PC = Political Correctness = PERFECTLY CLOSED Minds

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’

 

 

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

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.

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’

All We Need Is Truth

PHILOSOPHICAL CORRECTNESS BASED ON TRUTH, NOT HURT

What is humanity based on? It’s obvious: truth. Truth teaches what is. Hurt feelings are nothing relative to truth. When one has to survive, it hurts. A baboon troop going to water in a military fashion, fascist instinct fully deployed, is ready to hurt, and be hurt, but it has no choice.

Life is not just, no pain, no gain. Life is actually a bath of pain, to some extent. We don’t have to be in the bath all the time, but sometimes we need to.

No pain, no bain.

Truth’s Value Is Found In Its Offensive Character

[Hitchens, born British, but a honorary American, a dedicated atheist to the bitter end, and excellent polemist, died of brain cancer a few years ago.]

Excellent editorial by David Brooks in the New York Times, The Campus Crusaders. In it Brooks points out that: “Right now, college campuses around the country are home to a moral movement that seeks to reverse centuries of historic wrongs.

This movement is led by students forced to live with the legacy of sexism, with the threat, and sometimes the experience, of sexual assault. It is led by students whose lives have been marred by racism and bigotry. It is led by people who want to secure equal rights for gays, lesbians and other historically marginalized groups.

These students are driven by noble impulses to do justice and identify oppression. They want to not only crack down on exploitation and discrimination, but also eradicate the cultural environment that tolerates these things. They want to police social norms so that hurtful comments are no longer tolerated and so that real bigotry is given no tacit support. Of course, at some level, they are right. Callous statements in the mainstream can lead to hostile behavior on the edge. That’s why we don’t tolerate Holocaust denial.”

So far, so good, but Brooks points out: “…it sometimes slides into a form of zealotry. If you read the website of the group FIRE, which defends free speech on campus, if you read Kirsten Powers’s book, “The Silencing,” if you read Judith Shulevitz’s essay “In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas” … you come across tales of professors whose lives are ruined because they made innocent remarks; you see speech codes that inhibit free expression; you see reputations unfairly scarred by charges of racism and sexism.”

Interestingly, Brooks comes across, without saying so explicitly, a major deficiency of academia in the USA: a lack of acknowledgement of the importance of sociology (there is no sociology Nobel Prize):

“The problem is that the campus activists have moral fervor, but don’t always have settled philosophies to restrain the fervor of their emotions. Settled philosophies are meant to (but obviously don’t always) instill a limiting sense of humility, a deference to the complexity and multifaceted nature of reality. But many of today’s activists are forced to rely on a relatively simple social theory.”

According to this theory, the dividing lines between good and evil are starkly clear. The essential conflict is between the traumatized purity of the victim and the verbal violence of the oppressor.”

That naivety is directly imputable to the lack of teaching of sociology in the USA.

Old style sociology and its great names (including Marx, Comte, etc.) and theories is all but unknown in the campuses of the USA.

One needs a new anchor. Hint: it’s not “settled philosophies”. What’s needed is new philosophy, and that, by definition, is always unsettling.

Thus, as Brooks points out:

“According to this theory, the ultimate source of authority is not some hard-to-understand truth. It is everybody’s personal feelings. A crime occurs when someone feels a hurt triggered, or when someone feels disagreed with or “unsafe.” In the Shulevitz piece, a Brown student retreats from a campus debate to a safe room because she “was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against” her dearly and closely held beliefs.

Today’s campus activists are not only going after actual acts of discrimination — which is admirable. They are also going after incorrect thought — impiety and blasphemy. They are going after people for simply failing to show sufficient deference to and respect for the etiquette they hold dear. They sometimes conflate ideas with actions and regard controversial ideas as forms of violence.”

This attitude, let’s notice in passing, is directly up with the success of Islamist terrorism, which conflates “impiety”, “blasphemy”, against their Holly Qur’an, and racism. Thus handily recruits among the preceding naïve crowd (which is not just found on campuses; Daesh/Islamist State has recruited around 20,000 Western youth so far; in the most general sense of “Western”).

