Posts Tagged ‘slavery’

“Anti-Racist Racism” Is Racism

January 14, 2017

One of the fundamentals of (evil) Political Correctness has been that: “when we do it, it’s not evil, but righteous’. Unbeknownst to these criminally PC fools, evil men have always said that, when they did it, it was not evil.

The ideology of Négritude” (“Blackness”) appeared in France in 1931. Jean-Paul Sartre had plenty of time to contemplate it. In the 1950s, Sartre called Négritude an “anti-racist racism”.

“Anti-racist” here is an adjective, racism is the substantive. Substance versus adjunction. 

In the preceding essay, I observed that:

‘Aimé Césaire was from Martinique, not Africa. So he did not know that, in Africa, qualifying people by skin color is viewed as racism.’

Césaire was first of all a French intellectual posing as a rebel. This judicious observation of yours truly  ticked off François Luong. Luong wrote: @Tyranosopher An utterly ridiculous claim. & I’ll take 1 Aimé Césaire over 10^6 Patrice Aymé. The former made the world a better place.

Whereas, I suppose I am working hard to make it ever worse…

That of course was a gauntlet thrown. I am an African, talking in the name of the Africa which brought me up. Aimé Césaire was not an African, and he talked in the name of skin. Not just this, but he talked against colonization, namely civilization. Consider this:

.

Africa Enjoyed Slavery For 1200 Years After the Franks Made It Unlawful In Europe. Actually One Of The Argument For Imperial European Control ("Colonization" Without Colons) Of Africa, Was To Stop The Slavery & Cannibalism There. I don't Object To That Lofty Goal.

Africa Enjoyed Slavery For 1200 Years After the Franks Made It Unlawful In Europe. Actually One Of The Argument For Imperial European Control (“Colonization” Without Colons) Of Africa, Was To Stop The Slavery & Cannibalism There. I don’t Object To That Lofty Goal.

Analyze this: For Césaire’s (1913–2008), the concept of Négritude is historically derived from the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the slaves’ plight in the New World. In his own words, “Négritude is not a cephalic index, or plasma, or soma, but measured by the compass of suffering.”

In other words, Africa as pathos. Africa as a pain. Well, F you, Césaire and your followers. As an African, I stridently object. Africa is neither a pain nor a pathos, except in the eyes of deranged racists. Africa is rather a quickly changing hope.  Césaire’s blackness has to do with “blacks” as found in the new World… Who often have, in part, slave master ancestors (as FLOTUS Michelle Obama does; it was actually probably a love story between Irish owner and colored slave… don’t laugh.). Nothing to do with Africa.

Insinuating that Césaire was racist is not new: “Even then Communists would reproach me for speaking of the Negro problem— they called it my racism. But I would answer: Marx is alright, but we need to complete Marx. I felt that the emancipation of the Negro consisted of more than just a political emancipation.” [Discourse on Colonialism.]

In other words, “the Negro” is a child. The Negro child needs to be emancipated some more.

The argument can be made that making “blackness” as a noble goal, forged the way for the Nazis to make “aryanism” (“whiteness”?) as a noble goal too. This Césaire, who insisted very much after WWII that Hitler was not dead, could be viewed as a fellow traveller of Hitler. Thus, indeed, Hitler was not dead. Césaire angrily denounced “colonialism”, although he was a pure product of it, in more way than one.

Trump has campaigned against Political Correctness for a long time, and me for even longer. I have a total objection for not saying things as they are (except to a dying child, of course!)

Even Socrates practiced Political Correctness: he was deadly set against total democracy, but he refused to admit that he was just that, DEADLY set against democracy… If he had admitted to himself and others that he was deadly set against total democracy, Socrates could have had healthy debates. Instead, he went around like a sting ray, injecting venom which caused a torpor, as was pointed at the time.

Until Socrates was in front of a jury for his life: then he had to either show himself to be a coward, for all of society and posterity to contemplate, or he had to drink his own medicine. He famously did the later; but it may be viewed as an admission that he had to commit (assisted) suicide.

Some will say, some have said: anti-racist racism is OK. Right… Until one knows history well. Racists are generally loudly claiming to be anti-racist: or so they claim to others, and, often, to themselves.

For example the Nazis were out to protect (“German”) minorities from assault, or even holocausts (Eastern Europe was full of German Settlements, just as it was full of Jewish settlements, and the settlements of various Natives, let alone Gypsies). In India, the hyper racist, hyper violent upper crust (the upper castes) viewed itself as an endangered minority (of superior beings).

In Antique Greece, as all Feudal regimes, the best people (“Aristos”) viewed themselves as an endangered race (the Aristos looked racially different, be it in Japan or Europe; interestingly modern genetics revealed that the Japanese Aristos genetically mixed with their own slaves, the original Natives of Japan, hence a different, more “European” physical appearance).

There is good colonialism, there is bad colonialism. Most of humanity descend from colonialists, not just Césaire. The latter wrote a whole discourse on colonialism, influencing generations of parrots thereafter.

Suppose Eurasia were still in the Middle Ages. What would Africans be doing? Besides enslaving other Africans? Well, eating other Africans of course. It is still going on, from conflict zones, to expensive restaurants..

(Notice that I am not trying to apply indignantly degenerate Euro philosophy to robust African wisdom. The philosophical strength of Africa is precisely to contradict a lot of Euro-American received ideas. African barbarity has a wisdom that even American barbarity does not possess).

There is fake news

There is fake history

There is fake wisdom

There is fake knowledge

There are fake intellectuals

If we want hope that really work, we have first to learn to distinguish what’s real, from what is not so. Self-justifying racism is the paradigm of hell paved with good, self-glorifying intentions. As an Asian proverb has it, nothing worse than a tiger who thinks it is in the right.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

Advertisements

Washington, Slave Master, Coverup, Spiritual Gangrene

January 11, 2017

When Big Ideas Are Needed, But Lacking, Extinction Is A Solution:

Obama gave his “Farewell Address” (the most interesting bits of which I could have written myself). Yet, he made a snide remark about those who believe the whole US system is so corrupt, that decent people should not touch it. Well, he does not understand. Some political systems are so flawed, they cannot be incrementally improved.

That was true of Sparta and Athens, in the greatest age of Greece (for drastically opposite reasons which amounted to the same). The Greek political system (yes, there was such a thing), a set of moods and ways, was so unsustainable, it was threatened with extinction. And it sure got extinguished (Pericles, restricting Athenian nationality; Poleis, fighting all over, for often ridiculous reasons, were a serious problem).

The solution? Union. What Sparta refused to even talk about. We are in the same global, worldwide, situation as Greece, by the way, and the solution is the same. The one which was not seized, and could not be seized, because Greek civilization was too flawed in some of its moods (such as the one about honor…) Something to be said for Trump’s desire to sort it out peacefully with Russia…

***   

Much of the US system is, fundamentally flawed:

Especially in some its meta-features. Meaning? The Founding Fathers were lying in the matter of which civilization they truly wanted. Greed was foremost to them, and they hid that below big words. As long as this is not a well-known point, the entanglement between many of the worst flaws of the present civilization will stay unexamined.

If one lies too much, one cannot think enough. This is true of society, as it is of individuals.

One such ruling mood is the lack of examination that presided over the elaboration of the American Republic. The Founding Fathers stole, and brandished, a lot of their soaring rhetoric from philosophers (most of them French), precisely to hide the fact they were the exact opposite.

Slavery Made Washington, & America, Rich. So Did Holocaust. Refusing To Look At The Truth, Enabled These Behaviors, And Lives To This Day, as General Mood, The PC Mood.

Slavery Made Washington, & America, Rich. So Did Holocaust. Refusing To Look At The Truth, Enabled These Behaviors, And Lives To This Day, as General Mood, The PC Mood. Gentleman In Black Is Colonel George Washington, On His Lands, 1753.

