The rise and fall of cryptozoology

 

Credit: Legendary Cryptids@BestCryptids (Twitter)

Why is cryptozoology with outmost probability wrong? The main reason is that the cryptids, after centuries of search, are still unaccounted for. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is just a thought-stopper here. Obviously, absence of evidence very often *is* evidence of absence. It all depends on what we reasonably can expect to find in the first place. So what *are* we expected to find in this case? Today, large mammals are only found in small numbers in remote places, and they are always related to known extant taxa. Thus, the Bili ape – found in a remote corner of the Congo – is just a subspecies of the chimpanzee. New species of hoofed animals have been found in the dense jungles of Indochina, and there are some mysterious crania of unknown beaked whales from the world´s oceans. So yes, if Bigfoot had been like the Bili ape, it might be reasonable to assume that this rare species would still linger in some *really* remote corner of the North American boreal forest.

But that´s not the claim made for Bigfoot. Quite the contrary, Bigfoot is observed *all over the United States (except Hawaii) and Canada*, including in people´s backyards and even on our highways. Apparently, the Bigfeet have even infiltrated suburbia in places like Connecticut, Rhode Island or Upstate New York! A huge ape-like creature simply can´t go undetected for centuries under such conditions. Note also the weird discrepancy between being observed all the time by humans, and always going under the radar as far as technology is concerned. There should be tons of evidence by now. Where is it? The 55-year old Patterson-Gimlin film stands out precisely because it´s the only really good piece of evidence there is, and it´s probably a hoax anyway (although I hate to say it).

Despite their status as purported flesh-and-blood animals, cryptids remain strangely disconnected from their natural habitats. It´s a common cryptozoological fallacy to point to a dense forest and exclaim: “Anything could hide here”. But it can´t. All animals need food and drink. The best way to find an unknown animal would therefore be to stake out the local water holes, since all large land mammals and many birds have to go visit them to drink (or to hunt those who do). If Bigfoot was real, it should be easy for a field biologist to observe them hunting deer, or their epic struggles with grizzly bears at the salmon spawning grounds. But, alas, no such things ever seem to happen.

The same goes for other cryptids. Don´t thunder birds need to eat? Why don´t we see them in deep winter, gathering around carcasses laid out by the park authorities to feed regular eagles? Even a very rare thunderbird would have to make its presence known in this way. Also, what about forest fires? Why do we never see Bigfoots or other cryptids flee from such natural calamities?

But surely a gigantic unknown animal could still hide in the oceans? Well, no, they can´t. Most of the world´s oceans is like a desert. Plankton only exist at certain places. We know where these places are. Whalers and fishermen have known it for centuries. A plesiosaur or Zeuglodon would have to gather at the same locations in the oceans as whales or huge shoals of fish. So how come no such primordial reptile have been discovered by science vessels or indeed by whalers?

The prying eyes of Homo sapiens (in his or her modern scientific-military-surveillance capacity) are everywhere: in the Congolese rain forest, in Antarctica, in Siberia, in the Gobi desert, even in outer space. While it may still be *possible* to hide from man, it seems increasingly improbable. And, once again, we are not usually talking about genuinely rare unknown animals. We are discussing beasts that supposedly show up in our parking lots, outside our bedrooms peeping inside, at cemeteries in the heart of town, around popular hiking trails in tourist country…and then just as promptly disappear. *Cryptids of this kind are biologically impossible*.

There is also the mythological aspect. While not as decisive as the biological one – real animals, after all, might be mythologized – it´s nevertheless a striking aspect of cryptozoology that the cryptids are taken out of their original context in folklore. Bigfoot looks plausible enough if interpreted as an ape, less so if seen as a divine giant taller than the pine trees, as a hybrid between man and otter, or as a member of a highly aggressive tribe waging wars with the Natives. Bigfoot comes from a rich Native mythology also populated by frogs the size of school buses and other creatures few if any cryptozoologists would take seriously. (I mean, what do *they* eat, I wonder? Flies the size of deer?) Note also that both giants and pygmies are staples of many mythologies, yet the archeological or paleontological evidence for such creatures in historical times is extremely slim, perhaps non-existent. Something similar can be said about lake monsters. The idea of these creatures being plesiosaurs is modern. In ancient mythology, the lake monsters are often depicted as horses, bulls or humanoids with explicit supernatural powers (often demonic ones). Where did they go, only to be replaced by creatures popularized by “King Kong” or museums of natural history?  

What will happen to cryptozoology in the future? My guess is that it will disappear, as all other artifacts of modernity, only to be replaced with a more forthrightly mythological worldview as modernity plunges into terminal crisis. The flesh-and-blood unknown animals will go back to being specters, ogres and fairies…

 

Fisherman´s tale

 

My second attempt at a review of a recent Loch Ness docu.

“Monster: The Mystery of Loch Ness” is a three-part documentary about the hype surrounding the Loch Ness monster. At this stage, essentially everyone in the world has heard of the Scottish lake and its mysterious denizen. The so-called “surgeon´s photo”, supposedly showing Nessie peeking out of the dark waters of the loch, is one of the most iconic photographs ever taken.

It´s also, ahem, a hoax. Indeed, it seems most smoking gun evidence for the monster´s existence is the result of, shall we say, strongly motivated reasoning. The Rines “flipper photo” (published in Nature magazine of all places) is perhaps the most egregious. One of the few real pieces of evidence that *something* might be down there comes from an expedition led by a super-skeptic who very self-consciously tried to debunk Nessie. The guy even looks like Charles Darwin! Maybe some one (or some thing) really is messing with our minds here…

What makes “Monster” fascinating is its Nessie-like sneak peek into the subculture surrounding the elusive creature, a bewildering maze of eccentric British lords, crazy American inventors, rookie teenagers and hippies. Not to mention thousands of tourists visiting Loch Ness every year in the hope of getting their own little glimpse of the mystery. Several of the interviewees admit that their entire lives revolved around the Loch Ness monster…until they suddenly realized that perhaps there was nothing to it. A rough landing?

