Posts Tagged ‘Tribalism’

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

July 28, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Abominable are the flowers of infamy, yet beautifully mighty!


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

Patrice Ayme



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


PhiladelphiaJuly 26

Times Pick

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

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

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


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



Real Science Hates Tribalism

August 24, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s tribalism.”

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

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


Tribalism is fundamentally opposed to science:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Nazism: A Paradigm

July 27, 2015

Some cackle that whenever one mentions Nazism, one has lost the debate (Godwin’s Law). Verily, of chickens today we talk.

Is the idea that nothiAdd Mediang compare to you, oh, Nazism? As in love songs? Nothing compares to Nazism, oh (my love?) Assuredly we are living in strange times. Yet, reality is even stranger.

Nazism, for want of a better word, is firmly anchored in the German mood, from way back. So much for Nazism being an “accident”, caused by “one” gangster, Hitler, who made Germans kill, purely accidentally and without any inclination to do so, 70 million people (make that more than 100 million, when counting the first round, World War One, and associated distraction, like exterminating Native Namibians).

The first pogroms of the Middle Ages started when the herds of Crusaders, during the First Crusade, reached German speaking lands. (Although the Crusade was launched from French speaking areas, and this, by the Pope, personally.)

Luther made countless declarations calling to burn Jews, destroy them, torture them, and rejoice in their lamentations: “I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects. . . act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish.”

This murderously racist, not just racist, mood persisted, over centuries: Prussia had anti-Jewish (and also anti-Polish) laws, in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.

Geeks who subscribe to Godwin’s Principle will never know any of that, as they will declare that their history professors have lost the debate, as soon as they mentioned Nazism.

Meanwhile, geeks are preparing to make us all slaves of skynet. They can now take control of cars at a distance. Something I experienced years ago when, more than once, uninvited forces took control of computers of mine at a distance, big time.

That obscurantism of making Nazism incomparable, never to mention it, that God Win Law, is well named: Let me please introduce GOD, who is all about ignorance, that’s how those who promote him WIN.

The Godwin Law is strong in the USA. This encourages young Americans not to enquire about the troubling pattern of USA based plutocracy in supporting Hitler.

Let me put it in one sentence: if the USA had helped the French Republic by declaring war to Hitler in 1939, or in the first half of 1940, neither the Holocaust, nor the full horror of World War Two would have happened. That is, of course, a terrible revelation. It is a more comfortable strategy to  block the conversation before it starts.

Geeks spend all day programming, they have to replace the culture they never had, with a cute appearance, in search of some intellectual dignity. Deliberate buffoonery masquerading as superior wisdom, enables them to cover-up their crass ignorance, especially to themselves.

Once again, in connection with their attempt to build Skynet, the not-so mythical system where machines control everything (as found in the movie Terminator), and their demonstrated past relation with NSA and other occult organizations, this is quite troubling.

If nothing compares to the worst baddies, so they should never be mentioned, will geeks extend their desinvolte courtesy to banksters? Mention banksters, people, and you have lost the debate? This is de facto what is happening: Greece is all over the Main Stream Media, but the connection between said crisis, and its genesis in banking, rarely mentioned.

The original name of god in Hebrew was: The-One-whose-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Uttered. Thus by refusing to name Nazism, one makes it divine, in the old biblical way.

I propose the exact opposite. I propose Nazism is a paradigm of nationalism and socialism gone wrong. I propose that Nazism was the culmination of a process.

I propose that much of the German mood was Nazi, from 1815 to 1945. At the very least (considering Luther, it should rather be, from 1515 to 1945). After all, the racist and vicious “legal” crackdown on the Jews started in 1815, after French rule was terminated (and Europe broken by an economic system that benefited Britain).

(That Germany did not really exist in 1815, is besides the point: German speaking areas existed, and Metternich, in cooperation with Prussia, set up the anti-Jewish (Nazi) laws.)

If I am correct and Germany was Nazi from 1815 until 1945, refusing to talk about Nazism is refusing to talk about Germany, from 1815 to 1945. How to buttress my case?

Bismarck had a strong socialist bend. He imposed national health care on Germany in 1863. He was also an expansionary nationalist successfully attacking Denmark, Austria, France, while keeping Poland under the Prussian boot. The German dictatorship lived very well while treating the Jews badly.

By 1900 CE, the principle of mistreating people for their (alleged or not) race had been generalized to a holocaust in South-West Africa, of a type never seen before. How come? Maybe the cult of Kant explains much. Kant was, in practice a racist and an enslaver. That was Kant’s most practical impact: he advised European and American politicians to enslave inferior races. : “The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people.”

In 1914, the Germans launched a world war outright, thus committing the exact crime which condemned the rich wine merchant (and foreign minister) Von Ribbentrop to hang slowly at Nuremberg. Germans also committed, during their blunt attack many other war crimes. Enough to hang most of the top German generals, at the same justice been applied in 1919 as in 1945. The worst crimes were thoroughly documented.

A two year old Belgian girl who was bathing in a river was killed deliberately by German soldiers. That was thoroughly documented, as were the cold blooded killing of 160 civilians in the same area that day. Why? The Germans, in this third week of August, in this war they had launched, had been unnerved by a violent French counter offensive. That day 27,000 (twenty-seven THOUSANDS) FRENCH soldiers died in combat. How did the Germans react? By killing two year old little Belgian girls.

The big mistake the allies made in 1919 was not to find out, judge and hang, enough of these criminals. Instead, they were let go, and were basically told it was cool to be monstrous, when one is German. So they did it again, even more blatantly, twenty years later.

A lot of the commanders of 1939 already commanded in 1918 (Goering led the Von Richthofen squadron, after the death of the Red Baron; in 1939 Goering, son of his father the war criminal, commanded the entire German airforce, and, naturally enough, engaged in war crimes).

The deliberate, conspiratorial attack of August 1914, was certainly nationalistic: the initial mission was to destroy the French Republic, to make space for German plutocracy. Moreover the German Socialist Party, the SPD, some of whose principals made a show of their ignorant hatred for the Greeks, fully cooperated. In two words: National-Socialism again.

Adolf Hitler and his Nazis in all this? Just a bouquet final for German Nazism. This is the mood which resurfaced in the anger against the Greeks. Make no mistake: anger can be very good. But only when directed to the real culprits, not the innocent bystanders. In the Greek crisis, the real culprits were banks, plutocrats, Goldman Sachs, German regulators (who allowed the Drachma in at twice its rate). But the average Greek?

Tribal German madness started way back. Way before Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) applied the (ill-defined) concept of “race” to nationalist theory, thereby inventing ethnic nationalism. Bad German philosophy, widely admired, all the way back to the ill-fated Teutons, and the ill-fated Arminius (“Hermann”).