Thereupon, a great tradition of lying, fake news, dissemblance, was launched. (Somewhat related accusations can be directed towards the mother civilization, namely France; however, in France, a tradition of excoriating some presidents (called kings, centuries ago), or even a tradition of ferocious philosophical wars is firmly installed…)

Obama, in his “Farewell Address”, claimed “America” (the US, actually, there is imperialism, the Monroe Doctrine, in the over-claiming word “America”) is always improving (and exemplified this by the “smooth transition to a new administration”). Maybe. However, it’s like saying a plane trying to take-off sees its speed always improving. Right. Yet, one has to clear the trees. One hundred H bombs would cancel the “America” show, forever.

Obama talked as if the US would profit mightily from further incremental improvements, as if there was all the time in the world. However he himself admitted that the calamitous effects of “climate change” will be upon us soon, and that they may the only thing the next generation will be doing. (He left war out of it, but that’s how changes shows up, always.)

***

The Evil Origins Of The American Republic,

the USA, have been carefully hidden, to enable the citizenry careful denial that such are some of the traits which animate them. Thus enabled, said citizens are free to pursue, or let their masters pursue, the same ways and means, slightly translated to new settings.

To progress, one has to question the origins, and one’s origins. Those are not questioned enough in the USA. Therefrom the origins of American “naivety”. American “naivety” is a cover-up. Being outwardly naive enables one to practice evil, while claiming, to high heavens, that one is nothing of the sort.

Obama evokes the “corrosive influence of money in our politics”, and he sheds ((crocodile) tears, no doubt feeling all the good money coming his way: all theater, George Washington’s style. Actually, he loves the money. Most of us, normal types, would.

What did I just suggest? That the slave mentality is one of the things that is being inherited (that’s the part of the Trump revolution others missed: those who voted for Trump, voted against the slave mentality imposed upon them, and that  they welcomed, for all too long!)

The results, of so much mental inertia, of course, could be catastrophic; whereas said mentality just enslaved some continents, while devastating others, we are now all the continents, all the Natives, squirming on the chopping block.

President Washington was a slave master. A slave investor. A slave driver. A vicious, conniving exploiter of his fellow-man, exploiting loopholes in law to keep on torturing his fellow-men, by the hundreds, on a very personal basis. Should he have the capital city named after him? Get to know him better, before jumping to the affirmative. As The Economist puts it in The first president, slave-owner. The spectre of slavery haunts George Washington’s house,

Jan 5th 2017, WASHINGTON, DC:

“When Washington was 11, he inherited 10 slaves from his father; when he died five decades later, he owned 123 of the 317 slaves who lived and worked at Mount Vernon. In that time the estate grew from a fairly modest farmhouse with 2,000 acres to a 21-room mansion and nearly 8,000 acres. It was in this way that the first president became rich: by buying, owning and sometimes selling people and by forcing them to work for him, under pain of flogging, beating or being sold away from their relatives and friends. There had hitherto been little acknowledgement at Mount Vernon of this dreadful blot on Washington’s reputation, or of the hundreds of black slaves who lived and worked there.”

This abominable stain on the start of the American Republic was covered-up for decades of fake news:

Insofar as slavery was mentioned at all in the plantation house’s literature and by its guides, it was to talk up the second thoughts on owning people Washington claimed to have had in the second half of his life. He thought it better, he wrote in 1778, to “get quit of Negroes”… This apologetic view of Washington’s slave-owning is still espoused by many school textbooks and historians… many Americans were surprised when, at the Democratic National Convention in July, Michelle Obama alluded to the fact that slaves helped built the White House.”

Slavery was an elaborate abomination. It was the free market (of people, as usual) in all its splendor. No indecency was left unturned:

“…an exhibition on slavery, “Lives Bound Together: Slavery at [president] George Washington’s Mount Vernon”, describes the lives of 19 of the slaves who lived on the estate. Sambo Anderson, for example, a carpenter, born in West Africa, whom Washington appears to have purchased in the 1750s and freed in his will. His wife and children were owned by the estate of Martha Washington and handed on to her inheritors after her death. Anderson spent the rest of his life saving money, from his work as a beekeeper and hunter, in order to buy the liberty of a handful of his children and grandchildren.”

To this day, The Economist recognizes, a mood of cover-up, of hiding the truth, and of fake news dominate the exhibition of the First President’s disgusting being:

“Even in the slavery exhibition, there is little sense of the violence Washington visited on his slaves—the whippings and beatings, the slaughter of his slaves’ dogs he ordered to prevent them alerting their masters to the approach of his overseers.  Much is made of his growing misgivings about slavery. But there is too little recognition that this appears to have been at least in part motivated by economics; by growing less tobacco Washington reduced his demand for slave-labour.

For Washington’s slave-owning was not, as the experience of Mount Vernon might suggest, a painful footnote to a great life, but as central to it as anything he did. Washington’s zeal for efficiency, order and money-making are all part of his mythology; these qualities help explain his success. They were also the spirit in which he traded in and worked his slaves. He approached the business of buying slaves as he might livestock, insisting, “all of them to be strait limbed, & in every respect strong and healthy with good teeth”. He worked them into the ground, expecting that “every labourer (male and female) does as much in 24 hours as their strength, without endangering their health or constitution, will allow.””

Washington always refused to free his slaves, as Lafayette urged him to do, for years. They were friends; at the battle of Yorktown, when the British army had to surrender, there was one American army, but also two French armies, one of them headed by Lafayette, and one French fleet, which had defeated,and put to flight,  the British fleet. Understand that the tradition, the culture and the legal system Lafayette came from, had outlawed slavery more than 11 centuries prior. Washington came from a tradition, a culture, a legal system, which had reinstalled slavery, 160 years earlier, to maximize profits.  

In truth, the US First President was a great beast of abomination (as I have pointed out in writing for more than eight years: see Plutocracy Originated Slavery and Racism). The Economist notices that Washington’s misgivings about slavery are given prominence in contemporaneous exhibitions. A type of Fake News. Fake News of the deepest type.

Less prominent attention is paid to Washington’s lifelong efforts to protect the system that made him rich.  In 1783 he signed the first fugitive slave law, which authorised the recapture of escaped slaves in any state and the punishment of anyone found harbouring fugitive slaves. He also sought to circumvent anti-slavery law for his own purposes.

Pennsylvania’s Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery of 1780 ruled that any slave who entered the state with an owner and stayed longer than six months must be freed. Because Philadelphia was America’s seat of government at the time, this gave Washington a headache. His solution was to surreptitiously arrange for his slaves to be cycled in and out of the state every few months (“I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself & Mrs. Washington” he wrote to his personal secretary in 1791). Only twelve weeks before he died, Washington was still trying to track down a slave who had escaped three years earlier, having learned that Martha Washington planned to give her away as a wedding present.”

***

The Dark Side Created The USA In No Small Way:

To start with, just as slavery was central to President Washington’s successful life, slavery, and holocausts, were central to the success of the early American society, and its Republic: enslavement and extermination enabled to get rid of the American Natives, their control of the continent, and made the European colonists immensely rich.

Slavery, introduced in the first few years of the English colony, was unlawful in England (since the Frankish conquest of 1066 CE; slavery was unlawful in the Frankish/Roman empire since 655 CE!) Slavery was actually unlawful anywhere in Europe (out of the Muslim controlled area).

However, slavery made the cultivation of tobacco possible, to the point the English American colony became highly profitable.

By comparison, the French colony in Canada did not allow slavery, nor holocausts. Thus French Canada depended only upon trading furs with the American Natives: thus Canada was much less profitable than the slavery propelled English colonies.

The clashes with English authorities about “taxation without representation” were real. However, they were not the main bone of contention. The real, main problem was that real estate speculators and greedy colonists were eager to spread their colonization, and destruction of Native American societies, west of the Appalachians. Whereas the English authorities felt more decent, and wiser, to stop the holocaust (OK, certainly they also wanted to keep control). This was the main cause of the US war of independence, and no accident that a real estate speculator such as Colonel Washington played a central role.

Nor is it an accident that this fact is still covered-up (below the “taxation without representation argument”).

The Economist pondered that panegyrics to Washington’s generosity and humanity leave little room for the horrors he oversaw. For an alternative view, your blogger asked a young black security guard at the slavery exhibition what he made of the first president’s much vaunted second thoughts on slavery. “You know, I’ve been studying this quite a bit since I started working here”, he said. “People say George Washington was against slavery. I say actions speak louder than words”.”