Despite being three parts long, “Monster” says next to nothing about the situation before 1933, the quasi-official starting point of the saga. Legends about strange creatures in Scottish (and Irish) lakes are centuries-old, but it´s only in modern times that the monster of folklore becomes a “hidden plesiosaur” or something to that effect, obviously inspired by the horror picture industry and dinosaur craze. Traditionally, the monster of Loch Ness was imagined to be a demonic horse! Each time-period has its own boogies…

It will be interesting to see if and how this modern folklore, or is it fakelore, will evolve in the future. One ironic side-effect of skeptical documentaries like this one is (of course) that they perpetuate the legend it tries to debunk by making it known to a new generation of TV coach potatoes. My guess is that cryptozoology will become more forthrightly supernaturalist in the future (maybe it has already). Climate change will make this transition downright inevitable. If not even dramatically altered living conditions can flush out a flesh-and-blood monster, the logical conclusion is that it either doesn´t exist at all…or can hide in the spirit-world.

But what did “Darwin” (Adrian Shine) find during his debunking operation? I don´t think anyone really knows, but analysis of DNA samples from the water show that a lot of eels live in the loch. Some eels can indeed become quite large, and also have very long life-spans. So maybe there is something in the accursed lake, after all: the world´s largest fisherman´s tale!

The mother of all eels

 

“Monster: The Mystery of Loch Ness” is a 2022 Scottish documentary in three parts about the elusive cryptid supposedly living in the dark waters of Loch Ness.

The two first episodes looks promising, but the third reveals that most of the sensational “evidence” for Nessie is fake. The iconic “surgeon´s photo” from 1934 is now widely recognized as a hoax, possibly masterminded by media personality Marmaduke Wetherell (who had already been publicly disgraced when attempting an earlier Loch Ness monster hoax). The photos taken by American investigator Robert Rines were so convincing that they were published by the prestigious journal Nature in 1975, the article in question being co-written by prominent British naturalist Peter Scott. Unfortunately, they too were hoaxes. The “flipper photo” has been manipulated, while another pic shows a tree stump at the bottom of the loch! It also turns out that Rines had been directed to the locations where the photos were taken by some crazy old lady with a pendulum…

Operation Deepscan (1987), organized by the venerably bearded Adrian Shine (who looks almost like Charles Darwin), did pick up echoes of an object “larger than a shark but smaller than a whale”, somewhat ironically given Shine´s skepticism, but a later expedition showed that the loch simply doesn´t contain enough food for a monstrous animal. Interestingly, an analysis of DNA traces from Loch Ness samples show that there must be a lot of eels in the lake. In the end, there is therefore a certain possibility that at least some eye-witnesses are seeing real creatures: over-sized eels very far away from their Sargasso spawning grounds. According to all-knowing Wikipedia, a European eel can become 1.5 meter long and live for circa 80 years.

Still, something tells me the grandmama of all Anguilla isn´t exactly what the cryptozoologists and monster-hunters had in mind when they started looking into this particular mystery! A plesiosaur or dinosaur would be more fitting for the format. Still, I suppose it´s a good thing that our collective food supply has been secured…

Why capitalism loves transgenderism

Real man 

The Communist Party of Britain (CPB), which publishes the Morning Star, has come out against transgenderism. The link below goes to a comment from the ex-Communist Spiked magazine.

Best paragraph:

>>>The CPB has thrown down the gauntlet to the post-class bourgeois left, the left that gets more excited about the right of men to piss in women’s toilets than it does about the right of millions of working-class voters to remove Britain from the clutches of that ultimate capitalist club, the European Union. 

>>>It is forcing these LINOs (leftists in name only) to ask why they so often find themselves on the same side of the barricades as the neoliberal elites. Why they fly the same flag – that eyesore trans Pride flag – that every bank and hedge fund flies. Why they are as one with "big business" when it comes to the importance of using people’s preferred pronouns. Why they are in full agreement with the armed wing of the state – the police, the army, the prison service – that a person with a dick can be a woman if he wants. 

>>>The middle-class graduate left with their well-thumbed bell hooks books and their selfies at Marx’s grave can make fun of the CPB as much as they like, but at some point they’re going to have to answer the question it has raised: if transgenderism is progressive, why do the ruthless owners of the means of production love it so?

Why capitalism loves transgenderism

The frozen veil

I always wax very philosophical, or is it existential, when I watch nature documentaries such as “Frozen Planet II”. 

All humans are edited out in favor of vast expanses of ice, sea, desert or taiga, here and there with some animals trying to stay on top of things, with varying degrees of success. The killer whale seems to be the most intelligent species in lieu of Homo sapiens. The whole thing is fundamentally meaningless…and yet looks perfectly divine. 

The world of a majestic, numinous, incomprehensible god who really couldn´t care less about humanity´s petty little pastimes, preferred pronouns, or whatever we think is important at the moment. Wonder how many planets just like this one exist in the multiverse…

The frozen veil both conceals and reveals. 

The truth about Easter

 

An interesting clip, based on scholarly sources, about "the pagan origins of Easter". Short form: yes, the *name* Easter comes from a pagan goddess, but no, we know next to nothing about her or her rites. And it was just in Kent anyway! 