Germany was unified by the German Franks, precisely because the Confederation of the Franks rejected primitive tribalism, and embraced tolerance. It’s never too late to remember the past.

The moods at the root of Nazism, tribalism, and the social instinct, are strong, and can be excellent, given the appropriate circumstances. That, per se, makes it not just very important, and always a temptation, but also very dangerous. It needs to be counterbalanced with a strong will to disorder.

Meanwhile BMW recalled discreetly two million cars (because they could be taken over at a distance). Skynet, the taking over by the machines, will be ineluctable, if what we prefer is order. What’s more ordered than a machine?

Patrice Ayme’

Religion: Delusion Serves Tribalization

December 13, 2014

[The following was censored by an American philosophy site. Why? It “exacerbates things”.]

In culturally advanced countries, such as the USA, religious believers with a modicum of general culture and awareness, know very well that, when they embrace a superstition, a so-called religion, they fancy something that is not the truth.

So what is going on? Why do they outwardly believe in something, that they truly do not believe in?

(For the purpose of this essay, I will override the joke that the difference between the USA and yogurt, is that yogurt has live culture.)

Thus believers know that they do not believe in the truth, they just have “faith” that they will get away with it. In advanced countries, believers have seen enough TV, and videos, to know this.

So why do they embrace something that they do not believe in, deep down inside? If you ask them, they will say because so did their parents, or that it’s a “tradition”.

Thus the motivation of believers is essentially tribal: I believe what my tribe believes, however absurd (and the more absurd, the more well defined it is). Religion is not just tribalism, it’s in-your-face tribalism. No wonder the so-called Islamist State behaves just the same. They heed the example generously provided by the USA (or, more exactly the leading, opinion making circles, of the USA; thus: are Islamists Americanists in heavy disguise?)

This is evidenced by the situation in Israel. Weirdly dressed people, often coming from overseas, namely the USA, have decided to occupy the land of others, and, if one observes this, they brandish racism, or even dark allusions to Nazism.

Tribalists always call critiques unduly offensive, or even racist and disrespectful of their religion (it is a sin, precisely because religion is tribal, and thus, attacking religion is attacking the tribe).

This, religion being a deliberate lie masking a tribal purpose, is why the god delusion has deflated in Europe: Europeans, deep inside, know that the old religions were essentially tribal excuses to go to war manipulated by elites for their own profit (see Israel again for a live example). And Europeans have had enough of wars.

(By the way, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine killed at least 4,500 people, it was announced today.)

The rejection of religion by Europeans was helped by the SS motto: “Gott Mit Uns” (God With Us). Nazism evoked “Gott” a lot, and Biblical semantics (superior race versus “Elected People”, “Lebensraum”, the vital space to the east, as in the Bible, in parallel with “Promised Land”, without counting the many god-organized genocides of the Bible, etc…)

It dawned on Europeans that the old elites walloped in faith. With the enthusiasm of various predatory beasts, walloping in gore. This is not meant to be an insult, by the way. It’s a description: predators rub themselves in the smell of decaying flesh of their prey to disguise their true nature, and make it easier to approach the next meal.

Thus Christianism did with love. Love was rubbed all over it, but the purpose was just the opposite: Christianism killed millions…. Yet, it did not even originate European style welfare, nationalization, and socialism (the Franks did that).

If, as I asserted, believers have made a conscious decision to believe in lies, what does that tell us? That here are people whose meta-ethics is lying.

Do we want to encourage this? Do we even want to tolerate this? Should this be viewed as a deviant psychological behavior? This is what somebody such as Dawkins believe. I do not like Dawkins on genes, but I approve him on that.

One cannot have faith, a faith one knows is a lie, a faith that lies should rule the minds, and it is of no consequence.

We encourage meta-lying by not calling, at least among intellectuals, the God Delusion for what it is. Not just a delusion, but a tribalization. The delusion of tribalization.

It is not a question of telling a child dying of cancer that god does not exist, and will not take care of her. I am ready, and I certainly will lie, in such a case, as I comfort a child, and not just a child, with such lies… And maybe they are not lies, gods know…

By the way, Christians ought to stop holding the Solstice hostage. The Winter Solstice feasts, complete with cut conifers, lights, decorations and gift giving, are known to be older than Christianism by more than five centuries.

An exasperated Imperator Augustus passed a law to limit the “Saturnials”, as the Romans called the solstice feasts, to less than three weeks.

In a debate among intellectuals, the connection between gods’ delusion and tribalization ought not to be censored.

That such a connection is censored in American “philosophical” sites is telling.

Primitives go to war. Those who claim to be primitive enough to persuade themselves that they are primitive, will also go to war, because, once they have persuaded themselves that they are primitive, they are free to act like the primitives they have persuaded themselves they are. When Bush invaded Iraq, in 2003, monolithic war thinking ruled all over. USA media systematically censored all my comments (although the New York Times editorial board was reading them for themselves, as they communicated with me).

Religionism is tribalism by another name. Tribes are the primitive war units. However, war fabricates history.

Europe is anxious to forget war. But the feeling is not reciprocal. The American leadership, by making sure that the population does not forget religion, thus tribalism, makes sure that most of the military budget of the planet originates in the USA.

Thus religion is at the core of the military-industrial complex. They are both strong in the USA, because they are related.

The USA was also spectacularly in denial about the poisoning of the biosphere by CO2. That, too, is related to religion: after all, why to worry? God is omnipotent, remember? And no need to do anything about a violent society, violent police, and the might of plutocrats: God is in charge.

Religion does not just organize tribalism, it can make it conservative, that is, in a few hands. Don’t ask why American universities censor agnosticism, ask why they should censor those who want a society less defined by the few, who make them rich.

Time to “exacerbate things“?

Patrice Ayme’

Why Stupidity Is Loved, & Science Is Tribal

December 10, 2014

People love to be stupid, and not just because it is easier than being intelligent. Being stupid is lonely and embarrassing in individuals, so it is better practiced in groups. Not only is that smarter, but it provides with the joy and brainlessness of the collective.

Yes, group stupidity happens in science too. Entire fields of science, such as phrenology, studying the shape of a skull to elucidate the intelligence therein, were completely idiotic.

Yes group stupidity happens in philosophy too: see Immanuel Kant, and his grotesque assertion that to be moral is to obey authority.

Yes, group stupidity happens in much respected theology. The Dominican Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), dedicated, as Saint Dominic was, to the extirpation of heresy, and most specifically Albigensianism, argued that the Old Testament, and the New Testament (Romans, 13), were all for the death penalty.

Thus, in his Summa theologiae II-II, q. 11. a. 3, the Saintly Thomas of Aquinas writes: “Therefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.”

Heretic” is Greek for “exerted a choice”. If you exert mental choice, says Thomas, you should die.

