling its soul, and, it turned out, its security.

Political Correctness is anti-ethical, because the only correctness which is truly human, is correctness itself. Either things are true, or they are false, or still undetermined. Philosophical Correctness admits this, and, thus, that the world, including morality itself, is immensely complex. We have to engage that complexity by seriating problems and values. We can’t just whine, put our head in the sand, each time something is not pretty, according to the little priests of Political Correctness.

British Prime Minister David Cameron today, in Davos, said that what had happened with Litvinenko was ‘absolutely appalling’ and called it a “murder commanded by a state”. But Cameron admitted the Syrian crisis meant Britain had to cooperate with Russia. Albeit with ‘clear eyes and a cold heart’.

In the book “The Martian”, the astronauts risk getting out of food, so they devise the plan to leave resources for the youngest of them, by putting an end to their lives. Let’s not smirk. It’s not just that Earth’s life probably originated on Mars, and perilously travelled over. We are all Martians from spaceship Earth. And if spaceship Earth gets in too much trouble, desperate solutions.

The French and British Prime Ministers met in Davos. Valls, the Catalan born and educated French Prime Minister from Ticino, Switzerland (!) called the possible “Brexit” the exit of Britain from Europe, a “drama” (“drame”).

Let’s not get overexcited. Political Correctness, ultimately, is a loss of nerves, a failure to consider all the possibilities, and, thus, an implosion of imagination and thus, paradoxically, of precaution. Just as the failure of Western protests against Bush made Putin believe he could get away with everything, Political Correctness is plutocracy’s best friend. Plutocracy reigns through complex structures, its best friend is a simplistic mood.

Political correctness is also meek: instead of envisioning that a country such as Russia can fall under the spell of an evil man, PC just focuses on appearances. It is similar to the Victorian mood of dressing the feet of tables with textile, out of prudery, worrying strongly about that, and about that alone, while, and because, it allowed to live unaware of the reality that imperial powers, out there, were carving giant empires in blood and bullets.

Patrice Ayme’

Multicultural PC Racism

January 13, 2015

When thinking about Americanization in Europe, many think of McDonald. I rather think about hidden plutocratization and tax cheating by encroaching American corporations to such an industrial scale that European states have been weakened.

(So the European schools, integration, police, defense have been going down, with the complicity of their dumb, corrupt, or inept leadership; as I explained in How Plutocracy Fosters Islamism; the only question is whether the plot is conscious, or not; in some individuals, assuredly, it is the former).

Beyond this obvious colonization by tax free capital, one should not forget that the USA is racially obsessed. One would expect that, the European colony in North America having established official racial based slavery for 246 years. The culture of the USA is still endowed with a racial ideology.

The masters of the USA has been trying to export their notion of race, worldwide: its profitable aspects extend beyond just using whips and chains. It is good way of binding victims’ minds.

The slavery thought system uses religion to do so. And so-called “Multiculturalism” to foster religious fanaticism. This is why Obama, subconsciously or not, did not show up in Paris for Freedom of Expression.

To this day Americans are asked by the authorities of the USA to declare their “race”.

“Race”, since 1619 CE has been big business in the USA. 1619: the year when the first people “of color” were enslaved in Jamestown, Virginia. Some “races” could be readily enslaved, thus bring big profits.

Buying the present American thought systems wholesale, is adopting American ideas on race.

Some will finagle about my use of the word “buying”; yet, when Europeans accept global corporations of the USA NOT to pay tax, they are actually paying TWICE to have them around. They pay that Smart Phone twice: first by purchasing it, secondly by accepting that those who profited from the sale, will pay no tax… Whereas everybody else does.

Considering the history of the USA, buying its ideology should cause pause.

I decided to enquire on the ground. That’s called experimental philosophy (Socrates already practiced it, by debating various ruffians).

Diversity” is fashionable. So I went to a “diversity meeting” to meet my prey, the object of my little experiment, in its natural environment. Somebody from the Stanford staff was talking, very well, I must admit. I should not say that she was “articulate” because she was a self-declared “black”, and, we were told, by her, to call somebody “of color” (as she put it) “articulate” was a racist offense. Somebody as herself (That was a bit confusing, as her color was, hmm, white… Although she had braided her hair like the late Bob Marley.)

Thus, according to diversity specialists, when using an adjective, we have to carefully consider what they believe is their race. If the person is “of color” as the speaker put it, we have to hold back our adjectives. Which ones? While we think about this, we cannot have a conversation. Therefore we cannot have a conversation with people “of color”. This what diversity specialists recommend.

It gets worse.

The speaker was white, optically speaking. But she had always lived in a “black” community, she informed us, until she got to Stanford, as an undergraduate. I wondered if that was a “black” community where everybody was optically white.