Brooks reveals how easily one can slip off the deep end:

“Laura Kipnis is a feminist film professor at Northwestern University who wrote a provocative piece on sexual mores on campus that was published in February. She was hit with two Title IX charges on the grounds, without evidence, that her words might have a “chilling effect” on those who might need to report sexual assaults… A student at George Washington wrote an essay on the pre-Nazi history of the swastika. A professor at Brandeis mentioned a historic slur against Hispanics in order to criticize it. The scholar Wendy Kaminer mentioned the N-word at a Smith College alumni event in a clearly nonracist discussion of euphemism and free speech.

All of these people were targeted for purging merely for bringing unacceptable words into the public square. As Powers describes it in “The Silencing,” Kaminer was accused of racial violence and hate speech. The university president was pilloried for tolerating an environment that had been made “hostile” and “unsafe.””

***

So what’s the philosophy we need? No reconciliation without better truth.

Truth. ALL WE NEED IS TRUTH.

What should be discouraged is the telling of lies. How to discard lies? By rolling out theories. “Theory” means actually, point of view. Thus the rolling out of point of views ought to be encouraged.

However, when something is certain, say the deliberate assassination of most of European Jews by the top leadership of the Nazi Party in a semi-secret program, it should be labelled officially as a truth.

So there is a need for an official department, A DEPARTMENT OF TRUTH, a state agency giving, tentatively, various shades of truth and truthiness. A bit such as http://www.politifact.com/, but generalized to all fields. No sanction, just indication.

Yes, I read “1984”, long ago. Therein a “Ministry of Truth“. And it’s not what I have in mind. And yes, Ministry of Truth, 1984 style, are already operating all over, most from huge capital from plutocrats (and that incorporates what is going on in Russia, where inexhaustible capital comes from Putin and, or, his associates; like Ukraine, we have to re-establish an appreciation for denouncing all sorts of lies, dissemblances, fabrication, non-saids…)

The “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” in South Africa worked because, before being reconciled, in depth and permanently, one has to build from the ground up, on solid ground, the ground of truth, that is reality. The reality of what happened which was injurious, and who, what led to it. This, this search for truth, is what has to be generalized.

One absolutely cannot use the “feel good factor” as the way to find the truth. Why? Because finding the truth is brainwork, therefore it always requires work, an effort, thus, it’s guaranteed to be always painful. Those who refuse, at the outset not to pay the price, not to do the work for truth, those who confuse reality and feel-good-now need to understand that being driven by their comfort zone makes them intrinsic enemies of truth. They can be, but they do not deserve more respect than drug addicts, as they work from the same basic principle.

All we need is love, sang John Lennon. Well, he was pierced by several bullets. Coming from someone who, not only was an insane maniac, but, decisively was animated by erroneous philosophical theories. However, Lennon himself had fed the psychological machinery which cost him his life.  (Oh you think all you need is love? Here, get a few bullets, you hypocrite. The killer did say, initially, that he killed Lennon because he felt he was an hypocrite; he has changed his tune now that he wants to get out…)

Love does not bring water to baboons. If baboons need water, they need the truth about the positions, and dispositions, of the predators. You want human? That’s what it is all about.

All we need is not love. Love, in human beings, is rather automatic. One cannot teach truth, without love.

Love of ego is not love of truth. Love of ego not dominated by the love of truth, is hatred of humanity.

Patrice Ayme’

Camus Mudified

I read on an Academic site in the USA that: “Albert Camus supported French colonialism”. That struck me as grotesquely incorrect. An horrendous statement. (And I am not particularly in love with Camus’ work.)

Unsurprisingly, my retort was not published. Amusingly the initial essay was called “Stifling Discourse On the Left”.

Why was I stifled? Because it’s obvious to all “bien-pensants” (well-thinkers) that the stifling French rule in Algeria was a terrible, colonial thing.

Once a citizen of the USA expressed that opinion, that the colonial French deserved what had happened to them in Algeria. He was a geologist, an old friend of my dad. You know, the way friends are made in the USA: fair weather, and not too deep, politically correct in all American ways.