Thomas made in writing this death threat, many times. The clincher? This, arguably, depraved maniac, is still viewed to this day, as a “philosopher”, a “thinker” of sort, and a moral authority. Is this stupid, or is it criminal?

The answer is that it is tribal.

The very monstrosity of Thomas of Aquinas binds the Catholic tribe together. To respect such a monster is an initiation rite, a high moral hurdle.

When the Nazis strove for power, they found enormous support among (a vast subgroup of) Nobel winning scientists and great mathematicians. Lenard (Physics Nobel 1905, and a collaborator of Einstein!) invented the notion of “Jewish science” (very bad, and all too relative).

That was crucial to demonstrate that the Nazi tribe had brains, and thus was respectable.

Human beings are nothing, if they don’t get mentors, themselves forming a connection to the supporting structure in a tribe. Thus, when individuals express an opinion, it’s actually a tribe which speaks.

No space to go in the details, but tribalism, in that case German tribalism, is why Einstein’s “miraculous” papers of 1905 were published without any reference, as if he had invented them all by himself; Planck saw to it. It totally backfired.

Viewing science as a tribal phenomenon is the fundamental revelation of the science of science. This explains why most papers in biology have been recently revealed to be false. Or why all theoretical physicists at Princeton are string theorists or supersymmetry artists of some sort. Neither strings, nor super-whatever have ever been observed, but the super stringy tribe was able to pull all the strings, and now it is in command of not just of this non-physical physics, but of the very definition of physics itself.

This errance of tribes following false prophets, explains why science can err so persistently, sometimes.

Witness: the Ptolemaic system (why would the much more gigantic sun rotate around the Earth at a frantic speed? It was easier to explain it all by a rotation of the Earth on itself, at a more sedate pace, as Aristarchus had proposed).

But not just this. Tribalism provides the pleasure and power of the group. As the case of the strident Nazi scientists and philosophers shows, thinkers are not insensitive to the basest rewards. Then a small, greedy minority can provide cover for the most criminal enterprises.

Some of the (rare) scientists claiming that there is no problem with increasing CO2 by 1% every single year, are generally revealed to be financed (directly or through institutions) by fossil fuels interests. Great geophysicists such as Allegre and Courtillot, heads of the very respected IPGP, are example of fossil fuel propelled loud deniers of the most basic of common sense.

Reading some of the preceding, Massimo of Scientia Salon objected that:

“Patrice, this very barely made it through my filter. Wasn’t there a way to express your thoughts without starting with “people love to be stupid”? Really? They *love* to?”

Yes, with all due respect, let me insist: yes, people do love to be stupid, just as they love initiation rites.

This is actually initiation rites are often quite stupid and demeaning: stupidity itself is what has to be achieved.

People love to not be smart, because lack of smarts is the ticket to tribe appurtenance. Lack of smarts is how the tribe is defined: that’s the central point of intellectual fascism. Indeed the tribe provides not just a refuge, but a space to blossom with lack of smarts. Even better: as it provides a definition for the tribe, lack of smarts provides a cover, a roof over the tribe.

This is the fundamental reason why people engage in drinking alcohol, and especially drinking it to excess. Same with smoking that poison lethal in the smallest quantities, nicotine. People know it’s bad, and not smart. Therefore it’s ideal for defining a tribe.

Hence telling drug addicts that what they are doing is not smart is not going to be effective: being silly is what they want to exhibit.

Indeed, people love to belong to a tribe. It does not really matter which tribe. The more not smart the definition of a tribe, the better defined it gets.

If some don’t believe me, I have a multiverse to sell them each time I spin an electron differently (unbelievably many theoretical physicists belong to that church of the multiverse). Call me the ultimate spin doctor. The multiverse tribe is very well defined, because short of wanting to kill one’s own son to satisfy a deity, it’s up there in the absurd, not-smart scale.

Wanting to kill one’s son for the deity is the definition of Abraham, the founder of the faith of most religious people today, or, at least, of the noisiest.

Let’s give more detail about what happened with Einstein:

Einstein famously wrote a paper “On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies.” There was arguably nothing there which had not been published before. As the Dutch Lorentz, discoverer, with the Irish Larmor, of the “Lorentz transformations” of Relativity, and according to Henri Poincaré, of the “most ingenious” notion of local time, put it:

“Indeed, for some of the physical quantities which enter the formulas, I did not indicate the transformation which suits best. That was done by Poincaré and then by Mr. Einstein and Minkowski […] I did not succeed in obtaining the exact invariance of the equations […] Poincaré, on the contrary, obtained a perfect invariance of the equations of electrodynamics, and he formulated the “postulate of relativity”, terms which he was the first to employ. […] Let us add that by correcting the imperfections of my work he never reproached me for them.”

So why did Planck, editor of Annalen der Physik, allowed such a short-circuit, Einstein presenting himself as discoverer of Relativity? One can only suspect German nationalism, as all the physicists who elaborated Relativity before that were non-German (there was even an Italian whom Einstein knew personally, and a couple of Americans). It worked very well: to this day, Relativity is attributed to Einstein (although it’s Poincaré who discovered, demonstrated and published E= mc^2 in 1900…).

Planck, discoverer of the Quantum, not so subtly boosted the aura of Germany, by attributing to Einstein the Theory of Relativity. That was in 1905. Within nine years, the German Empire made an enormous attack on the French Republic, hoping to conquer all of Europe before Great Britain could join the war.

The main engine in this attack was German tribalism, the Prussian way (that is, very racist).

Tragically, Planck’s eldest son was killed in World War One, while his second son was made prisoner by the French. Then German tribalism went completely berserk. Planck went to see Hitler, and told him that Nazism was going too far, and destroying German science. His second son, to whom Planck was very close, opposed Hitler, and was assassinated by the Nazis in 1945.

Tribalism is fundamentally a war strategy, and thus nothing true intellects aiming to the full truth, ought to engage in.

The science of science, and the philosophy of philosophy have to become more aware of it. Tribalism needs to be broken, and direct democracy, direct thinking, is how to break it.

Patrice Ayme’

Evolution Scientifically Established Before Darwin’s Birth

November 13, 2014

English speaking authorities found a master thinker, Darwin, He created evolution. Charles Darwin is the messiah of evolution. Any critique of this miracle, this shattering of ill preconceptions, is labelled “postmodernist”, and no doubt arises noxiously from a gross lack of non-appurtenance to the church of righteous thinking (prestigious, well-paid American academia). Or then is to be attributed to the hysterical nationalism of the French.

This roughly summarize some of the critiques American professors have made of my “Lamarck Discovered Evolution” essay. It is typical.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Scientifically Established Evolution By 1800

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Scientifically Established Evolution By 1800

Paradoxically, this scornful attitude comforts religious creationism.