However the Stanford speaker applied the “one drop rule”. In old parlance, that means “one drop of sub-Saharan African blood”.

Now here is the clincher:

DNA analysis has shown that about 30% of self-identified White Americans have recent sub-Saharan African ancestry.

Consequence: one cannot use adjectives with any American, lest they be “of color”, even when they are white. It’s probably why the Titans of Tax Evasion in Silicon Valley only use the adjective “cool”.

I intervened on the question of color: I pointed out that once, when I was a very small child, and we were going to Black Africa, my mom reminded me not to call Africans “Blacks”. In Africa, calling people “Black” is calling attention to the color of skin to define them. Thus, logically enough, it is perceived as racist. Although some tribes tend to be black like charcoal, others can be very light (for example the Peuls of the Sahel). I was found to be very articulate.

The speaker put herself in orbit around the concept of racism. A French member of the audience tried to interject that the concept of “race” was not clear. Then the speaker made the pirouette of saying that the black race was about identifying with the black community.

She now admitted that “race” was a psychological phenomenon, a psychological choice she had made. Then she told us we had to teach children about race, etc. We absolutely had to, we could not ignore race. The audience was in rapt attention about the alleged errors of its ways.

However is not racism bad? And is not racism about race? Is not racism a psychosis? Now she wanted us to teach our children about her psychosis: “Talk to your children about race! Yes, talk about race! It’s something we all have to do! It’s like teaching children that it is not a stork who brought the baby! You have to do it! Race! Talk to children about it!”

Imagine a Nazi telling us to teach our children about “race!” People would walk out. Instead, here was the “black” woman, who was nearly as white as Hillary Clinton, telling us to teach about “race” to children, and people were sitting in awe.

The mentally “black” and optically white speaker had admitted race was a psychological construct (Adolf Hitler, by the way, admitted exactly as much, and I understand very well what’s at work here).

I had enough of this racist ideology, and the capture of the audience with the artifact of the race we are supposed to revere. I rose, philosophical fangs fully deployed.

I told the audience that the USA is a racist country because it asks about “race”, it expects race, it imposes “race” on We The People, by requiring We The People to identify with a race. All those who went along that scheme are actually racist. OK, I did not mention the last point explicitly. I had already made plenty of enemies by pointing out the obvious.

All this was all the more shocking, that it was in a French Bilingual School. One would expect that the values of the French Republic would be defended. But they are not. I suspect that this is mostly from ignorance.

When I go to the science class, I see quotes from Einstein, a German Jew who was generously attributed the work of Henri Poincare’ by Max Planck (Planck paid the heaviest prize for his support of Prussian nationalism: both his sons died from fascism). This is weird, in a French school: Einstein was little, scientifically speaking, relative to Emilie du Chatelet, discoverer of Energy, Infrared, and a first class philosopher.

Why are the French ignoring French culture? Have they been swallowed by the blob?

French law forbid to distinguish race and religion. Both are supposed to be in the private sphere. It turns out that “race” cannot be distinguished biologically.

Early on, the Stanford propagandist had asserted that “race” was a matter of “phenotype”. That sounds scientific, hence plausible. That was before I blasted her, informing her this was incorrect. Phenotype is the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment (in other words: Darwin + Lamarck). Then she retreated, and contradicted herself mightily as she re-defined “race” as “psychological”.

French law was prescient, not just biologically, but militarily.

When the Nazis took control of Western Europe, they tried to kill all the Jews. They used IBM to ferret the Jews. This was highly successful in some countries. In the Netherlands, the state had required Jews to register. IBM had their names. Their addresses.

80% of the Jews in the Netherlands were thus exterminated: the Jewish community went from 140,000 in 1940 down to less than 30,000 in 1946.

By contrast, in France most French Jews disappeared into the general population, and were never found. Although 75,000 Jews were assassinated, most of them were Jewish refugees from Central Europe (that the USA had refused to accept). As many had no papers, and did not speak French well, they could be easily tracked down.

How come the French cannot step forward, and defend their law, let alone their civilization?

Racial prejudice starts with racial discrimination. And racial discrimination is not just an injustice, but a lie (as races don’t really exist: there are Neanderthal genes all the way down to South Africa, it turns out).

It should not be tolerated by the French that the USA teach its racism to a real melting pot such as France. (Most of the French population has part Jewish or Muslim ancestry. Jews started to live in France before Christians and Franks did; willing Muslims were allowed to stay after the failed invasions of the Eight Century.)

And what of the role of Stanford University in this? Stanford is all about money. If slavery was the law, Stanford would teach slavery. In a way, by teaching race, thus racism, that’s exactly what it does.

Patrice Ayme’