Maladaptive atheism

 

Here is a curious contradiction in much contemporary atheism. On the one hand, atheists are (of course) opposed to religion. On the other hand, however, many atheists today *admit* that religion has an evolutionary survival value, since it creates and/or enhances community feeling. And hence strengthens said community. (They might also add that religious conservatives have more children, while woke liberals make their children sterile.)

But if so, *atheism is a net negative*. So why are the atheists atheists? Why do they rejoice every single time statistics supposedly show that atheism is increasing? Are they just honestly confused, or is something else going on here? Some kind of bizarre nihilism? A desire to play the role of martyr, or what?

Another contradiction: atheists admit that religion gets stronger if people´s situation gets worse. But if so, *religion will never disappear*, since the human condition will – overall – always be shit. Religion will certainly not disappear during the 21^st century, as the world situation progressively deteriorates. 

So why should we root for atheism? *By the logic of the atheists themselves*, we should rather join a religion or perhaps create a new one…

A revolt of the elites?

A revolt of the rich?

A different (and critical) look at the recent Israeli "pro-democracy" protests against Netanyahu.  

The problem with the Israeli protests

The only solution?

 

Man and technics

 

A criticism of Oswald Spengler I posted here on September 24, 2018. Today, I wonder if Spengler might have been, ahem, right. If not about our past, then certainly about the future! 

“Man and Technics” is a short work by Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), the pessimistic German philosopher of history mostly known for his monumental two-volume work “The Decline of the West”. While I find the cyclical and pessimistic perspective interesting, I admit that I'm not a big fan of Spengler himself. The man's reactionary, elitist and quasi-aristocratic perspective on things is downright suffocating, and so is his strange blend of cynicism and fatalism. The decline of the Western (or is it Great German) Imperium is said to be inevitable, but we are nevertheless called upon to defend it while it lasts. (The cover of this edition shows the Roman soldier at Pompeii who remained on his post when Vesuvius erupted.) You have to wade through a lot of undrained swamp of this type to (perhaps) find something useful in Spengler's works.

I've never read “Untergang des Abendlandes” in its entirety (who has?), but from what I gleaned of the work, “Man and Technics” is a kind of super-abridgement of the larger opus. The main difference seems to be that Spengler ventures into prehistory in this work, while “The Decline of the West” was mostly about “real” civilizations. True to form, Spengler paints a picture of early man as a predator. He (yes, in this version, Man does seem to be a he!) is vicious, violent, domineering and solitary. He is a direct descendant of predatory animals, who according to Spengler have a dynamism and will to power lacking in their herbivorous and cowardly prey, etc etc. It's interesting to note that the predator mostly mentioned by Spengler is the falcon, rather than the more relevant chimpanzee (or some other great ape – I'm not sure how evolutionary science stood at the time Spengler wrote this work). Nor does he mention the wolf, which is surprising at first sight (surely a pessimistic reactionary knows that “man is wolf to man”?), but becomes understandable once we realize his obsession with the idea that primal man was a heroic solitary killer. I think it's obvious that Spengler is simply projecting his aristocratic-fascist ideal onto prehistory. He may even be projecting Western “Faustian” man, which is surprising given his relativist take on world cultures. His description of birds of prey sounds “Faustian” somehow.

The biggest surprise in the book is the last section, where Spengler discusses the decline of the West from a technological perspective. While he mentions the ecological crisis, he explicitly says that the West won't fall due to it. He seems to believe in “resource substitution”: as long as scientists and inventors stay on top of things, these geniuses will surely be able to find a substitute for oil or coal. The decline and eventual collapse of the West happens in large part because the genial elite *doesn't* stay on top of things, instead gradually succumbing to hedonism and nihilism, a process Spengler viewed as inevitable. Another factor in the decline is the spread of technology to the colored races, to which Spengler (at least in this book) counts both non-Whites and Russians. Due to globalization, the colored races outcompete and undermine the Western nations, using their own technology against them. However, since colored people aren't “Faustian”, they can't really develop technology further. Stagnation therefore sets in and eventually the entire modern world crumbles. Spengler holds out the possibility that perhaps East Asia (Japan? Or is it China?) and/or Russia might do something positive with our technics, but apparently we shouldn't hold our breath! No solution exists to this predicament, except remaining at our posts and go under with the banner flying…

As you might imagine, I have all kinds of problems with the above, but what struck me most when reading “Man and Technics” was Spengler's strong faith in technology. I had expected him to take the opposite view, but perhaps his early training as an engineer got the better of him here? Like a true believer in Progress, Spengler paints scientists, inventors and the captains of productive industry as larger than life geniuses and heroes, heckling both ivory tower intellectuals and socialist activists in the process. (Ayn Rand had a similar attitude and she, of course, was a true believer in eternal Progress.) While Spengler does mention the negative impact of the machine on humans (it makes them a small cog in an anonymous machinery or turns them into lazy socialists who think the machines will do the work for them), he nevertheless seems to believe that technology itself isn't to blame for the fall of modern civilization.

I did expect a few insightful words even from this bête noire, and since I'm disappointed, I will only give this work two stars!

The European way of life

 

This is apparently what "we" are defending in the Donbass against the Russians. "Our" "European" "way of life". 

Yes, we should defend Ukraine against Russia. But it´s also high time to take back the West. At present, the defenders of Mariupol are cannon fodder for the people who brought you the above. 

Let it end...now!

The BBC´s trans misinformation

Trans teacher with prosthetic breasts dresses as man outside school

The perils of clairvoyance

John Michael Greer´s take on Rudolf Steiner. 

The Perils of the Pioneer

Tobias Hübinette och folkutbytet

Tobias Hübinette har problem...