Why? Making Darwin into what he was not, a snow capped giant towering above a sea of error, is all too close to the terror of the religious mindset. Making Darwin into God, neglects the evolution of ideas, the giant collaborative reasoning that is science. It reintroduce the concept of the prophet: everybody got it all wrong, before, then comes miracle man, Darwin. Miraculously speaking English.

So why not Jesus for miracle man?

Or why not Muhammad? Hey, Muhammad spoke Arabic, which is obviously the language of God.

The scientists who claim Darwin did it all, are lying. Lying because they have not integrated the scientific method, and do not know how truth is established historiographically is the worst possible case.

Most of the ideas demonstrating that there had been “biological evolution” were evolved before Darwin.

The truth is that Darwin was astounded by the audacity of several of his professors who praised ‘Mr. Lamarck” for having shown how life had “evolved” from “simple worms”.

Darwin’s publications came in a full century after evolution started to be established scientifically.

Buffon introduced the idea that migration caused speciation. He illustrated this with pachyderms.

Augier introduced the “Tree of Life”, then much improved by Lamarck. Lamarck’s Tree was much more specific than the general idea that all species came from fishes (Pre-Socratic philosophers).

Lamarck had spent decades looking at life and fossils through a microscope, and he demonstrated that life had evolved over millions of years, by documenting in extreme, microscopic details the evolution of mollusks.

The great geologist Lyell got a copy of one of Lamarck’s books from a friend in 1827. He wrote back:

“I devoured Lamark… his theories delighted me… I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!… That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed…”

However, Lyell, a close friend of Darwin and Huxley, rejected evolution when he was a professor at the prestigious King’s College, London.

Lyell explained in a letter to Whewell in 1837:

“If I had stated… the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradistinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me, which are unfortunately opposed at every step to any philosopher who attempts to address the public on these mysterious subjects”

When finally Lyell endorsed evolution, he endorsed Lamarck. Darwin’s daughter Henrietta (Etty) wrote to her father: “Is it fair that Lyell always calls your theory a modification of Lamarck’s?”

No wonder. Darwin revisited Lamarck’s example of the giraffe, with more details:

“The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths…. Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish…. By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.” (Darwin 1872. Sixth edition of his seminal book, Origin of Species.)

In other words, Darwin subscribed to Lamarck’s book of 1801, on inheritability of acquired characteristics. (The whole problem now being what these “acquired characteristics”, now called “genes”, “epigenetics, transposons, prions, soma, whatever…) are and how they arise…)

Darwin had produced a toy model of evolution. Anatomist Gould told him that some varieties of birds he found in the Galapagos were different species. Yet they all belonged to the finch group. Darwin then brandished that as an example of evolution.

Darwin’s dubious birdies no doubt beat the millions of years Lamarck had uncovered. That’s the strength of the Anglo-American empire!

Darwin’s “B” notebook showed that he speculated a species could turn into another by summer 1837. He discarded Lamarck’s independent lineages progressing to higher forms, drawing a tree of life with a single trunk branching out (there too Lamarck proved right: decades behind the microscope, remember?).

On the continent, evolution was solidly established.

Cuvier discovered the “Ptero-Dactyle” (name Latinized later), and Mesosaurus (sea going giant). Cuvier also invented stratigraphy, and demonstrated species came and went.

Cuvier was a Christian fundamentalist, but a very clever one, with an open, and changing mind. He invented most of the “Creationist” Biblical arguments. Yet he explained why he could be proven wrong in the fullness of time, thanks to, say, more discoveries.

Lamarck’s reputation was soiled because Cuvier smeared it all over with “pangenesis”. The original texts make it clear that Lamarck believed in natural selection. In the case of giraffes, to put it in modern terms, he believed that giraffe ethology, and the vegetation being what it was, due to climate, put a selective pressure favoring giraffe’s anatomy, the way it was. (Cuvier later said it was all about “desire”; that’s not in Lamarck).

Darwin tried hard to prove pangenesis. A battle was engaged, still ongoing. Many of the arrogant certainties of the 1960s have been washed away. Elements of heredity are known now to travel among species, and interact with ethology.

To combat religious fanatics, we need the weight of evidence, not inappropriate celebritism. Misrepresenting those who discovered evolution only helps creationists.

Darwin is an important biologist, but evolution had been scientifically established more than a generation before he published anything.

Everything else is pathetic tribalism, and, or, making fun of the scientific process. No way to help the advancement of civilization.

Patrice Ayme’

Religion, tribalism, Extermination

October 15, 2014

Ce sont des Mots Qui Vont Tres Bien Ensemble

This is a follow-up on the essay I wrote on the debauch of demons in Christo-Islamism. One of the reasons for which I do not like novels much, is that the human psychology therein represented is all too often a caricature, something all too simple. Why so trite? Because a novelist wants to sell books. Those who are successful, that is the most read, are most read precisely because they are familiar, and flattering, to the masses.

The Politically Correct (PC) is not just most followed, it’s what sells (and reciprocally). Nietzsche sold only a few hundred books when he was conscious.

A real philosopher does not caress, but stings the masses. Nietzsche sold books only after several famous intellectuals sang his praises.

I had a most curious upbringing, mostly, but not exclusively, in Africa. Although (it turned out) in “Muslim” lands, I was unaware of Islam. I grew up under the vast umbrella of what is called “Sufi” Islam.

In some ways that “Sufi” Islam was more secular and progressive than secularism in, say, Europe. (“Sufi” is a label which covers many completely different religions; yet they all tend to be less sexist: Kurdish females have been dying as soldiers in combat in Kobani).

Many of the religiously obsessed claim that elaborate religious rituals are innocent, because they represent a long tradition. The Jews, in particular, are prone to make this reasoning. That’s rather incongruous, after centuries of pogroms: any practice which brings lots of death to the practitioners ought to be viewed, clearly, as not innocent!

Others identify religion and civilization. For example they talk of the “Islamic” civilization. Really? As there is more than one hundred types of Shia “Islam”, does that mean there is more than a hundred Islamic civilizations?

How do the simplistic theory: Islam = Civilization… survives the war in Kobani? There, in a few miles, three versions of “Islam” are in an extermination fight: Wahhabis against Kurds against Turks. Clearly both non-Kurdish Turks, and Wahhabis want to exterminate the Kurds.

About 25% of the population of Turkey is Kurdish (but many are in hiding). That the government hates them is nothing special: in a full blown plutocracy, the 1% hate the 99% (aristocracy, in France’s old regime was 2% of the population).