My dad an Algerian born geologist who discovered Algerian oil and gas (while employed by an Algerian oil company). He found the verbal trashing of his homeland inspiring. He retorted: “Certainly, there would have been no civil war in Algeria, if the French had killed all the Natives, the way it was done in the USA”.

The American “friend” was not amused at all. He and his family ceased all and any contact with ours. So much for the great American friendship. His name was Birdstall.

Camus was brought up by his mother in Algeria, where he was born, under extremely modest circumstances. Poorest of the poor. Saved by the Republican educational system (when it still worked). To call Camus’ family background “colonial” is an insult.

The excuse to trash Camus is always the same. After he got the Nobel in literature, a student called on him to take a stance about the civil war in Algeria. Camus retorted, off the cuff, that: ”Si j’ai a choisir entre ma mere et la justice, je choisirai ma mere” (or words to this effect). “If I have to choose between my mother, and justice, I will chose my mother.”

Well, “justice” is a social construct. One may well find oneself in conflict with it. Just ask dozens of millions of Mitteleuropa citizens, in the 1930s and 1940s. Or any country, just before a revolution. Algeria was in a revolution in the 1950s, justice was taking a back seat to motherhood.

It has become common opinion that the good guys were from the Front National de Liberation. The opinion was all the more common as it advantaged the USSR… and the USA.

However, most people living in Algeria did not support the FNL. How do I know this? Among other things, there was a vote! In the early 1960s, more than 60% of the Algerian population voted for the new French Constitution.

That was the first, and last free vote Algerians would get.

As The Economist put it in 2001: ”… given that the French army by the end of the 1950s had more or less won its war in Algeria, why did Algeria nonetheless gain its independence? If Mr Stora is puzzled, Mr Wall is not… French public opinion was sickened; the French intelligentsia was outraged by the practice of torture; and, “just as important”, America could not accept French policy.

Did Charles de Gaulle, summoned back in 1958 to meet France’s constitutional crisis and end the Algerian war, realise all this? Conventional wisdom is that he was France’s far-sighted saviour, accepting almost from the outset that the loss of Algeria was inevitable. Mr Wall, having trailed through both French and American archives, disagrees. De Gaulle’s acceptance of Algerian independence was a belated pragmatism, forced on him by his failure to win over the Americans, first under Eisenhower and then under Kennedy.

…pessimistic implications for the future… the United States was a critical force in pressing France to accept Algerian independence.”

That’s also my opinion. To make matters worse, the average French population was anti-Algerian racist (both against Muslim and Pieds Noirs)… And so was De Gaulle (who made very clear racist statements).

That was not just criminal, but thoroughly idiotic.

Why? Because it made a travesty of reality under the guise of political correctness, when all it was reflected a subjugation to the USA’s White House, and its attached plutocratic Congress.

What was the idiocy?

Most people in Algeria who did not support the FNL. (Nor did they support the French colons, who were a small, distinct class… And they did not support those colons for the same reasons that they did not support the FNL).

Sartre, and many “intellectuals” support of the extremely cruel FNL was an offense against civilization (later pursued with Sartre’s support of hard core “Maoism”).

The FNL advocated publicly terror torture of toddlers. That some elements in the French army used torture on some terrorist suspects is a separate issue. The French army never advocated publicly to torture toddlers.

Do you want to live in a country where the leaders have advocated torturing toddlers? Few would. So, when De Gaulle, on orders from the USA, gave Algeria to the FNL, he was being treacherous and stupid: of course most Algerians wanted to move to France, as being overruled by blood thirsty tyrants had little appeal.

So De Gaulle did his best to prevent that mass exodus. Still, the pressure is still on, and 52 years later, it’s much easier for an Algerian to immigrate to the USA, than to France.

And guess what? The present president of Algeria, Bouteflika, a corpse in a wheelchair, is an ex-general from the original FNL.

So what of Camus? In truth Camus begged to differ with most of the French intelligentsia, which was more into being a well thinking herd, than really thinking, and this is why he got trashed. Still is.