"Jag tror inte på folkutbytet"

Den nationella rörelsens reaktioner

Alien yoga?

 

“Wisdom of the Sages” is an ISKCON-related podcast from New York. In this episode, aired two years ago, the two hosts interview Michael Cremo, author of “Forbidden Archeology” and also a member of the ISKCON. Cremo´s book, dubbed “Krishna creationist” by skeptics, was an attempt to prove that human civilization is millions, perhaps billions, of years old as suggested by Puranic mythology.

In this podcast, Cremo also comments on other topics, however. He argues that the Earth *isn´t* flat or hollow, pointing out that the Hindu astrological writings describe it as a globe! But what about the Puranas, which suggest that the Earth is both flat, extremely large and has a large mountain of gold at its center? Cremo believes that this is how spiritually advanced beings see our part of the universe. The rest of us see it as a small globe… 

But if so, why can´t Puranic mythology about billions of years old civilization be a similar kind of situation? Maybe only demigods can see them?

Cremo also comments on UFOs and draws various interesting parallels to King Shalva´s vimana. One of the hosts then says that he would love to discuss the topic of lizard people with Cremo for another hour or so?! Hmmm…

Still, interesting.  

The epic of the Greenland shark

 

Credit: Panda Planet(?)

The epic of evolution and all that stuff was fun as long as it lasted. I mean, it really *was* our "religion", wasn´t it? The epic ended with humanity leaving a scorched Earth billions of years into the future in highly advanced space ships to colonize new worlds in the galaxy...

We have been religious all our lives, without even realizing it. Where does the religion of evolutionary Progress originally come from? Oetinger? Hegel? Some obscure Jewish heresy that immanentized Lurianic Kabbala? 

In reality, the zenith of cosmic evolution was just a blip of about 300 years. Which is nothing. There is a species of fish, the Greenland shark, that can live longer! And, of course, trees. Crazy hubris, if you think about it! So the zenith of our civilization, which was supposedly also the zenith of *cosmic* evolution (and the fulcrum of the entire universe) lasted *less* than some freaky cartilaginous fish in the high Arctic, wtf. 

HA HA HA. I´m laughing at myself for un-ironically believing in it for so long...

Look at us, we can´t even cope with a bloody COVID pandemic. The crown of creation! 

But sure, I suppose we could still turn this tiny little planet into a desolate wasteland by nuclear war and/or anthropogenic climate change, just to make a point about our fantastic cosmic importance. There, Mr Universe, there, look who´s boss now!!! If we can´t create a perfect utopia, maybe we can at least trigger the perfect storm? Then we can go under in flame and fire, convinced that we have thereby demonstrated our UNIQUENESS and SUPERIORITY.

After all, the Greenland shark can´t do that, so there, Western modern civ just proved its superiority. Secret king wins again!

The Western myth of progress and the epic of evolution is just the latest (and strangest) Judeo-Christian heresy. Or cluster of heresies. Amen.

Epic of evolution

Credit: Sanjay Acharya 

I wrote this criticism of Wilson in 2012. Today, I´m almost tempted to agree with the old man (who passed away as recently as 2021). Previously posted here on July 27, 2018. 

"The Social Conquest of Earth" is Edward O. Wilson's latest book, published this year. Wilson is a leading myrmecologist who went on to become the grand old man of sociobiology.

In my opinion, Wilson's book is over-hyped by the publisher. It's interesting, to be sure - you can take it from me, I'm a critic of sociobiology, while being somewhat fond of ants! However, the book is to a large extent simply a summary of Wilson's earlier books and scientific papers (which he often references). I consider it to be an introduction to Wilson, rather than some kind of dramatic, super-genial work on par with Darwin's "The Origin of Species".

[GROUP SELECTION AMONG INSECTS]

The main point of the book is to rehabilitate the concept of group selection, 36 years after "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins made the public aware of its burial by the Neo-Darwinists. Wilson no longer claims that W. D. Hamilton's ideas about kin selection can explain the evolution of eusociality among insects. Instead, he believes that complex insect societies (e.g. among hymenopterans) are a product of individual selection of queens, with the worker-castes being a kind of robotic extension of the queen's phenotype. There's also group selection targeting the entire colony. The chapters on insects are rather technical, but if Wilson is right, I wonder why inclusive-fitness selection was upheld for so long. Apparently, the concept never worked for termites, which evolved eusociality independently of the hymenopterans. According to Wilson, the concept didn't work very well for hymenopterans either, to the point where "kin" was defined in a completely arbitrary manner. Kin selection among social insects turned out to be a theoretical, arm-chair construct which simply didn't square with realities on the ground. Wilson was an early defender of Hamilton, but now believes the theory is erroneous. Personally, I'm not surprised: what makes us think that nature can be reduced to an exact mathematical formula of genetic kinship? (Here's a clue: reductionist materialism, which Wilson still upholds.)

[GROUP SELECTION AMONG HUMANS]

But, of course, nobody really cares about ants or termites anyway. The really contentious point of "The Social Conquest of Earth" concerns us humans. Traditionally, sociobiologists have emphasized kin selection as the mechanism behind much of human evolution. By contrast, Wilson proposes a combination of individual selection and group selection.

I admit that this makes a lot of intuitive sense. Once again, I wonder what took the Neo-Darwinists so long to revise their theories? Marshall Sahlins pointed out long ago in "The use and abuse of biology" that many human kinship systems aren't based on genetics at all. They might pit siblings against each other, while counting second cousins or completely unrelated persons as close kin. Since Sahlins was a Marxist constructivist, he was duly mocked by the sociobiologists, who preferred to remain oblivious to these basic anthropological facts.