Indeed. Actually there is a remedy to all this.

Why should we pay attention to all this history? Because yesterday’s origins created today’s reality. Civilizations have moods and meta-moods. US religiosity is entangled with the desire of not wanting to know too much what is really going on. The Bible justified holocausts and enslavement, and the mood that, whatever good men do, it was ordered by God. That overall mentality is still in power, and enabled by the imperial manner of many an US institutions, and the aura they bathe in.

As the USA has become the world’s most influential power, the roots of the American mentality, greed, slavery and holocaust, should be carefully examined.

As whom many have depicted as a clown is going to be endowed by the immensely evil power of thousands of nuclear devices, each capable of annihilating a city in seconds, it is worth remembering how the whole empire got launched.

European conquered America, because they succeeded to do, what the Nazis (stupidly) dreamed they could do in Europe (Nazis had seen too many “Westerns”, and even absorbed all too well the idea that Westerns were fake news, to some extent, thus that Americans were not for real…) To put it even more bluntly, Nazism, for real, armed with the Bible, not the Swastika, is how the West, but also the Eastern Seaboard, and the fly-over country in between, was conquered.

The unexamined life may be too unworthy to keep on living.

And the obverse is true. A thoroughly examined life is much more worthy. Athens had only 60,000 citizens, yet dozens of them among civilization’s most prominent intellectuals. Total democracy endows with total power!

How? Any Athenian could pretend to the highest functions: they may be bestowed on him (many offices were drawn by lot). So all paid attention to what was going on. Obama had only to pay attention to what big money and gigantic power wanted him to do.

Was if why Obama shed a tear in his farewell address? Full of sorrow, for his departed soul, as he looks at the hopeful face of his youngest daughter? Remembering that he was the Faust in chief? President of all the little Fausts out there?

Time to study in greater depth the roots of our moods, lest we want to shed even more tears.  

Patrice Ayme’

 

All Animals Equal? Including Brutes?

October 30, 2015

That All Animals Are Equal, is a most respected philosophy in the USA and other parts where plutocracy reigns. I explain why below.

Philosophy is not innocuous, far from it: it’s how people are ruled. Ruling over others is intrinsically evil. So evil, actually, that baboons, these super aggressive and militarized animals, have diluted rule in three ways. Baboons have two sort of “guides”, the rulers, and the innovators. In a baboon troop between alpha females, alpha males and numerous innovators, few adult baboons are just subjugated.

This makes the present situation of the human species all the more remarkable. We are subjugated. Rousseau said it was because of civilization itself. That was stupid (yet, it led to Nazism and Sovietism). In truth we are subjugated because of particular philosophies. Generally I target the (sort of) wisdom known as Abrahamism (Judeo-Christo-Islamism), because rather rabid citizens in America and the Middle East claim to believe in it enough to bomb others (see invasion of Iraq, etc.).

This French Spider Monster Is Your Equal, Says Princeton

This French Spider Monster Is Your Equal, Says Princeton

But then there are those philosophies which are a bit more sophisticated in the way they subjugate. The animal rights movements first blossomed under Nazism. Coincident with the rise of plutocracy, and the decay of everything else, this time in the USA, not Germany, it has also blossomed in the USA.

Peter Singer claimed in 1974 that “All Animals are Equal“. This made him extremely famous. He got a prestigious appointment at Princeton University. Many professional “philosophers” throughout the Anglo-Saxon juggernaut claim loudly to view Singer as the “greatest philosopher alive”. I have an adverse interpretation, naturally. Before I come to that, I should expose Singer’s fundamental idea. Let’s quote him extensively, lest I be accused to distort him. (Those who are more interested by what I have to say about them rather than what I view as sophisticated inanities, can hyper-jump after the quote.) Peter Singer wrote:

“I gave reasons for believing that the fundamental principle of equality, on which the equality of all human beings rests, is the principle of equal consideration of interests. Only a basic moral principle of this kind can allow us to defend a form of equality which embraces all human beings, with all the differences that exist between them. I shall now contend that while this principle does provide an adequate basis for human equality, it provides a basis which cannot be limited to humans. In other words I shall suggest that, having accepted the principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own species – the nonhuman animals.

This suggestion may at first seem bizarre. We are used to regarding the oppression of blacks and women as among the most important moral and political issues facing the world today. These are serious matters, worthy of the time and energy of any concerned person. But animals? Surely the welfare of animals is in a different category altogether, a matter for old ladies in tennis shoes to worry about. How can anyone waste their time on equality for animals when so many humans are denied real equality?

This attitude reflects a popular prejudice against taking the interests of animals seriously – a prejudice no better founded than the prejudice of white slaveowners against taking the interests of blacks seriously. It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own beliefs, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among them. What is needed now is a willingness to follow the arguments where they lead, without a prior assumption that the issue is not worth attending to.

The argument for extending the principle of equality beyond our own species is simple, so simple that it amounts to no more than a clear understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of interests. We have seen that this principle implies that our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess (although precisely what this concern requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do).

It is on this basis that we are able to say that the fact that some people are not members of our race does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that some people are less intelligent than others does not mean that their interests may be disregarded. But the principle also implies that the fact that beings are not members of our species does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that other animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests may be disregarded.”

There are so many wrong idea in the preceding quote, which contains all what Singer is famous for in a nutshell, that it’s hard to know where to start. I will keep to the mains (what gives electric shocks, yes).

Notice the preeminence of the word, and concept, of “interest” in Singer’s thought system. This may sound innocuous. It’s not. In Islam (as in Judaism and Christianity) charting interest to a fellow-man is forbidden (haram). I believe in moods.

By making the notion of INDIVIDUAL interest, which is the center, and crux of so-called “capitalism” or so-called “markets”, as in “free markets”, the highest value imaginable, Singer and his accomplices are, not so implicitly, putting “the market” (aka American imperialism), at the very top of the pyramids of all values.

So notice, that if we want no more sexism and raise, Singer says we have to embrace interest, thus markets. Plutocracy shall make you free!

No wonder Singer joined in 2011 the professoriate of New College of the Humanities, a private college in London, in addition to his work at Princeton. Instead of lashing out, with high taxes on plutocrats, and thus trample their delicate interests, Peter shall strive to prevent their suffering.

After all, plutocrats may be of lesser intelligence than us, yet, we have to respect their interests, because they are animals, and their right to life and no suffering, are primordial..

How come such stupidities have become so famous and respectable? Precisely because they force the philosophically minded, if they want to graduate, to respect stupidity. Thus the mood of abject submission to stupidity is enforced as the highest moral value, and proof of the highest smarts.

Now of course, Singer’s incredibly offensive message is disguised with mould red herrings about (correct) trivialities. Singer’s Key Idea is that equal does not mean the same (who could say otherwise?). Example: one doesn’t have to assign a right to abortion to men in order to assign it to women.

The real issue is the concept of equality. We make a mistake in thinking that it requires equal rationality, says Singer. Singer claims that rights used to be denied to women and non-whites on the grounds of their limited rationality.

To “prove” this, Singer rolls out an example. A woman feminist in England wrote an essay on women deserving equal rights: She pointed out that, just across the Channel, in Paris, a strong attempt had been made to give women the right to vote. A Cambridge philosopher replied by asking if “brutes” also deserved equal rights. That was in 1794. Singer says, then, yes, even brutes have rights.

Women had been fighting for their rights, and getting some, sometimes, for 22 centuries, ever since Roman Pater Familias were deprived of their right to kill their wives.

However Singer exhibits his own limitation: “limited rationality” was an Anglo-Saxon argument: in Antique Rome, there was NO assumption of limited rationality on the ground of difference of origin! Similarly for the successor regime of Rome, France. Racism, race, limited rationality, exclusion are ANGLO-SAXON concepts, enshrined in the congenital slavery of “blacks” (some of whom were white).