I know Turks who hate Erdogan and his ilk: the ancestors of those “Turks” were Armenian (thus Christian), or Kurds (and some of the Turks I know are mixed Armenian-Kurdish). To save their children, they had to bring them up as the kind of Muslim Turks who are kosher in Ankara. So now they feel that their children are not really their children anymore. That’s the Australian method of genocide (bring up the children of Bushmen without their parents, or their culture).

Kurdistan is about 3,000 years old, and Armenia was the first Christian land. Saladin was a Kurd.

Too much respect for tradition is an error. Tradition to a great extent, is in opposition to “secular” (which means of the age). Hence tradition is a religion.

This meditation is about religion, it can only hurt those who feel it is right, it is their right, to feel very strongly about the metaphysics they believe in. But metaphysics is never innocent. After all, it’s about the foundations of minds one talks about. One can’t get more intimate than that. Or more penetrating and violating, should one get into metaphysics, that is, other people’s minds. Potentially.

Religions tie people together. (Re-ligare.) This is what religious means.

Religion does not have to have a metaphysical element. Some people practice an art or a sport, as if it were a religion. It is a religion. Many young people get tied together again by activities such as being soccer supporters… And only by them. And they seem ready to die for it.

Zen, Taoism, forms of Yoga, nationalism, tribalism, are all religious in character. After all, these bounds are often so strong, people are ready to die for them. The SS had: “Gott Mit Uns!” on their belts buckles (“God With Us”; that inspired the American Congress to follow suit and adopt a variant of that slogan for the entire USA.)

Yes, any nation worth its salt, is, to some extent, a religion.

In other words: Religions generate tribes. That’s what they do. It’s very important, because human beings are nothing, in nearly all ways, if not in a tribe. (Or then they are philosophers.) The religious instinct cannot be distinguished from the tribal instinct.

Nice tribes, or nasty tribes, that is the question. Inclusive tribes, and inclusive religions, are nice. (To conclude the “Social War”, Rome learn to become inclusive, and so are its descendant regimes.)

Religions, nations who exclude are nasty, and bring blood. Exclusivity, alienation, is always (ethologically perceived as) an aggression. That has been observed in chimpanzees.

Tribes are not just about being strong together, they are about group selection. Thus, so are religions. Deadly aggression, even war, was found to be “adaptive” in chimpanzees:

Religion is war according to the most fundamental means. The deepest ways of the minds. Maladaptive religions get exterminated: Rome and its descendant regimes annihilated all human sacrifices religions (starting with Rome’s, Carthage’s and then the Celts’).

It’s not a good sign, when a religion is full of demons (as Christianity and Wahhabi Islam are). Or when it’s so nasty, it needs a god of evil (Hades, Satan, etc.)

Another dichotomy is between rational religions, and irrational ones. That one is roughly equivalent to that between religions which are organized around superstition, and the supernatural, and those which are not.

Nasty has to do not just be about mistreating others directly, but how they lead others to react.

Often tribes get dressed in black, claiming to be somehow elected by god. Example: Catholic “men in black”, those monks of the Fourth Century destroying books and intellectuals. Jesuits followed suite (and suits!), a millennium later, and then, Orthodox Jews, themselves copied in more ways than one, by the Hugo Boss black tailored SS, etc… The alienation was deliberate: it became a hatred multiplier, and hatred was the goal.

Another way to alienate is by advertising wildly irrational beliefs, constituting a religion, defining a tribe. The more irrational, the more flaunted, the more alienating to other groups, the more it leads to hatred in reply, and the more hatred one is submitted to, the tighter the tribe that creates the alienation will be.

It’s this advanced calculus of hatred, fear and alienation which is at the root of all too many religions and their associated tribalizations.

Ever since men have roamed, religions have clashed. And the better ones have won. Time for the best, the most ethologically correct religion, the one ultimately granted by 50 million years of evolution: direct democracy.

Patrice Ayme’

Hating Dylan Charged In France

December 3, 2013

Dylan Honored, Then Charged in France:

In November, the French Minister of culture, a political authority, gave Bob Dylan the Legion d’Honneur.

Meanwhile French JUDICIAL authorities filed preliminary charges against Bob Dylan over a 2012 interview in Rolling Stone magazine. In it the singer briskly compared Croatians to Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

If Your Thinking Equals Your Singing, You'll Be The Phoenix Of The Hosts Of These Woods...

If Your Thinking Equals Your Singing, You’ll Be The Phoenix Of The Hosts Of These Woods…

[Dylan proudly exhibiting his Legion d’ Honneur below les ors de la République. Culture minister Aurélie Filippetti, an author, on the right.]

Here is the quote, in context:

“Rolling Stone: Do you see any parallels between the 1860s and present-day America?
Mmm, I don’t know how to put it. It’s like . . . the United States burned and destroyed itself for the sake of slavery. The USA wouldn’t give it up. It had to be grinded out. The whole system had to be ripped out with force. A lot of killing. What, like, 500,000 people? A lot of destruction to end slavery. And that’s what it really was all about.

This country is just too fucked up about color. It’s a distraction. People at each other’s throats just because they are of a different color. It’s the height of insanity, and it will hold any nation back – or any neighborhood back. Or any anything back. Blacks know that some whites didn’t want to give up slavery – that if they had their way, they would still be under the yoke, and they can’t pretend they don’t know that. If you got a slave master or Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. That stuff lingers to this day. Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the SERBS CAN SENSE CROATIAN BLOOD.

It’s doubtful that America’s ever going to get rid of that stigmatization. It’s a country founded on the backs of slaves. You know what I mean? Because it goes way back. It’s the root cause. If slavery had been given up in a more peaceful way, America would be far ahead today. Whoever invented the idea “lost cause . . . .” There’s nothing heroic about any lost cause. No such thing, though there are people who still believe it.”

What’s up with the “blood” thing, Bob? You can “sense the blood”?

Paris prosecutor’s office spokeswoman Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre said Tuesday the charges of public insult and inciting hate were filed.

I approve.

This is an excellent occasion to teach people about insidious, nefarious tribalism. Of the bloody type.

What Dylan was saying is that long term hatred ought to be respected and used as a justification for trans generational hostility from some  human groups against other human groups. This is the essence of tribal hatred. (Also known as “racism”.)

Implicitly, Dylan approves of it. I don’t. Nor does, rightly, the French Republic.

That’s one of the reasons I am careful to apply the denomination “Nazi” (say), when many would just write “German”. Confusing Nazis and Germans is insufferable: the present German Republic would have been the best ally of the French republic against the Nazis in 1940 (if you will forgive the chronological mishmash).

The charges stemmed from a lawsuit by a Croatian community group in France. A lawyer for the Council of Croats in France (CRICCF), Ivan Jurasinovic, said they are not seeking monetary damages but only want the legendary singer to apologize to the Croatian people.

I would also insist that Dylan recognizes the error of his tribal ways.