Camus wanted the Algerian Civil War to stop. Camus wanted the Republic to be strong, and motherly. But the Republic is relatively weak, and getting weaker. Those who conquered entire continents (Anglo-Saxons, Russians) are stronger. Their reasons are thus better. If nothing else they sit on all that oil and gaz. Even if the ground explodes cataclysmically, nowadays, with all that warming:

http://mic.com/articles/95232/those-massive-black-holes-discovered-in-sibera-are-even-more-alarming-than-scientists-thought

(Thanks to Alexi Helligar for informing me of this!)

It does not matter. The ground explodes? War is their friend. Let there be war. It’s just a matter of not being on the losing side. A chorus of well-paid intellectuals singing their praises, is most helpful. Yesterday the Bible, today those who recite their well honed version of history.

Dragging Camus in the mud by modifying his beliefs is deeply dishonest. So was the devastation of 1962, when many populations which lived in Algeria before Islam was invented, and Arabic written, 3,000 kilometers away, found themselves in a worse tyranny than they were under Paris’ boot. (Only the Jews could flee in majority; many ended in Israel.)

The future of Algeria? Just wait for the oil and gas to run out. Then the other shoe will drop.

Patrice Ayme’

Obama, Neo-Con

About this title: Obama enabled maximally prominent Neo-Cons to represent and govern the USA. When I asked Silicon Valley cognoscenti what it meant for a supposedly “democratic” presidency to nominate maximally prominent neofascists, I was told: “They represent the HIDDEN government of the USA.”

For years it was incorrect to point out that emperor Obama had no clothes, that all he had was playing with his brown skin. That observation was called racist. Yet, it has been made recently, loud and clear, by leftists of renown: president Obama has been incompetent, and a sell-out. As Thomas Frank puts it in Salon:

“Right-wing obstruction could have been fought: An ineffective and gutless presidency’s legacy is failure.

Yes, we know, the crazy House. But we were promised hope and change on big issues. We got no vision and less action.”

Change? Skin Color

Within days of Obama’s accession to power, banks were given public money without any counterparts. This was an outrageous theft of public money. I advocated it was “Time for RICO“. I may as well have told the mafia to summon the police.

Just as Reagan-Bush 25 years ago, and Sweden later, after 2007, the UK and Germany nationalized giant banks such as Northern Rock, RBS, Hypo Real Estate, when they had to give them hundreds of billions to save them. Instead in the USA, the banks were given trillions, without so much as a change of management; the fact the banks were given money was hidden by the simple device of TARP, then giving plenty more to banks through Quantitative Easing, to reimburse TARP…

To the great applause of conscientious, politically correct “liberals”, such as drummer boy Krugman.

This has world consequences: it made American financiers rule the world, more than ever; GE, saved by Obama’s $60 billion, just bought a French giant competitor, Alsthom. This is the Faustian deal of the USA: its plutocrats may rule the USA, but they also rule the world, and that increasing empire profits average Americans.

The dying Roman Republic went through a similar Faustian bargain with its increasing militarization: the resulting empire profited the Populus Romanus, while killing the Republic. The most insidious corruption corrupts the souls.

Real Change: Beggar In Chief

[Profitable presidency: Obama spent at least 400 day raising billions from the richest plutocrats.]

Then, unbelievably, Obama kept on saying he could not do a thing without Republican’s approval (never mind that he had 60% of the votes in the Senate, and a strong majority in Congress). It was, Obama explained disingenuously, a new way of doing politics by consensus. The savages opposing him rejected it, Obama’s fanatics informed us, thus making him a failure.

In truth, Obama had such strong control of all the government and the legislative, he could easily have imposed “Medicare For All“.

I have said all of this in the past, but, from another pen, my point of view comes out stronger. Thomas Frank again:

“America should have changed but didn’t… [how] to explain an age when every aspect of societal breakdown was out in the open and the old platitudes could no longer paper it over—when the meritocracy was clearly corrupt, when the financial system had devolved into organized thievery, when everyone knew that the politicians were bought and the worst criminals went unprosecuted and the middle class was in a state of collapse and the newspaper pundits were like street performers… for an audience that had lost its taste for mime and seriousness both. It was a time when every thinking person could see that the reigning ideology had failed, that an epoch had ended, that the shitty consensus ideas of the 1980s had finally caved in—and when an unlikely champion arose from the mean streets of Chicago to keep the whole thing propped up nevertheless.”