As a child I lived in Africa. French speaking Africa (more than 200 million people in Africa ). Once I crossed over into an English speaking African country. To my amazement, I found there were two sets of toilets at the customs. A first set, immaculate, very fancy, for “Ladies and Gentlemen”. In the distance there was another set, rough and disgusting, of a suspicious brownish color, for “Males and Females”. That was my first introduction to racism. (In French Africa, there were only one type of toilets.

When the Franks got to England in 1066 CE, they freed the slaves. They conducted a census: 20% of the population was enslaved. Recently the buried corpse of a Black African was found in England, post Frankish conquest. He was a free man.

Singer’s thesis of deep racism in history is not correct. Rome was NOT racist. The two large empires which made Western civilization, Roma and the Imperium Francorum, believed exactly that. That’s why seven queens of the Franks reigned around 600.

So what is the connection with Nazism? If Nietzsche were here, he would say: nihilism. By claiming that mold, lichen and arthropods have “equal rights”, Singer is trashing the human race, he may as well say cow dung has equal rights.

The Nazis were crafty enough to find that angle well before Singer. Nobody could accuse the Nazis to be inhuman, quite the opposite: they passed strong laws preventing cruelty to animals, and created vast and numerous national parks.

It was all a smokescreen. The interest of Nazis was to kill people, so they could suck their riches, from their hair, to their teeth (!), to the properties they owned before the Nazis stole them.

The solution to Nazism was to inflict on Nazis enough pain, suffering and death, so they will quit by force their pretense to animality.

The rise of plutocracy is directly connected to the mood we have equal right to sheep. No wonder Mr. Singer is well employed.

Patrice Ayme’

PLUTOCRACY IMPLIES SLAVERY

June 22, 2015

SLAVERY FOR 99%, THAT IS. It’s much more general than color of the skin, or money buying anything and everything.

Obama and others have woken up to the fact that “300 years of slavery” have left a mark in the USA. “The legacy of slavery… discrimination in almost every institution of our lives… casts a long shadow, and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on,” the president said“We’re not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not.”

Yes, indeed. It goes much further than that, all the way to the root of human ethology. Slavery itself has roots in the organization of English AMERICAN society. It appeared there exactly in 1619. Slavery had been unlawful in Europe, per Frankish law nearly a thousand year old.

The mentality of masters and slaves is all over the USA. To this day. This is why the USA is different from Europe.

Road Not Taken: New France Failed Out Of Goodness

Road Not Taken: New France Failed Out Of Goodness

Road not taken: New France was supposed to offer civilization to the Natives. What for? said the Masters. And the Masters proceeded to exterminate all those who could not master them, including the French.

Yes, masters and slaves were all over Europe too, and a war was fought about that from April 1792 (general attack by all European plutocrats against the French Constitutional Monarchy) until June 1815 (Waterloo). Superficially the plutocrats won. But there were a number of revolutions in the Nineteenth Century, and the French Republic got re-established. In the end, anti-plutocratic principles of 1789 came to rule the United Nations after 1944.

So what is the Plutocratic Principle?

That the best way to organize society is for the haves to rule, and exploit, no holds barred, and sky is the limit.

The idea that Plutocratic Rule is best, is already found in Aristotle. Thanks to his intimacy with the world’s mightiest men, that’s how Aristotle destroyed democracy. Aristotle thought monarchy was the best organizing principle of society. He conveyed that idea authoritatively to a number of very close friends and students. Among them the Macedonians Antipater, Alexander and Craterus, who were like family.

As a result, Direct Democracy has been buried for 23 centuries, and counting.

The liberty for the haves to exploit was optimal for the quick conquest of the Americas. It’s a success story. Who can argue with success? Philosophers? Deep thought? That’s why they are not welcome, in Plutocratic quarters.

The conquest of the Americas, fundamentally, was a military operation.

The French tried to make it into something else, an ethical operation, helped with a bit of fair trade. This moral calling arose from the discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier. The next attitude the French explorer and commander found, to his dismay, was that many American Natives were actually hostile to the invasion of their land by Frenchmen. So it was decided, and it became a tradition, to use a light touch for the colonization of North America by France: it had to be made with the approval of the Natives, in particular the Hurons.

It worked splendidly.

The Hurons got civilized, Christianized, they built farms, grew and prospered. French “Coureurs de Bois” established fair trade all over Canada and the West, to Colorado, and beyond. They fraternized with the Natives, married them, had children.

It worked splendidly, until English plutocrats showed up, the “West Country Men“.

Those investors (including the English King) had refined the Plutocratic Principle in Ireland. It involved lining up roads with human skulls, to enlighten the Natives about what resistance untailed.

Against the Plutocratic Principle, Civilization contend in vain, if it does not go to war.

The French state insisted that only individuals of the highest morality be allowed to visit Canada. And that was with a return trip in mind. Women were carefully interrogated and inspected to make sure that they would not use their charms liberally.

The English plutocrats and their agents (the Iroquois) defeated the French, and annihilated the Iroquois.

Even before this, it became clear that Native Americans and Africans made excellent robots to help conquer the land, so, propped by the Plutocratic Principle, they introduced slavery. And soon there were much more slaves in some states than white masters.

Slavery was defeated by Lincoln.

But its root has not been. It has not even been detected, let alone condemned.

The Plutocratic Principle is better at war. To win a war, an army, a country, needs to act as one large body with just one brain. This is why the Fascist Instinct is crucial to a world conquering primate such as the genus Homo: E Pluribus Unum. The Plutocratic Principle is a generalization, to society, of the Fascist Instinct.

At some point, the human tendency to over-exploit the land has to be kept in check: thus the Dark Side. In the Americas, as anywhere in the world, this involved massacring people, to keep the numbers down.

But genocide is still something else: it reduces cultural diversity.

The Interest of the Dark Side has been, ultimately, sustainability. There is goodness in the Dark Side, on the level of the genus Homo. It protects against termination of the genus.

However, nowadays, the technological powers at our disposal are so great, that one cannot give free rein to the Dark Side. Let’s suppose that American Natives had nuclear bombs instead of horse and tomahawks: trying to massacre them may have been counter-productive to the English Colony.

Similarly, all out war against the biosphere through “climate change” and acid ocean, will turn out just as good as it did for the dinosaurs.

The Dark Side, the very success of the Plutocratic Principle in the USA, are leading us to a collision course with reality. We are now at war with physics.

Thus the Plutocratic Principle has to be jettisoned now. That means that the USA should strive to be more like Europe, and less like its old exploitative self. In turn, that may teach some emerging superpowers, such as China, that the Plutocratic Principle is counterproductive.

Patrice Ayme’

Enslaved, But Saved?

May 12, 2015

A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE:

No philosophy is very new, if all it does, is to tenderly stroke the minds of the past, and their pet theories.

It is a given that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a black eye for Western Civilization. Does that hold under hyper-critical scrutiny? A few remarks:

1) It’s plutocrats who organized the slave trade, not “Western Civilization”. The average European knew nothing about slavery, as it had been unlawful in (what the Franks called) “Europe” for a millennium. Plutocrats organize a lot of things nowadays, far from prying eyes.

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful Inside Europe Since 660 CE

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful Inside Europe Since 660 CE

2) It is better to (let) drown Africans by the thousands as they try to reach Europe, as is practiced nowadays? Is it worse to be put in chains, laying on one’s back like sardines, rather than drowning in the Med? And on this latter point, we can’t say we never heard about it.

3) At least, indeed, slave traders were keen not to drown their expensively purchased slaves.

Let’s dig in the slave logic.

The claim is generally made that 11 million Africans were transported in slave ships, from Africa to the Americas. Once arrived there, they were used as living robots. They were moreover generally submitted to racism, the idea that they were not quite human. Accordingly they were treated inhumanly.

Between 650 CE and 1920 CE, 18 million Africans were transported to Muslim countries. Many were castrated, and suffered high death rates, so the slave population did not increase much. Islamist jurisprudence frowned upon enslaving born Muslims (and initially Jews and Christians, except if captured in war; however, that was rescinded soon).

The transatlantic slave trade was organized by pretty satanic individuals.