And what about Malinowski, hailed by sociobiologists as a precursor to their own theories due to his "functionalism"? Malinowski described how men among the Trobriand Islanders are (voluntarily?) cuckolded into adopting and rearing children of unfaithful wives, something incomprehensible from a kin selection viewpoint. The religion of the Trobrianders claim that sexual intercourse has nothing to do with procreation - instead, babies are born when free-floating spirits enter the womb of women. Thus, men would gladly adopt even children who couldn't possibly have been their own. Similar notions also exist among some groups of Aborigines. Group selection would explain all this rather neatly.

Wilson points out that individual selection would tend to promote selfish behaviour, while group selection tends in the opposite direction. Selfish individuals usually win out over altruistic individuals in a group, but groups of altruists always outcompete groups of egoists. Since humans are targets of both forms of selection, we are eternally split between egotistic and altruistic impulses. This is Wilson's explanation for the constant conflict within each human being between virtue and vice, between our desire to help others (including non-kin who can't pay back) and our "sinful" attempts to use others to our advantage. In a sense, group selection is responsible for what we call morals or morality. However, Wilson also believes that group selection has a dark side. Humans are tribal by nature, and competition between tribes has frequently taken aggressive forms throughout human history. Basing himself on Le Blanc's and Register's book "Constant battles", Wilson argues that war is a constant condition of mankind. So is genocide. Indeed, the roots of war go all the way back to our primate ancestors, since chimpanzees (our closest evolutionary cousins) also wage territorial "wars".

[SOME CRITICISMS OF WILSON]

As you might imagine, this is where I tend to part company with the author. It's not at all clear that war has been a perennial companion of Homo sapiens. Many Neolithic cultures were peaceful, including the famous culture at Catalhöyük, which lasted for 1,400 years. Even peaceful high cultures have existed: the Indus Valley Civilization, the Norte Chico culture in Peru and (arguably) Minoan Crete. And what about the Semai in Malaysia, a culture Wilson and other sociobiologists (absurdly) attempted to use as evidence *for* warfare being a human universal during the 1970's? The comparison between humans and chimpanzees is striking only if we decide already before we start that humans really are perennially war-prone. Bonobos, who are mostly peaceful, are also close evolutionary cousins to humans. Besides, chimpanzees become more peaceful in captivity, and even change their "gender roles", suggesting that their genes have a certain flexibility presumably lacking among, say, Hamadryas baboons. The implications for humans are obvious.

Wilson believes in gene-culture co-evolution, and is thus a "moderate interactionist", as I believe Ullica Segerstråle called him in her book on the sociobioloy controversy. My problem with the author is that, in practice, he seems to be a very moderate interactionist indeed! In effect, Wilson is always veering towards genetic determinism (in the vernacular sense of that term). In fact, he complains about his co-evolution theory being misused by people who want to place heavier emphasis on culture. Now, I don't deny that there are "human universals" - I'm not a pure constructivist. But which are they? At one point, Wilson reprints a list of purported universals which include government, private property rights, law, inheritance rules and status differentiation. However, it's almost too easy to demonstrate that these, of course, are *not* human universals at all. Government? Law? Nor is patriarchy a universal, for that matter. The interactionist hypothesis needs to take the actual cultural variation into account, or be replaced with something else entirely.

[THE PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM]

This brings me to the more philosophical parts of "The Social Conquest of Earth". Wilson is a reductionist materialist and atheist, and several chapters of the book attacks religion in a very forthright manner. (Unless I'm mistaken, Wilson actually claims to be a deist in "Consilience", but if God is simply a prime mover who creates a reductionist-materialist world, it's difficult to see the difference between deism and outright atheism. God and Elvis have left the building!) At the same time, Wilson clearly believes in objectively valid morality. However, without a transcendent dimension, it's difficult to see how he can coherently believe in morality at all.

Thus, Wilson writes that virtue, honour and altruism are "moral", while selfishness is "immoral". But why? Ayn Rand or Max Stirner would say the opposite. Besides, Wilson believes that warfare and genocide are immoral, yet they are obviously connected to virtue, honour and altruism. They are all products of group selection. There is virtue even among thieves! Why is one product of group selection (e.g. genocide) immoral, while another product (e.g. helping the poor) moral? At one point (p. 252), Wilson actually extols the virtue of individuals who refuse to bow to immoral peer pressure, but why is *that* moral? Note also that this kind of behaviour seems to go against the grain of both individual selection and group selection. Imagine a soldier who under peer pressure participates in the gang rape of a female captive. If a product of individual selection, he should participate in the gang rape for selfish reasons, perhaps to save his own neck. If a product of group selection, he should also participate out of loyalty to the group or the group leader. But if he refuses and is court-martialled, what selection pressure is he under? A cynic might simply argue that the soldier is maladaptive (if executed, his genetic line will be extinguished) but Wilson clearly regards such a person as a hero. But what is the basis for seeing his actions as moral or as heroic?

Wilson, of course, regards religion as grossly immoral. He mentions Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae and religious opposition to homosexuality as two examples of such immorality. He also expresses support for the West European welfare state (thank you, Eddie!), thereby suggesting that "free" market politics are somehow immoral, as well. But once again I wonder what the basis is for his moral decision? Presumably, religion is a product of group selection, since it gives cohesion to the tribe. Thus, it enhances the altruism and survival value of the group, yet Wilson sees it as a potentially evil force. In the last chapter, Wilson expresses the hope that humanity will one day lay aside its petty differences, unite in peace and save the environment. However, if the rest of "The Social Conquest of Earth" is something to go by, there is absolutely no ground whatever for such a hope. One also wonders what selection pressure created this vain hope in the first place!