“We have nothing against Rolling Stone magazine or Bob Dylan as a singer,” CRICCF spokesperson Vlatko Maric told the Guardian. “[But] you cannot equate Croatian [war] criminals with all Croats.”

One reason why the case was filed in France: the French Republic has ferocious laws punishing hate speech and racist remarks. Other countries (including the USA) have been slowly following suit.


Patrice Ayme


Notes: 1) Dylan condemns the racist ‘insanity’ (about ‘colour’), indeed, & then he engages in it. That’s classical. That’s always how racism happens. But he’ll repent, once what he did will have been explained to him slowly enough, and with enough authority, so that he can understand the full extent of the horror he engaged in.

2) This psycho behavior not only can happen, but is the main source of racism. After all, the Nazis themselves justified they exterminationist ways, by posing like victims of racial discrimination (from their victims!) that they vigorously condemned.

P/S: Dylan was finally exonerated from the charges in June 2014. No doubt he learned his lesson. This being said, the French Justice system can go bananas, and has gone bananas, about stories of bananas and monkeys, precisely. In France, in a blatant show of discrimination, it is against the law to insult a “ministre en exercice“. That turns those civil servants into masters. See:

Europe: Dawn & Lesson

November 9, 2013

Europe and her colonies, extend all around the planet, from Patagonia, to both sides of the Behring straights. More importantly, European philosophy dominates at the United Nations. And Human Rights reign within since the official proclamation of the European Union. As, and because, tribalism, also known as nationalism, the preferred weapon of plutocracy, was beaten back.

Core of Europe's Worldwide Philosophical Empire

Core of Europe’s Worldwide Philosophical Empire

Yet, a worm is in the fruit, best illustrated by the grotesque spectacle, since 2008, of plutocrats whipped in a feeding frenzy, gorging themselves on public funds, like the pack of sharks they are. How come nobody is arresting them yet?

That’s consecutive to a legal, judicial and political failure of the Republic rendered mad by plutocracy in its brain. Many are the parasites who kill their hosts.

Worse: American leaders, political and intellectual, don’t get it (although Paul Krugman is showing signs of improvement in his cultural and mental condition).

Tyranosopher: Plutophile American economists keep on being invited to conferences where the fate of the civilization is thrown to the rabid dogs of the free market, Obama Wealth Care style.

Let’s try to teach these ignorant, lethally vicious people the correct ideas, lest it has to be done at the point of a gun. They talk about Europe, but they don’t know what it is.

Simplicius Maximus: Point of a gun? Really? So what’s the problem?

Tyranosopher: The problem is that even Krugman, Stiglitz, Obama and company well meaning American economists or leaders, teach the world lethal lies, not because they are vicious bastards, just, but because they have no idea what the truth is. And of course, right of them, it’s way worse.

Watch Obama, who believed, really believed, the poor fool, that greed would solve health care in the USA. Now he finds out, but does not understand, that the greedsters are all over his Obamacare, to the point he can’t even fake it.

Each times Obama opens his mouth, it’s an avalanche of lies about the “marketplace”, the “consumers” “navigating”, “exchanging”, buying and selling health plans with the cooperation of the IRS, like all the rich pigs who make the atmosphere Obama breathe. After all, that’s the way the rich pig made their money, why can’t the poor make their health care that way?

Krugman got a Nobel Prize in Europe, and spoke authoritatively about the disaster that, according to USA plutocrats, the euro was.

Yet, years later, Krugman discovered that Europe had founding fathers (Robert Schuman, Jean Monet, etc.). And that there was a plan to fabricate a European Union, and that the euro was a crucial piece of that machinery. Only now does he start to slowly get it. People like this dine at the White House, and are taken very seriously by the ignorant ones above them in that military hierarchy one calls democracy.

Obama never knew a plutocrat he did not love to death, like a dog living among sausage makers.

Simplicius Maximus: But Britain, while in Europe, is against the euro.

Tyranosopher: Sheer recent plutocratic propaganda. What the plutocrats mean is that the City of London, technically a plutocracy, does not want to be in Europe.

Actually Churchill himself qualifies as a founding father of Europe in no uncertain terms.

Winston, his cabinet and parliament, after thinking it out with De Gaulle, decided to unite France and the United Kingdom on June 16, 1940. The PM gave De Gaulle his personal plane to go persuade the French government; the French PM agreed, but his cabinet of spastic traitors refused. That was a disaster. France was actually far from defeated, and could have kept on fighting from Africa.

Individuals who are against Europe now are just greedy barbarians who know no history, or regret Auschwitz, or both.

SM: Are you not exaggerating?

Tyranosopher: No. Look at World War One. The war was a blunt, direct fascist attack by a desperate plutocracy, against democracies that were totally surprised: a week before, neither France nor Britain expected war. To the point that’s hilarious.

The war would have been over in months if the USA had not helped the Kaiserreich. The free market supremacy, according to which profits are always right, has long been an accomplice of the worst fascism, and plutocracy.

Simplicius Maximus: So you are saying that the exploitative doctrine reigning in the USA was a major cause of World War of 1914-45?

T: Absolutely. If not hindered by the USA, France and Britain would have quickly defeated German plutocracy, thanks to a sea blockade, and given the levers of power to the SPD, the Socialist Party of Deutschland, which is all what the war in 1914 was about.

Although most American intellectuals are not explicitly evil, they are implicitly so, because what they say, research, and learn, is all about what their wealthy masters want them to say, research, learn. We have to try to teach the honest ones, optimistically supposing there are some, what Europe was, is, and should not be again.

Although the Obama presidency proved me aplenty that knowledgeable advice is not what power in the USA is after. At this point American power thinks it’s smart to be dumb. Rarely have people that ignorant been so smug.

SM: What’s Europe? How did the concept or word even originate?

Tyranosopher: The Franks are the ones who named and defined Europe. The Merovingian Franks.

Simplicius Maximus: Surely you are joking, Tyranosopher. Everybody knows that “Europe” was how the Greeks designated, in Greek,  present day Greece. It apparently came from the Phoenician “ereb“, “west”. The Romans deformed this into “Europa”.

Tyranosopher:  Europe was not just a history, it’s also a myth that haunted, well, Europe. The Franks, like other Celto-Germans, were well versed in mythology. They knew what one was supposed to know about Troy.

Simplicius Maximus: How come they knew so much?

Tyranosopher: The history of the Celto-Germans is poorly known, mostly because Roman imperial power had no interest to let it be known. But it was rich.

However, in recent years archeology has made great progress. The Celtic world was old and most advanced in some technologies. 25 centuries ago, the Celts had the world’s most advanced metallurgy: the Roman army was equipped by Celtic forges, to make strong, light armor, and adopted the Celtic-Iberian sword.