However, differently from slaves in Muslim countries, American slaves were not castrated, and however inhumanly treated, not only suffered much lower death rates than in Muslim countries, but grew and multiplied.

African slaves in the Americas were never treated so badly that they engaged in as a large scale rebellion such as the Zanj (= East African Great Lakes Bantus). 500,000 African slaves captured the large port of Basra in Iraq, and fought for 15 years. (The largest North American slave rebellion involved barely more than one plantation, and killed a few dozen people… Who all knew each other.)

The slave population in the Americas augmented rapidly… From doing what comes naturally when conditions are not so bad.

But let’s reconsider the basic point. How did Euro-American plutocrats get their slaves? By buying them. (Europeans hunting Africans down was tried a bit by the Portuguese early on, but proved way too expensive and dangerous, past the first element of surprise.)

African states and empires were well armed (with native steel arrowheads). Starting in 1300 CE, in the empire of Senegambia and Mali, one third of the population was enslaved. Slavery does not have to do with riches: the emperor of Mali went to Mecca and blinded all the Arabs with his incredible wealth (Mali was full of gold and slaves to extract it). He was probably the Earth’s richest person.

In Madagascar, half of the population was enslaved. In Zanzibar, 90%. Slavery was all over Africa, and it had nothing to do with evil white men.

And the natural question is this: had these slaves not been sold, would they have lived?

Africa was crisscrossed by wars. Ever since the Carthaginians, white men had been unable to conquer it, because Africans were expert at war, and mastered steel technology. It’s only after 1850 CE that Europeans achieved military technology so advanced that they made local, African soldiers into conquering armies (or, at least, that’s the way the French did it; the British used their own soldiers and suffered two tremendous defeats, one in West Africa, the other at the hands of the Zulus).

So would have these prisoners of war and other criminals live, but for the slave trade?

The observation is the perennial one, the great enforcer of the Dark Side in the human species: the first thing humanity always had to kill, was overpopulation.

Bartolome’ de las Casas stopped all by himself the Conquista of the Americas by Spain (he did not like the genocide and persuaded Charles V). He also condemned the African slave trade, pointing out that it “incited Africans to sell their own children”.

A fine, very humanitarian, cute and cuddly argument, but is it really true? Could one cut and paste European ethical logic onto Black Africa?

In truth we know that mass human sacrifices as happened during the “Customs” in Dahomey were stopped, because the captives got sold as slaves instead of being chopped into bits.

It is no accident that, shortly before its civil war, Rwanda was the most densely populated country in Africa. 20% of the population was killed. In three months. (And the story is more complicated, and troubling, than usually told, as it seems a majority of the people killed were Hutu, not Tutsi, as supported by the evidence that the “genocide” happened during the invasion of Rwanda by the Tutsi “Rwanda Patriotic Front”.)

Morocco closed its last slave market in 1920. It helped that it was under French supervision. Saudi Arabia made slavery unlawful in the 1960s. (Islam, by giving a precise legal framework to slavery, allowed it to fester forever.) Mauritania, a country of ineffable charm, which I have resided in, criminalized slavery in 2007. 600,000 people, 20% of the population, are currently enslaved there (the French had abolished slavery in Mauritania in 1920, but the country became independent in the 1960s, allowing to re-establish slavery).

A well-known reason brandished to justify the invasion and occupation of Africa by European powers was the presence of slavery in Africa (the source of the Transatlantic Slave Trade). That argument failed in Christian Ethiopia, which, although attacked by Italy, was never conquered… But also was never part of the slave trade.

Amusingly, as “passengers” are packed like cattle in planes nowadays, getting strokes by the thousands, as a result, nobody points out that slaves at least enjoyed flat beds. (I had still another friend who died, yesterday, from a stroke within days of flying; not a subject airlines and their sponsors are keen to examine.)

Once transported to the Americas, slaves were branded, and treated worse than 3,500 years prior in Mesopotamia. Well, that was a problem with the inhuman character of the laws in the Americas. And yes, it is unforgivable.

However, as far as the slaves were concerned, enslaving them may have saved their lives. I am not saying that this is sure, obvious, and proven.

Just, that it seems likely. Reality is harder than fiction.

Think, but verify.

Meanwhile, please consider the possibility that the situation with thousands drowning in the Mediterranean is actually worse than the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Patrice Ayme’

A Truth: FRANCE OUTLAWED SLAVERY 1355 YEARS Ago

May 10, 2015

AND THEN IN 1794, 1848. So what happened? Plutocracy and Its Pet Demon, Napoleon Happened.

1794, 1848: Abolition Of French Overseas Racism, Not Just Slavery.

“Francia” Abolished Slavery In The Seventh Century:

The French government abolished the slave trade within the Frankish Empire around 655 CE. That was the work of Bathilde (“BALDAHILDIS”), queen of the Franks and regent. Bathilde had been captured in England, sold to a plutocrat, from whom she later escaped. Re-captured, she attracted the eye of the king of Burgundy and Neustria, who bought her for a very high price. He then freed, and married her. Soon after being elected king some more, he died, and Bathilde became reigning queen of the entire Frankish (“Merovingian”) empire.

I, Former Slave, Queen Of the Franks, Abolished Slavery

I, Former Slave, Queen Of the Franks, Abolished Slavery

[Luxembourg Garden, French Senate, Paris, Bathilde’s Capital.]

Queen Bathilde proceeded to buy and free slaves, first from her own treasury. Slavery was disapproved by the Frankish Church. It subsisted among the rich and mighty, and in the countryside. Bathilde lowered taxes on peasants so that they would stop selling their own children (the more children they had the less taxes they paid).

Then Bathilde’s French government outlawed the slave trade within the empire. (Owning slaves per se was not outlawed, as it was too injurious and infuriating to mighty Gallo-Roman aristocrats.) Selling or buying slaves was outlawed.

Any slave stepping on Frankish territory was to be freed.

Bathilde’s three sons were all elected kings (she kept directing things, some have claimed ruthlessly, from a monastery near Paris, where she retired).

Bathilde was made into a saint by the Pope in 880 CE, 200 years after her death.

However, the slave trade was not outlawed in Frankish March States such as Venice. Venice merchants, would sell slaves for centuries from southern (present day) Ukraine to the Muslim Caliphate (both outside of the Imperium Francorum).

Yet, this is the foundational act of abolition of slavery. When the Franks invaded Great Britain in 1066 CE, under the Duke of Normandy, they immediately outlawed slavery (more than 20% of England was enslaved).

Holding slaves anywhere in Western Europe was against the law, and stayed against the law. Slaves coming on European territory were freed.

Still there were two exceptions: one systemic, the other anecdotic.

Portugal had been occupied, for centuries, by the Islamists. Islam made slavery legal (although one could do whatever to obedient slaves, there were laws, slaves who tried to escape were typically impaled, to instruct their fellows, as they squirmed sometimes for days). Once freed, the Portuguese king asked the Pope for permission to enslave Africans. That was accorded.

The other exception came within Paris in the 18C: the leaders of the American rebellion held slaves in France, and were told by the French King’s police that they had to cease and desist (Jefferson, future third president of the USA, weaseled his way out)

***

Culprit of the African Slave Trade: African, American & European Potentate & Plutocrats:

I have to excuse the French Prime Minister: a Catalan of Spanish citizenship, he became French only when he was 20, and apparently history was not taught where he came from.

Catalonia was freed from Islamist potentates in the Eight Century by a Frankish army led by Charlemagne himself. So Catalonia became part of the empire of the Franks, slavery was outlawed, and Catalans such as French Prime Minister Valls ought to know their history. But they don’t.

How come the French and Catalans completely ignore the abolition of slavery in the Seventh Century?

Today, from the other side of the planet from France, I opened TV5Monde, the French TV. A banner blared “Commemoration de l’Abolition De L’Esclavage”. By this French leaders, the president, the PM, and the president of the Senate, meant the outlawing of the “traite des noirs”, a three ways trading system also used by Britain, Portugal, Spain, the USA, etc.…

In this system goods were sold by European plutocrats to African potentates who exchanged said goods against slaves who were then sold to plutocrats of European origin who, by then, had become colossal exploiters of the Americas producing massive quantities of sugar, tobacco, precious metals, etc.