[THE ANTHILL SOCIETY]

By the author's own logic, his hopes are maladaptive. Indeed, in most of the book, he strikes a decidedly more pessimistic note. But this, too, is illogical - if humans will be forever torn between egotism and brutal altruism, why not embrace the world as it actually looks like? Why not become a fascistic Neo-Pagan? Or something along the lines of Oswald Spengler? Wilson wants to avoid this conclusion, and in that he's surely right, but there's little or nothing in his worldview to militate against a misanthropic pessimism. I have an involuntary sympathy for pessimists, but the fact that egalitarian, peaceful or "matriarchal" cultures have existed, shows that Homo sapiens isn't doomed to remain a brutal, altruistic anthill society...

Why is Daylight Savings Time still a thing?

The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce...

Daylight savings disputes leaves Lebanon with two timezones

A unique event requires a unique explanation

 

Tota Gopinatha is the name of the Krishna statue at the Tota Gopinatha Temple in Puri. 

According to some legends, Chaitanya merged with this statue and simply disappeared at the end of his earthly life (according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Chaitanya was a double incarnation of Krishna and Radha). 

Chaitanya´s companion Gadadhara Pandita was so shocked by the god-man-woman´s disappearence that he became paralyzed, at which point the Krishna statue miraculously "sat down" so Gadadhara could continue doing puja to it... 

Looking like a Greek god

 

So the first attested pictures of Balarama and Krishna were Greek, from Greek-controlled Bactria? Same with the Buddha, apparently. 

Veckans Strasser

 

Ett slags sammanfattning av den "strasseritiska" miljön i Sverige. Nämner dock inte den ökände bloggaren Ashtar Command! 

De lämnade vänstern - för invandringskritik och populism

Everything else is commentary

Some anti-Atlantis material. Above, a comment by Edward Dutton. He argues that the subtleties of the original Greek text shows that Atlantis is fiction. 

Below, a contributor on Substack. Argues that an early civilization of the Göbekli Tepe kind is about 20% possible, but chances that a more advanced culture existed during the "Ice Age" is close to zero. 

There is some truth to this, but the problem for the skeptics, I think, is that Plato got the timeline roughly right...

So what´s going on there? And what about the Egyptian temples actually mentioned by Dutton above?  

Against Ice Age civilizations

Saved by the Matrix?

 

A peculiar combination of Social Darwinism and common sense. 

Edward Dutton doesn´t buy the hype around Artificial Intelligence and smart robots saving humanity (or destroying it, for that matter). 

Responsible Satanism

Satanism is merely a lack of belief in God, right? A peculiar polemic against "the Satanic Temple" published by right-wing alt-media site Breitbart News. 

Satanic Temple requiring vaccination and masks

Undertale: Genocide Run

Is this computer game CURSED? 

Undertale

I världens hjärta

Inte den snällaste versionen

Artikel om FN:s nya klimatrapport. Från Aftonbladet. 

1,5-gradersmålet är kört

The heart of the world

 

A long lecture and frankly not the best one, but if you manage to get through it, it does contain some interesting and (perhaps) sensational information. 

Yes, that would include Tantric sexual rituals (just as I imagined them!), the three main forms of Kali (hint: most Hindus only worship the kind-of-nice "Dakshina Kali"), and practices of the cremation ground (think Aghori).

The old lady has never been so based.   

Meanwhile in Mariupol...

 

Mariupol Mandalorians....

White Idiocracy?

 

Perennial gadfly Edward "Jolly Heretic" Dutton argues that IQ rates in the Western world are falling even if you completely disregard mass immigration and/or Black people. 

In plain English: the Whites are (also) getting more stupid. By 2100, the average (White?) IQ will resemble that before the year 1100...

Small wonder the gadfly says that "Idiocracy" is "the most insanely optimistic movie" he´s ever seen!   

Secrets of the charnel ground

 

I assumed these were secrets...?

When Noah met the Anti-Christ

 

"I have to help Noah survive the Flood,
hope I´m not too late"

“Noah” is a somewhat bizarre US film released in 2014. It has very little to do with the Biblical story of the Deluge, nor with the Book of Enoch (the two supposed sources of inspiration). Rather, it comes across as a fantasy film with Deep Ecology and occultic traits. Why does Noah use the skin of the serpent as a “Jewish” symbol, for instance? Why is the substance mined by the Cainites called “Zohar”? And why the heck do the fallen angels (here conflated with the Nephilim) actually help Noah build his Ark?!

Is it because Hollywood Kabbalists wants us to worship the Devil? Same old, same old… :D

Joke aside, another intriguing fact is that the film´s Noah character is a misanthropic Deep Ecologist and vegan who wants humanity to be entirely destroyed (including his own lineage). Indeed, the villain Tubal-Cain (who likes armadillo dog steak) sounds more sympathetic and realistic than the patriarch, who comes across a bit like a cult leader. In other words: “Noah” isn´t really about a quasi-Biblical past, but rather about our future…or present. In the end, Noah accepts that humanity should be allowed to procreate (while keeping the snake skin), at which “the Creator” greets him with huge rainbow-like phenomena.

What “Noah” proves is that you can get away with a second-rate fantasy flick and even portray it as “deep” if you give the characters nominally Biblical identities. Imagine what these guys could do with the Exodus story! But yeah, it was funny to see Hannibal the Cannibal starring Methuselah, I suppose…

Nightmare Tales

 

“Nightmare Tales” is a collection of nine short horror stories. They were written from 1876 to 1891, and originally published in various magazines. The stories are rather unremarkable in themselves, except for one thing: the author is none other than Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the founder and first leader of the Theosophical Society. The collection was published the year after Blavatsky´s death (or shall we say departure). It´s freely available at the website of the “Pasadena” branch of Theosophy. I´ve read them in a Swedish translation which I picked up at a very respectable venue (I was surprised).