The Celts had ocean going vessels, the best in the world, direct ancestors of the ships Columbus used. The Celtic world was greatly about shipping all over, from Ireland to up rivers in Spain, France, Germany. All the way to Anatolia.

SM: What does that have to do with Greece?

T: Well, the Celts traded with the Greeks and the Carthaginians. And not just metals. Also plenty of ideas. The Celts adopted Mercury as a great deity, perhaps because trade, exchanges and globalization were so big in the Celtic world.

SM: How come?

T: Trade was a giant advantage in the past. You could not just go to your basement and ask your 3D printer to make a carbon fiber reinforced gun, go two miles down and break the rock to extract fuel, or grow genetically adapted bananas in Alaska. You heavily depended upon distant resources, if you wanted a superior socio-economy.

Thus the societies that came to dominate the ancient world were all well travelled: the Cretans (Minoans”), the Phoenicians, the Mycenaeans, the Etruscans, the Celts, the Carthaginians, the Greeks.

That, in turn, was related to how they were founded, or their geographical situations, or both. Crete and Gaul, for example, were central.

SM: Ah, here comes the French. Long time, no hear.

T: It’s a fact that what is presently called France, is, first of all, a crossroad. There are no less than three major ancient trade routes through France. One from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and two from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, and Germany. Europe’s mountainous terrain made it much more difficult to go through anywhere else. That difficulty of travelling was much greater, the more you go back in the past; probably that’s why the Celts invaded the whole Gallic area to start with.

SM: What of the Romans in all this?

Tyranosopher: The Romans evolved an excellent Republic and quasi direct Democracy. Differently from Athens, the Romans did not have rabidly murderous hyper plutocrats next door. Both Etrusca and Magna Grecia instructed Rome. Their student, Rome, grew to overwhelm its teachers, thanks to its greater democracy, but it did not deny them.

Roman anti-sexism grew from Etrusca (Augustus’ wife was Etruscan, and showed it). Educated Romans learned Greek first. Caesar’s last words were in his first language, Greek.

Athens’ second rise was interrupted by Macedonia. That direct democracy, having survived the war against Sparta and other powers paid by plutocratic Persia, was crushed by Macedonia’s Antipater. Antipater, an experienced elder Pluto, a great general, may even have poisoned Alexander. Antipater made Athens’s rich captains an offer they could not refuse.

Although Athens had fought Persia to death, the Macedonians, who parroted the Greeks in some ways, did not bring in their leading men as great a passion. Although Alexander was a confirmed mass exterminator.

Because the Rome was such a democratic Republic, it could not be defeated by Celtic bands, Carthaginian plutocracy, or the (fascist) “Hellenistic” regime.

However, by the time Rome liberated Greece, the Roman elite had turned to the Dark Side. Thank Hannibal for that.

Simplicius Maximus: So what happened next?

Tyranosopher: Well, the Roman senate, in a few years, ordered the legions to destroy all the free democracies in the Mediterranean world: Carthage, Numantia, Corinth, etc. A warning to Athens.

SM: Did you not just say that Carthage was a plutocracy?

T: Well, having understood the errors of its ways, Carthage, an enormous, splendid city, full of knowledge, trading all the way from Armorica to the Congo, turned to democracy. Too late. That made her an even greater peril for the inchoating Roman plutocracy.

SM: OK, can we go back to Europe?

Tyranosopher: Carthage was also Europe. In an important cultural sense. You have to understand first that the Greco-Roman empire was an error.

Simplicius Maximus: I know your theory: slavery made the Greco-Roman empire fundamentally flawed.

T: Yes, it was not just creating a hyper violent society that self devoured, too friendly as it was, to Pluto’s brutally exploitative philosophy. Slavery and plutocracy also hindered technological development.

Hence the clear technological stagnation of the Roman empire, just when the exhaustion of resources begged for new technology to be able to exploit new resources.

Watch Obama give money to his sponsors and starve fundamental research, while never knowing a Pluto he did not want to pat in the back. Same stuff.

SM: Are you back, hitting at poor Aristotle?

Tyranosopher: Aristotle was never poor, always privileged. His father was Philippe of Macedonia’s own doctor, he taught Alexander. When the Athenians tried to examine his plutocratic drift, he fled, arguing, in an allusion to the more courageous Socrates’ fate, that he “did not want Athens to sin again against philosophy”.

Aristotle argued that citizens needed slaves, because they had no machines. Aristotle was using inverted, self destructive logic. In a modern version of this, Krugman says that Europe needs division, because it is divided.

Simplicius Maximus: Before we get into dissecting feeble minds,  can we finish with Europe? What’s the big picture, according to you?

Tyranosopher:  Rome spent 550 years ever more degenerating into ever greater plutocracy. This all ended at the peak of Christian terror imbibed plutocracy in 400 CE, less than 20 years after emperor Theodosius, a Spanish general, “war against the philosophers“, and his Christian terror decrees.

SM: What happened in 400 CE?

T: The Roman government told the Franks they were in charge of the defense of Gallia, Germania Inferior and Germania Superior.

Just like Obama, the Roman leaders had not taxed the plutocrats enough, and, so, like Obama, they could not pay for the army anymore. Except, by 400 CE, the process had gone so far, for so long, the empire was incapable of its own defense. In 406, for the same budgetary reason, the legions  and their auxiliaries were ordered out of Britannia, leaving only local militia to defend the island.

SM: Where did these Franks come from?

T: The Franks were actually a confederacy of the willing more or less organized by anonymous Roman shock intellectuals. Let their memory be honored.

SM: How do you know this?

T: Because the Franks’ basic law, the Salic law, was written in Latin, to start with. It was also more civilized than Roman law: much fewer death penalties, women could accede to full inheritance. Salic Law, written for a NON Christian society, immediately defanged Catholic terror.

SM: Still, how did the Franks come to power?

T: They acquired power, thanks to superior metallurgy, bigger muscle, multiculturalism (and the discreet support form far sighted Roman generals/lawyers, as I said).

The Franks were the early Vikings. In the Third Century, they raided the Roman empire, sailing up the rivers, all the way down to Spain. Constantine and his Augustus of a dad, fought them in Germania.

The young Constantine, a super warrior who was well known, hated, and feared at the imperial court, realized that he had worse enemies, in said court, and associated himself with his Frankish alter egos.

They lived happily thereafter, had many children, conquering the entire empire for themselves. Still the Franks were not amused by the Christian circus Constantine and the three sons who survived their homicidal, infanticide father. The Franks kept on trying to de-Christianize the empire, in a succession of plots, coups, and outright wars.

Finally, the Roman Catholic government just gave up, and killed two birds with one stone, putting the Franks in charge of the entire German limes by 400 CE.