In 1794, under the First French Republic, slavery was abolished in overseas French territories. It is instructive to realize that this had to be repeated in 1848, and why.

Slavery overseas was reintroduced by the dictator Napoleon in 1802.

So Valls, Taubira, Hollande and other well-meaning clowns: you want to condemn erroneous history? Then throw Napoleon’s ashes down the Seine, or something. In any case, stop reverence for the SLAVE MASTER IN CHIEF. Throw him out of the Invalides.

The Second French Republic re-established the abolition of the overseas slave trade.

Do the French know their own history? No. That is pretty bad, because deep French history is THE deep history of Western Democracy.

That slavery was outlawed by Western Civilization in the Seventh Century provides a metric with which to measure civilization.

That Napoleon was a criminal against humanity ought to be taught.

That fact, presently occluded, explains a lot of subsequent abuses against civilization. Why? Napoleon is still widely admired (differently from his imitator, Adolf Hitler). Worldwide, not just by the clueless French.

The other day, I had a heated argument with a francophobic, yet very educated American (USA) woman. She told me France was now despicable, irrelevant, although France used to be great in the time of Napoleon. Wrong. Napoleon was a monster, he should be despised.

You want to teach slavery right? Teach Napoleon right. You want to learn from the past? Learn about Napoleon. Yes, French revolutionary armies freed the Jews in Germany, and Napoleon let that stand. However, as the Corsican dictator e re-established slavery, it is no wonder that Metternich and other German speaking leaders re-established the enslavement of the Jews after Napoleon’s defeat.

Learning just a bit of history always lead to imbalanced minds.

History ought to be told right; in full, to the best of our knowledge.

Ignoring the Frankish empires, and the world’s most advanced constitutions which they imposed by force, which forged Western Civilization is not just incoherent, and stupid, it is criminal. Because, you people who go around admiring Napoleon and his institutions, deep down, what you admire is slavery, Napoleon’s unique contribution against the flow of progress, and, thus, you are not just hypocrites, but ridiculously ineffectual.

Patrice Ayme’

Free Will, Modernized

October 22, 2014

Converted Canadian Muslims crush, and shoot Canadians. Hey, they read it in a magazine! Do those killers have free will? Or are they just Qur’an programmed machines? This is the sort of quandary which advances in neurology show the ancient debate on Free Will ought to be about. Here is a tiny refresher about the Qur’an:

Quran (2:216)Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

Quran (3:56)“As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151)“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.  This speaks directly of polytheists, thus including Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (Muhammad incorrectly believed that Christians had ‘joining companions to Allah’… as his mentor was a relative, a Coptic monk!).

Quran (4:74)“Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”

Quran (8:12)“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Quran (8:39)“And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah”

OK, I stop here with Qur’an machine’s quotes, because this essay is not about Islam, but about Free Will. The preceding makes it clear that whoever really believes textually and literally in what’s written in the Qur’an ought to march into the Parliament in Ottawa, and destroy the disbelief there, to gather the vast reward.

And the question is: do these people have Free Will?

The modern debate about Free Will has not been about that. It has been, for centuries, about “gratuitous acts” [actes gratuits]. This has been an entirely stupid debate, the provinces of lost philosophers; any bear or lion hunter knows free will exists, not just in humans, but in the minds of ferocious beasts (thus making them hard to predict; once I found myself weaponless, 10 years old, and facing the largest lion I ever saw; I carefully paid my respects, and backed off slowly as I anybody in such circumstances ought to do, acknowledging the splendor of the king of beasts, making Him feel very good about Himself, and thus making my on-going existence something which, however minute and unworthy, represented an element of satisfaction for the Lord of Africa).

Modern brain scanning techniques have brought a twist on that: the launching of an act is preceded by unconscious brain preparations, several tenths of second prior.

That is totally unsurprising. The brain is like an immense, giant machine, with millions of programs and preparations running simultaneously. Consciousness looks, and can only look, at very few of them.

At least, we know this now.

For example the latest Nobel in Biology was attributed for the discovery of tiny hexagonal networks of neurons which act like microscopic Geostationary Positioning Systems. Such circuitry is active continuously, to provide a sense of place. It influences consciousness, and thus Free Will.

(Say: if the internal GPS indicates we are falling off, the Free Will debate will be shut-down. Instantaneously.)

The free will debate is thousands of years old. It became acute after Constantine’s terrorizing dictatorship imposed as state religion an omnipotent, omniscient god. How can be free, if god is everything?

That had the pleasant consequence that intellectuals, instead of worrying about the dictators, conducted 17 centuries of sterile debates about whether god allowed them to be free (in truth it’s Constantine and his tyrannical successors who did not allow them to be free).

When a bell rings, Pavlov discovered that the dog’s digestive system sprang to attention. The free will is the one who rings the bell. But what if it was not an individual ringing the bell, but history itself? Would we be conscious of it?

Of course the phenomenon of springing to attention is familiar to macho men seeing a beautiful woman in the distance. Conditioned reflexes are all over. But could it be that the exaggerated masculinity of those who spring to attention when seeing a woman, be itself a conditioned neural, glial, and neurohormonal system of sorts?

It is well known that people learn to fake emotions and behaviors: homosexuals living in the closet have long done this. But not just them. I claim it’s all over the place. Even in the fascination with wine. So some will reach happiness only when they can drink a bit of alcohol, etc. This conditioning is cultural: Bacchus has been celebrated, and associated to wine, for millennia. A fundamental sensation, happiness has been subjugated to a cultural notion.

Each nation has its crazes, its conditioned reflexes, its own notion of free will. Most of the minds are made from the outside, complete from ideas to emotions, to what to say in most situations encountered. And so it is, all over.

But then what happens to fee will? Is it all about conditioned reflexes from elaborated systems of mood and thoughts, many of them culturally given?

When called to exert free will, all what is happening is a cocktail of conditioned reflexes of long, and subconsciously established, systems of thoughts, emotions and moods. In other words, most people are just puppets from the genealogy of ideas, morals, moods, emotions, and conditioned reflexes.

What’s Free Will?

I started with Qur’an programmed robots. But then the Anglo-Saxon enslaving West is not a place exempt from the most absurd, obnoxious and criminal programmation.

I recently partook in an exchange on Free Will on an interesting and open minded philosophical site. The author had extolled the “philosopher” David Hume as the “first psychologist” Let’s roll a quote from that great Anglo-Saxon genius. Here is David Hume, enthusiastically buttressing the Anglo-Saxon slave masters’ system:

“I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.”

This grossly racist quote is from whom some Anglo-Saxons searching for respect call the “first psychologist”, David Hume. It brings the same question about Free Will.

Notice that Hume does not just imprint with offensive notions about “negroes”, but also offensive emotions about them. And by “offensive” I mean just that, inducing an offensive, that is, an attack.

That anti-human Hume’ notion of sub-humanity sprang from the greed of gross exploitation: having armies of slaves overseas made many a plutocrat in Western Europe extremely wealthy.

In this, it does not differ from the Qur’an’s main axis of attack. We know from the Hadith (a book gathering all what was said about the life of Muhammad by direct witnesses) that the context of the very first (2; 216) quote is that Muhammad the Prophet, then Master of Medina, was trying to convince his followers to go attack and raid some caravans.

It’s an axis of attack, but also an axis of imprinting, of making people into assault machines, enslaving, killing, “striking off their heads and striking off every fingertip of them”. As seen on TV.

So what’s Free Will if we are just machines programmed, emotionally and logically, from the outside? Even for the most inhuman tasks?

If any, Free Will has to incorporate the impact, the struggle, one is having feeding one’s brain with seriously, strenuously examined data. It is exactly what parrots do not have.

One cannot decide when to decide. One can only decide to examine with an open mind, what one’s deciding structures will be constructed with. At best.

Patrice Ayme’

Virtue Ethics Devalued

September 25, 2014

Virtue ethics consists into worshipping abstractly defined virtues: wisdom, prudence, courage, temperance, justice, happiness (Eudaimonia)… I will explain why this is erroneous.