While the short stories aren´t “bad” as in bad-bad, they feel unfinished, although it´s possible that 19^th century magazines habitually published tales of this sort. If so, Blavatsky simply adapted to the genre. Most of the stories are about Spiritualist séances gone dangerously wrong. All the usual “Gothic” tropes are there, including mysterious castles, journeys through the Balkans, Hungarian Gypsies, and so forth. Blavatsky was a Russian, so a few horror tropes that are perhaps more fitting to that nation are included, such as Siberian shamans. A strong belief in reincarnation shines through. So does the author´s ethnic prejudices: two of the bad guys are Jewish, one of them an extremely obnoxious brothel madam! Sometimes, evil people or skeptics who dabble in the occult get severely punished by the inexorable law of karma, but some villains actually get away with it. I suspect most of the stories are for entertainment only, rather than edifying morality tales.

A certain amount of mischievous humor shines through in some of the tales. The old grey-haired man on Svalbard in “From the Polar Lands: A Christmas Story” is presumably Santa Claus! “The Legend of the Blue Lotus” retells a Hindu legend with obvious anti-Biblical allusions added (Blavatsky hated Abrahamic religion). Blavatsky´s extreme pessimism is evident in “Karmic Visions”. The most serious story is “A Bewitched Life”, about a vain skeptic who gets possessed by demons after rejecting a Shinto purification ritual.

Not sure what to say about “Nightmare Tales” in general, but it does raise at least some eyebrows that the founder of a New Religious Movement with some kind of soteriological message also penned quasi-Gothic fiction!  

The fash aesthetic

 

Credit: @frid45 (Twitter)

Some kind of Euro-fascist aesthetic. From Twitter.  

The last Leonardo

“The Lost Leonardo” is a 2021 documentary about the drama around the painting “Salvator Mundi”, believed by some to be the work of famous Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci. The story is complex and frankly hard to believe sometimes.

After being lost for centuries, “Salvator Mundi” resurfaced in 2005 at an auction in New Orleans (of all places), where it was bought for about 1,100 dollars by two US art collectors. If I understand the “plot” correctly, they later managed to sell the painting for 83 million dollars! This was after the London National Gallery had claimed that the painting (which they exhibited) was indeed an authentic Leonardo. The artwork was originally heavily overpainted and badly damaged, but was restored by Dianne Modestini, an expert on such things. It´s this restored version that was shown in London and subsequently brought in the 83 million. Skeptics refuse to believe it´s real, and mockingly call the painting “a masterpiece by Dianne Modestini”, charging that she added so much to the original composition that it can´t be considered an independent work anymore. And how do we know Leonardo made it anyway?

The subsequent odyssey of “the savior of the world” is even more bizarre. Or maybe not, if the shadowy and opaque character of the international art trade is held in mind. The 83 million dollar affair was made by a Swiss art dealer, Yves Bouvier, on behalf of super-rich Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. The latter subsequently accused Bouvier of tricking him into buying the painting for 140 million dollars and pocketing the difference. While the oligarch may be a genuine art fancier, there is also a more pragmatic reason for his art deals (and that of many other rich people). Art is a good way to “store wealth” and move it around without the tax authorities (or Putin?) ever noticing. This is made possible by the so-called freeport system. In Switzerland, none other than the tricksy Bouvier owned huge freeports, in which art and other investment objects could be de facto hidden away. Even sales and purchases of said art can be made at the freeport facilities without governments being able to track the deals. (Of course, the governments have themselves to blame: what stops them from cracking down on the freeports? Exactly.)

When Rybolovlev realized that Bouvier had scammed him out of a billion dollars during various art deals (at least if you believe Mr R´s version of events), the Russian oligarch decided to destroy the greedy Swiss freeport owner. Using all his connections in the world of banking, finance and law, Rybolovlev managed to get Bouvier blacklisted, denied bank loans, losing investments, and so on. In the docu, Bouvier claims he lost everything (including ownership of the freeports). Perhaps to recover his “losses”, the oligarch eventually sold all his art through a British auction house (the auction took place in the US). It was at this auction that “Salvator Mundi” was bought by a then unknown person for a staggering 450 million dollars – the highest price ever paid for a painting. At this point, the CIA became interested, perhaps fearing that the world´s largest money laundering operation was unfolding right under their noses. They soon identified the buyer: a certain Saudi prince. Somebody at the agency also leaked the information to the New York Times! “Salvator Mundi” then vanished, and nobody knows where the painting is today. The documentary speculates that the real buyer is Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and that country´s effective ruler. “Salvator Mundi” is supposedly stashed onboard his yacht.

But why would MBS buy a frankly ugly painting attributed to Leonardo? Even apart from the fact that it´s blasphemous according to Islam! The docu speculates that it could be connected to Saudi “soft diplomacy”. In order to present a better face to the world, Saudi Arabia wants to build a huge tourist facility and “cultural center” at Al-Ula in the Hejaz. Perhaps the lost Leonardo will be exhibited there? The Al-Ula business may also be connected to a huge Saudi purchase of French military hardware…

There have also been some weird shenanigans surrounding a 2019-2020 Leonardo exhibition at the Louvre in France. It´s possible that “Salvator Mundi” was supposed to have been exhibited there, in the same room as “Mona Lisa”, but for some reason the unknown owner pulled back at the last moment. The Louvre bookstore by mistake sold some copies of a book claiming that “Salvator Mundi” was authentic, but the book was quickly pulled as well and all remaining copies destroyed. Maybe this book is now just as rare as real Leonardo paintings? The reason for the panicky backtracking is unclear, but “The Lost Leonardo” wonders aloud whether the Louvre labs at the last moment failed to authenticate the painting, prompting MBS to withdraw his offer of exhibiting it.