As early as 2009, it dawned on me that Obama was neither incompetent nor a sellout. I said so on some leftist sites, and was promptly thrown out, as a “troll” and a “Neo-Con”. Obama was a Neo-Conservative from the start and was chosen for that, by the higher-ups of the “democratic” party: they gave him a keynote speech, and their top master operative.

Obama practiced Dick Morris and Bill Clinton’s theory of triangulation — basically the democrats do the republicans’ work for them: democrats deregulated, balanced the budget, and unleashed the financial markets of the USA, while allowing huge corporations to pay no taxes. Clinton declared that the “era of big government is over.” Big banks, small government.

All of this covered by noises to the contrary while the notorious weasel, Dick Morris, chuckled. Weasels are somewhat below apes in the evolution of evolution. Not to worry, French judges never heard of Dick Morris, and he is white, in any case.

Nearly all American leftists, including myself, did not see early enough that Obama was a Neo-Con with Martin Luther King’s mien. We got manipulated by his speeches and rhetoric. His King-style voice rhythms sucked all back to the nostalgia of the progressive 1960s.

We were blinded by political correctness. I recovered quickly, in the first few weeks of Obama’s administration: it was clear Obama was all in rhetoric, and no action.

Obama claimed he could not do a thing, because the “Republicans” blocked him. In truth, fifth generation plutocrats such as Max Baucus, a major democratic senator, were the excuse Obama evoked, in democratic circles, to say he could not a thing. (That Max Baucus lather authored “Obamacare”, is pretty telling.)

I wrote, on this site, about the commonality between Obama’s behavior and that of the “boys” who used to serve white masters in Kenya. Some in my family wrote to me I had trampled on their hearts, and had no common decency. I replied my decency was uncommon. (No doubt it made their stays at Camp David less comfy, so they have hated me ever since.)

Obama is a far more competent Neo-Con than Bush Jr., or even Reagan, ever were. Those had opponents. Obama got collaborators, all over. No banana peel shaking for him. No need for French judges.

The two Bushes generated a backlash and really could only rule in secret, or though devious means. Obama instead pushed the agenda of Wall Street Banks, USA corporations, and the CIA/NSA much further than Bush ever dreamed of, by going public about it while carefully misrepresenting the truth.

For example, Obama officially clashed with Netanyahu. However, below that surface of enmity, extensive cooperation developed, say on anti-missile systems (the fact I like those systems is irrelevant). Such systems were crucial to allow Israel to not negotiate with the Palestinians.

Clinton was the best president the republicans ever had. Under him Franklin D. Roosevelt’s revolutionary reforms of finance and banks were completely undone; Rubin, that is Goldman Sachs and their followers were solidly in command. Clinton, while officially at war with Newt Gingrich, was actually doing the work the Republicans could never have done, had Bush Senior still been president.

As the Republicans got all they wanted, the debate switched further to the right. When the democrats acquired control of Congress in 2006, they went right. Pelosi and company accepted to give all the money banks and shadow banks wanted in 2008. Without any counterparts. Obama became the best president the Neo-Cons could dream of.

Obama once convoked all the top bankers to the White House. He announced, triumphal, that the Obama team was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks”. He delivered. Thanks to political correctness, nobody important dared say that the emperor had no clothes. That, would, indeed, have deemed to be racist. Still is. But not for long.

The picture that will stick with Obama is the one I observed six years ago: a black boy, serving the white masters. and not for brains: under Obama, the share of scientific publications by the USA has collapsed. Why? Under Obama, plutocratization has jumped (as I said, because of the treatment of finance). So it has in academia. But money has deleterious effects on research (if nothing else, it creates the wrong mood and obsession).

Obama ran his first campaign as “change you can believe in”. Yes, none at all. Obama, at best consolidated Bush’s Neo-Con rule. At worst he is still the engulfing lie that appearance is all what reality is about.

Patrice Ayme’

WAR CAN BE GOOD. Never So Political Correctness.

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

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

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

War Is The Essence Of Plutocracy

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

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

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

My Arrows Pierce Sexist Males

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of this has been occulted in official history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

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