Virtue ethics was founded by Aristotle, who considered slavery to be necessary… (Let me add immediately that Greco-Roman slavery was apparently by far the worst of those suffered by the Middle Earth in the last 5,000 years; only the Muslim habit of impaling slaves who had attempted to flee compares: and look what Islam did with civilization; in other ways the Muslims did not treat their slaves as badly as the Greco-Romans; the fact both civilizations collapsed is no coincidence.)

By approving of slavery Aristotle contradicted several of the eight virtues he claimed to found ethics on. The fact that the founder of virtue ethics could not make virtue ethics work, is telling. Indeed the “virtues” are derivative, not absolute. I have, and will show, this in other essays. Let me offer just a few words here.

It was virtuous for Aristotle to enslave. Yet slavery is unnatural.

It was so unnatural that, arguably, it caused the fall of the Greco-Roman empire (by enabling Senatorial plutocracy, which undermined the Republic). A civilizational collapse is no way to survive.

The Franks, who took control of the West, soon outlawed slavery, thus contradicting Aristotle, and enabling a civilizational system which survives to this day. So debating the nature of ethics is all very practical: it’s about why, when, how, and for whom, or what, to go to war. Look towards the Middle East for practical applications.

Naturalist ethics is much better than abstractly defined “virtues”. If one thinks about deeply, surviving as a species (or group) is the fundamental purpose of moral behavior. Ethics, or “mores” comes from “habitual character”. What’s more “habitual” than what insures the survival of the species. True, wisdom, foresight, prudence, fortitude are necessary to insure survival. But they are consequences.

Some brandish “religion” as something natural ethicists ought to respect. But there is more than 10,000 “religions” known, each of them actually a set of superstitions to enable the rule of some oligarchy (who adores the Hummingbird god of the Aztecs, nowadays?).

“Religion” means to tie (the people) together. A secular set of beliefs can do this very well, as long as it embraces the Republic of Human Rights, and, thus, survival. Indeed, human rights are best to insure long term survival of the species. They define the virtues Aristotle extolled, but could not define properly enough to insure the survival of his civilization (which was soon destroyed by Alexander, Aristotle’s student and friend).

The Republic of Human Rights is the only religion upon which all human beings can agree on, and, thus, the only one to respect, and found ethics on.

To this the editor of Scientia Salon objected (September 25) that:

“This idea that because Aristotle lived in a society that condoned slavery therefore virtue ethics is bullocks keeps rearing its ugly head, but seems to me a total non sequitur. You might as well say that we should throw out Newtonian mechanics because, after all, Newton was also interested in alchemy and the Bible.”

My reply:

I was unaware that I was ambling down a well-trodden road. Thus I can only observe that the notion that virtue ethics was a personal sin of Aristotle, although admittedly ugly, is entirely natural (as a naïve, untutored, independent mind, such as mine, discovers it readily).

Slavery, as practiced in Athens’ silver mines, and, later, Roman ore mines, was the worst. It was quickly lethal. And it did not stop with treating foreigners as less than animals. Aristotle’s student, and others he was familiar with (senior Macedonian general Antipater) enslaved all of Greece, shortly thereafter.

When the mood is to enslave, it does not stop anywhere, short of the brute force of invaders (and that’s exactly what happened).

Greco-Roman slavery was particularly harsh. There were much milder forms of slavery in Babylon, a millennium earlier, and Egypt used no slavery (except for captured enemy armies).

Peter Do Smith claimed that I suffered from “presentism” by condemning slavery. I guess, in the USA, slavery is just yesterday, and condemning it, so today.

But the Germans, at the time, condemned slavery, at least to the industrial scale the Greco-Romans engaged into it. Archeology has confirmed that small German farms did not use slaves.

Resting all of society upon slavery was not cautious: as soon as the Greco-Romans ran out of conquest, they ran out of slaves, and the GDP collapsed (it peaked within a couple of decades from Augustus’ accession to permanent Princeps and censor status). Another problem was the rise of enormous slavery propelled latifundia, giant Senatorial farms which put most Romans out of employment, and fed plutocracy.

Newton’s researches in… shall we call it proto-chemistry? Or Biblical considerations, were not viewed by him, or any smart observer, as consequences of his mechanics.

Aristotle’s ethical shortcomings were not restricted to his opinion on slavery, and one can only assume that they were consequences of his general ethics. Whereas Demosthenes was a philosophical, and physical hero, ethically, Aristotle sounds like someone raised at the court of the fascist plutocrats, Philippe and Alexander of Macedonia. As, indeed, happened (his father was physician to the Macedonian crown).

There were consequences to Aristotle’s ethics. Alexander had ethical reasons to annihilate Thebes, and sell surviving women and children into slavery. It’s natural to wonder if he shared them with his teacher. Another example of even heavier import: Aristotle’s enormous influence on Rome’s first moralist, Cicero. Cicero, literally, invented the word “morality” by translating the Greek “ethics”.

Aristotle comforted important Romans, centuries later, into the comfortable mood that ethics was all about feeling virtuous.

When Consul Cicero repressed savagely the Conspiracy of Cataline, without bothering with proper judicial procedure, he felt himself to be the incarnation of the eight virtues.

Cicero’s enormous ethical breach helped demolish the democratic Republic.

At all times, tyrants have proclaimed themselves virtuous. That’s tyranny 101. Proclaiming that, from now on, virtue will dominate ethics, besides being self-evident, and thus empty, is just self-congratulatory. Self-congratulations lay at the evil end of the spectrum of the examined life.

Instead, as Demosthenes pointed out, ethics ought to rest on survival. If the aim was survival, the non-conflictual, disunited approach to Aristotle’s bankrollers (Philippe and Alexander) was suicide.

Greece recovered freedom 23 centuries later. Thanks to the European Union.

Patrice Ayme’

Slavery: Black, White, Plutocratic

July 19, 2014

A French woman was condemned to nine months in jail, for insinuating that Taubira, a politician, was from the same family as a hairy relative of an apparently less intellectual nature. In France, when one insults the leaders, one goes to jail. That’s the law. A recent law, too, that did not exist four centuries ago.

And yet, as Galileo whispered, after been condemned for claiming that the Earth rotated: “she rotates”. But, in present day France, judges judge reality, they did not learn from their Papal forebears. Want some more reality? Here is the famous painting “Convoi De Femmes Captives

Africa: Steel, Slaves & Guns Before Europeans Came

Africa: Steel, Slaves & Guns Before Europeans Came

“Homo” and “Pan” (Chimpanzee) are of the same “family”, in the scientific sense. Both are “Hominidae”. French judges are blinded by the “politically correct”, rather than by science.

Because of the prominence of politically correct thought, rather than factually correct thought, the French unemployment rate is about twice what it is in Germany, Great Britain, and the USA. I probably just gravely insulted the “ministres”, and should be put in jail.

Dominique Deux, an esteemed commenter on this site said that:

“Calling Ms Le Pen an ape would be well beyond good taste, but nobody ever used that excuse to enslave her forebears. Calling Ms Taubira an ape is being an accessory after the fact to a monstrous crime. Jokes and insults have a rap sheet, and that one has a very heavy rap sheet. Hence the need to strike – hard.”

There are two issues here: a) The theory that alleged descendants ought to be punished for crimes alleged ancestors may have committed, centuries ago.

b) The facts of slavery: who committed the crime, and why, etc..

I will treat only the second issue here, as I treat many issues: with relentless truth, throwing away all caution to the wolves of commonality.

Ms Le Pen has probably slaves among her forebears. Does that give her a right to strike –hard?

Indeed, before the Franks under Queen Bathilde, an ex-slave, outlawed the slave trade within the Imperium Francorum (Empire of the Franks) in 655 CE, slavery was ubiquitous. Some of the largest slave owners were bishops.

Africans were enslaved for three reasons:

a) The occupying Muslims taught the Portuguese plutocrats that slavery worked harmoniously.

b) The king of Portugal asked the Pope for the right to reciprocate. (Portugal had never been part of the Imperium Francorum.)

c) The Pope wrote a “Bull” to that effect.