SM: On December 31, 406 CE, Germans from several nations, some just arrived from way back east, galloped on the frozen Rhine, surprised and broke through the Franks, penetrating the empire, all the way to Africa!

Tyranosopher: Yes, greenhouse deniers always go around, claiming it was much warmer under the Romans, but that’s an explicit example of much greater cold then. This deep freeze did not happen again.

SM: What did the Franks do next?

T: Well they grew their power and population over the next three generations. They were fundamentally farmers using new heavy ploughs (metallurgy again) to bring more intensive agriculture, with new crops, to the North’s rich soils.

By 476 CE, the Franks were the greatest military power in North West Europe, and the elected king cum imperator cum Consul Clovis, son of his Roman imperator dad, Childeric, spent 30 years establishing absolute Frankish power over Gallia and Germania. In particular Clovis defeated the Goths, scourge of the Roman empire since Valens.

Frankish power was not just a military power, but, more importantly a philosophical power never seen before, the power of the spirit of the Salic Law. The adventure of the Franks, initially a small population, reminds one of Isaac Asimov’s novel, “Foundation”.

SM: So when do you put the Dark Ages?

T: The ages became ever darker after 150 BCE, and the darkness became terminal after Julian’s mysterious, violent death (363 CE); Jovian, who succeeded the great philosopher-emperor, burned down libraries in the name of Christ.

One can say that the ultimate darkness was from 363 CE to 476 CE. At least in Gallia-Germania. The fanatical Christian emperor Justinian destroyed Italy and Rome three generations later (in the guise of saving it). So in Italy the Dark Ages, after a monetary relief under the enlightened Arian Ostrogothic rule, came back with a terminal vengeance later.

Still by, say, 550 CE, most of the European population was dead. The cities shrank. At some point, Rome, all its water sources destroyed, was totally uninhabitable.

SM: So what of the word Europe?

Tyranosopher: In 721, the Muslim warriors, undefeated on land for one full century, invaded Francia. They had discovered that the Romans could not be defeated on sea anymore. To defeat Constantinople, the Muslims opted for the strategy the Turks would themselves follow seven centuries later: conquer the European side of Constantinople. The way to do that was to go from west to east, through Spain, then Francia, Italia, Illyricum…

Next to Toulouse, the Franks of the Dux Eudes fled for their lives when the Muslims charged. But it was a ruse (that the Mongols copied systematically later). Eudes’ men came back, from the sides and behind. The Muslims were annihilated. Francia, later known as France, became warring Islam’s bête noire, for the following (2013-721 =) 1292 years.

Ah, I forgot. The next giant Islamic invasion was broken at Poitier in 732 CE. Charles Martel (the Hammer)’s professional army, made of North-Western Franks, was truly a European army, and that’s how the Franks called it, remembering the assault of fascist plutocratic Persia against, well, Europe.

That’s where the name and concept of Europe comes from.

SM: Then what?

Tyranosopher:  Just as the contact with Rome had militarized Germany more (archeology shows), the eternal war with Islam militarized France. Things really got out of control when the Franks, who had spied on Islam since inception, decided to reconquer the Middle Earth in 1100 CE. That’s not finished, but it’s a side show, anyway.

SM: What is the main show?

Tyranosopher: the cradle of Europe is the tension between civilization and fascization. Civilization brings ideas, fascization, order. Power needs to find the right balance, depending upon circumstances.

Roman fascization, spurred by slavery, cruelty and brutalization, went overboard, and ended with global plutocracy. The Franks, the Free, were anti-fascist, and anti-plutocratic, lethally so, a tradition that perdures to this day (consider La Fronde, 1789, 1848, 1871, 1914-45).

Yet, Clovis told his ferocious, fanatically free warriors, in no uncertain terms, that, from thereupon, Roman fascism would order the Frankish army (a tradition that also perdures to this day: see the 750 or so soldiers executed in WWI, or the 40,000 collaborators executed in 1944-45). That was famously symbolized by the episode of the Vase de Soissons.

Simplicius Maximus: We are very far from American economists and their poisonous emanations.

Tyranosopher: Not really. First, the USA is a direct descendant of the Imperium Francorum. The fact that most Americans can’t distinguish between a Frank and frankfurter, does not make it any less so. Actually, the siege of the European Central Bank, Frankfurt, is the fort of the Franks. But that’s already too poetical and evocative by half for American economists.

Second, American plutocracy hates and fears a united Europe. Always had, always will.

SM: What’s the solution?

Tyranosopher: Well, same old same old, since civilization exists: break them. Destroy plutocracy. The reigning plutocrats and their direct ancestors are worse than the Jihadists, since actually, they are the ones who fabricated and used the modern Jihadists that they used from Egypt to Afghanistan, to the Caucasus (just ask Putin, ha ha ha).

SM: What happened to the Imperium Francorum?

Tyranosopher: The empire was divided between Charlemagne’s grandsons. Division through equal inheritance was tradition among the Franks, and prevented strong hereditary plutocracy. The real cause of the split between Francia and Germania, on the face of it, was Parisian ennui with the uncouth easterners. The Western Franks were supposed to present a candidate for election to the imperial position, but they gave up before the time of Otto I, in the early Tenth Century.

There was no will to constitute a strong military core, although, because Europe was the richest place, Avars, Mongols, Slavs, Muslims, Vikings, kept trying to invade. The local military was, generally strong enough to handle the threat, although the Romans were asked to help with Gregian fire equipped ships against the Saracens in the later Tenth Century.

However, as Medieval plutocracy showed its ugly snout, wars between German and French plutocrats became a feature of the landscape. Plutocrats were good at playing war games against each other, and the increasing nationalism they fostered insured their domination for eight centuries, until 1789.

In 1789, the plutocrats saw the mortal danger Human Rights constituted for their universe, and they fought to death to crush them. Yet, the Republic survived, and thrived. The USA itself became a democracy in 1865.

Although Human Rights make the skeleton of the United Nations, the war is not over, as plutocracy has grown in power ever since Thatcher and Reagan. As the biosphere is under attack, Pluto’s achievements have never been as great.

Simplicius Maximus: So nationalism was a plutocratic weapon?

Tyranosopher: Assuredly. Contemplate what the Kaiserreich plutocrats did in July 1914. This why European construction, and the euro, are so important: they are anti-national weapon. We want to dial back to 800 CE, when Europe had a common currency. The apartheid that was tried later brought a millennium of tears, pain, death, horror.

This, the Americans do not learn at school. Europeans ought to remind them of that.

The lesson of 30 centuries of European history is that, although diversity is instructive, nationalistic and tribal disunity is lethal. Not just for people, but for civilization itself.

So leave the euro alone, vulgar plutophiles. The euro is not a subject in economics, nor even politics. It’s a matter of the philosophy of survival.


Patrice Ayme