However, with all other “races” and the rest of Europe, slavery stayed unlawful. It was tolerated in the colonies, because the reach of the law there was tenuous (initially; then traditions were created).

That re-introduction of slavery has nothing to do with the facts Africans were deemed to be apes. The proximal cause of the reintroduction of slavery was the usual suspect, Christianity. Claiming that slavery arose from the theory of evolution is an argument that even the opponents of Lamarck and Darwin did not use.

That men and apes are basically the same is obvious to all, but French judges. Carthaginians captured what they called “hairy women”, with a strong fighting disposition, south of Mount Cameron. From their descriptions, it’s clear those were female gorillas. That identification to “women” was a stroke of genius, as we know now that gorillas are indeed hominids. Just like Taubira.

From: “Hominidae: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans:

Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch. Here we follow a classification reflecting those relationships. Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae. Thus constituted, the Hominidae includes 4 genera and 5 species. Its nonhuman members are restricted to equatorial Africa, Sumatra and Borneo. Hominid fossils date to the Miocene and are known from Africa and Asia.”

Some view Taubira as a victim because she has a brownish skin. Does that mean it’s politically correct to view all the brownish ones as slaves?

Who transported the Black slaves? Some Arabs and Europeans traders working on behalf of white, or whitish plutocrats. Where did they purchase their slaves? In Black Africa. Who captured the slaves? Black Africans, or Peuls, or raiding Moroccans or Arabs.

But mostly Black Africans. A dozen black African empire thrived on the slave trade. It’s black power, black plutocratic power, which enabled the slave trade. By, say, 1800 CE, except for the extreme tip of South Africa, and Zanzibar (Arabs) Black Africa was, still, completely unconquered.

Why? European military force could not make a dent on Africa. Africans had steel, and they made arrowheads, and even firearms with it. Besides, Europeans died like flies from African diseases.

Purchasing blacks from blacks, does not make the whites using slaves any less criminal. But it spreads further the question of criminality. It stops making slavery a disease confined to one particular race.

Stopping the Black African slave trade and related human rights abuses was actually used as reason for the European conquest of Africa in the second half of the Nineteenth Century.

How was that achieved? In Senegal, 5,000 Tirailleurs Senegalais were led by ten French officers. Yet, in 1900, a third of the population of Senegambia was still enslaved. The French administration brought that down to zero soon (yet, it’s climbing back up because of Quranic schools recently).

So let’s not cry too much about the black person, tortured by the white demons. It’s demeaning to all, including reality.

Let’s stay weary, instead, of those with demonic practice. And a first demonic practice, is to pose as a victim, and use this to engage in physical violence. Especially when, like Taubira, one is, instead, an overlord, as a profession (Taubira enacted the famous Taubira law in 2001). Someone so divine that, should you brandish a banana when she comes around, you go to jail. Big time. And, yes, putting people in jail is physically violent.

All societies had slavery, in the past. It was better than mass execution. Both were necessary, from ecological balance. Complain to god, or thank technology, for the (momentary?) improvement. But don’t accuse today’s people, of crimes they did not commit, because of the color of the skin of their ancestors. Amen.

Patrice Ayme’

Jefferson: Bountiful Barbarity

February 11, 2014

Jefferson was an abominable human being. That helped make him an irreplaceable Founding Father, and great American president.

Obama got the bright idea to celebrate the Francophile, long time Paris resident, and Franco-inspired Jefferson with Hollande, to celebrate their love and partnership. I want to thank him for giving me the occasion of firing a broadside at another celebrity, mounted on a colossal amount of darkness.

Civilizations are defined by, and articulated around, master ideas, and the celebrities that incarnated them. Jefferson became one of the greatest American presidents, because he was so abominable. Let me explain.

Why The USA Really Got Rid Of The Brits: To Invade Indian Lands

Why The USA Really Got Rid Of The Brits: To Invade Indian Lands

Sorry to break the spell: the USA did not revolt just because of taxation without representation, but because of a frontier with limitations. (Details in past and future essays.)

The president of the USA showed the president of France the neo-classical palace where Jefferson, the third president of the USA, held his slaves. They both admired whatever they were supposed to admire. Ironical.

Jefferson turned into a great enemy of both France and people of African descent. Jefferson’s purchase of gigantic Louisiana (1803) was the result of his massive CIA-NSA like secret support of the black rebellion in Haiti, to weaken France. In spite of his fear that “the blacks are out to murder us”. But, for Jefferson, greed proved stronger than fear.

Jefferson was twice part of the crack diplomatic team in Paris coordinating crucial help from Louis XVI. The French police visited his residence and ordered him to pay his servants a living wage, and to free them, because slavery was unlawful in France. (Slavery had been unlawful for eleven centuries.) Jefferson is the nexus of the American Dark Side, the quintessential horror of winner take all exploitation.

When the time came to go home to fight the war, Jefferson’s slaves wanted to stay in Paris. However Jefferson promised them freedom. He lied. In his lifetime, Jefferson freed just two slaves.

Jefferson, one of the wealthiest plutocrats in Virginia, held more than 200 slaves. When Jefferson, an author of the Declaration of Independence wrote: “He has excited domestic insurrections among us,” he was actually condemning the English King for “inciting American Negroes to rise in arms against their masters.”

While governor of Virginia for years during the Revolution, Jefferson promoted military enlistment by offering white men “a healthy sound Negro…or £60 in gold or silver”. Hey boys, let’s boogie.

The cult of Jefferson is strong in Washington. Jefferson has his own memorial, much more interesting and beautiful than the massive, Nuremberg bunker like Lincoln Memorial. Inside engraved on the walls, soaring writings of Jefferson.

As president, Jefferson massacred Indians and stole their land. That was, of course, horrific. Only an abominable person could do such a thing. Jefferson was that abominable person. He had carefully trained by mistreating his slaves and raping children. (Sally Hemming, who he bedded when she was at most 14, was three quarter Caucasian.)

The Dark Side of Jefferson was strong. A friend of his, an idealistic Polish Count, who had fought in the American War of Independence, left Jefferson, in his will, a considerable amount of money, so that Jefferson could free his own slaves. Jefferson pocketed the money, and did not free his slaves.

Patriotic Americans, most of them more or less descendants of European immigrants to America (yes, even Michelle Obama) are supposed, implicitly, to be grateful to the child rapist, slave master, holocauster Jefferson. How do I know this? Well, that’s what the cult of Jefferson is all about. Or actually the cult of the USA, as the USA owes so much to Jefferson.

Let Jefferson speak in his own words:

our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians… it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi , as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation….this strategy would “get rid of this pest, without giving offence or umbrage to the Indians”.

In cases where Native tribes resisted assimilation, Jefferson believed that they should be forcefully sent west. Jefferson in a letter to no less than Alexander von Humboldt, 1813:

“You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. … On the commencement of our present war, we pressed on them the observance of peace and neutrality, but the interested and unprincipled policy of England has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.

Jefferson ordered his Secretary of War, General Henry Dearborn (top government official responsible for Indian affairs): “…we will never lay [the hatchet against any tribe] down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi”

Obama did good to celebrate Jefferson with Hollande in their presidential field trip. Jefferson, ultimately, celebrated the Enlightenment. But the road to light led through darkness.

And what if France and Britain, instead of fighting with each other, had kept control of North America? Well, the place would have got more civilized, much earlier, and Prussian anti-semitic racial fascism, and thus the USSR, would never have arisen. The USA may not have become as strong. But then, there would have been no need…

Last, but not least. Jefferson implemented further what I call the “exploitative mentality“. That’s the mood attending, but not reserved, to foundation of the English North American colony (think of the “Virginia Company and her sisters, properties of bloodied plutocrats, the West Country Men). Some, in their naivety, will smart that this is the past. Not so.

The dominant economist system of thought claims markets ought to decide all.

That system is called “Austrian” (because of Hayek and company). That anachronistic name cover-ups its sinister nature. The exploitative mentality is how the USA was founded. “Markets” loved slavery & Indian holocausts, and thus implemented them. Markets sell everything, even civilization.

Patrice Aymé