As already mentioned, the makers of “The Lost Leonardo” don´t seem to believe that “Salvator Mundi” is the real deal, although it certainly was a lucrative one! Pesky art critic Jerry Saltz, who is something of a joker, is prominently featured, as are other skeptics. Personally, I have no opinion on the matter, opinionated or otherwise, but the documentary is interesting in its own right, giving a sneak peek into the demimonde of tax havens and the super-rich. According to the all-knowing site Wikipedia, the elusive Leonardo (or is it Modestini) should really have been exhibited at the Louvre Abu Dhabi, a joint French-United Arab Emirates project. Let´s be honest: since nobody outside the art world (and hardly even there, it seems) really gives a damn whether it´s fake or not, the UAE probably wouldn´t lose any cred by actually exhibiting it. Real or not, “Salvator Mundi” is probably just as well known as “Mona Lisa” (and "The Da Vinci Code") at this point! 

Salvator Mundi

 

“Leonardo da Vinci” is a Swedish book about – you may have guessed it – Leonardo da Vinci. It´s written by Dick Harrison, a super-productive former professor of history who seems to have started a cottage industry of popularized books all by himself! As far as I can tell, they are only available in Swedish. Leonardo was of course the Italian or Florentine polymath who lived 1452-1519. He is often depicted as the greatest man who ever lived, a towering genius literally centuries before his time. Essentially everyone this side of Vinci has heard about him, not to mention his famous painting “Mona Lisa”.

Judging by Harrison´s description, Leonardo ´s reputation is well deserved. He really was a great scientist, engineer, painter and even a party-fixer, musician and something of a court jester. Some of his discoveries were never published, and it took up to 300 years before other scientists or engineers came up with the same solutions. Indeed, Leonardo designed complex machines which still haven´t been constructed. As for his paintings, “Mona Lisa” has never been insured, since it´s considered priceless, while “Salvator Mundi” (which may or may not be a long lost work by Leonardo) was sold for a staggering 450 million dollars to Saudi Arabian interests in 2017!

Why was Leonardo, born out of wedlock to a middle class notary and a “underclass” woman, so successful? There are several possible answers. Harrison never says so, but I get the impression that the man from Vinci may have been “on the spectrum”, perhaps some combo of ADHD and high functioning autism. He loved to dress in an eccentric style, was left-handed, seems to have been asexual, and his style of work alternated between obsessive perfectionism and complete lack of patience. For both reasons, many of his works were left unfinished or unpublished. Or both! However, his peculiar personality clearly also included a streak of genius and “thinking outside the box”. Another reason was the general intellectual climate, in other words the Renaissance. His super-empirical mind, boundless curiosity and polymath qualities were in keeping with the ideals of the time. Leonardo was what later became known as a “Renaissance Man”. He was supported by several important Italian rulers, most notably Ludovico Sforza in Milan, and at the end of his life by the French king Francis I. One can hardly deny that a certain amount of opportunism also served Leonardo well, as he was switching patrons during the war-torn and uncertain early 16^th century.

One wonders what would have happened if Leonardo had lived 100 years earlier, or 200 years later. The question is obviously difficult to answer, since it´s usually impossible for one man to change the Zeitgeist all by himself, no matter how genial he might be. Harrison points out that, ironically, Leonardo´s illegitimate birth was necessary for his success, since a legitimate son in Florence was expected to follow in his father´s footsteps. The idea of Leonardo da Vinci becoming a competent but otherwise unknown notary in the republic´s administration is frightening to contemplate! And had Leonardo lived today, he would probably have regarded all scientists as hopeless midwits and preferred working in the entertainment business. Who knows, he may even have designed pageants for the Saudi monarchy…

With that, I end my little reflections. 

Surprised by the Upanishads

Previously posted on May 27, 2021

So I just read the Penguin Classic edition of "The Upanishads", originally published in 1965. The title is somewhat misleading, since the slender volume only contain a few of the Hindu texts known as Upanishads. The translator, Juan (or Joan) Mascaró, also translated "The Bhagavad Gita". Curiously, Mascaró was Spanish (specifically Catalan), yet translated from Sanskrit to English! Since my knowledge of Sanskrit is virtually non-existent, I can´t really judge the translation. However, it did struck me that it sounds "Christian" (a lot of "joy" and "love" in this one, and even a "trinity"). Mascaró´s introduction, which I frankly only skimmed, also tries to find as many parallels as possible between the Upanishads, Christianity, the Romantics, and various poets and mystics through the ages. I´m not entirely sure if this is the right approach. 

Still, the little book is interesting. Monist Hinduism always struck me as pessimistic and frankly weird - who wants to become "one" with some impersonal "god" who is suspiciously similar to dreamless sleep, or comes across as a hybrid between a fainting fit and brute matter. Merging with the divine like the drop merges with the ocean (i.e. disappear) doesn´t sound very appealing either. In Mascaró´s version, merging with Brahman sounds like consciousness-expansion, rather than nihilistic self-annihilation. As already mentioned, non-duality means joy and love. Even Shiva is described as a god of love in this scenario! The world around us is God´s creation (or Brahman´s emanation), and therefore wonderful and magical, but in order to reach *real* perfection, we have to go beyond it, to the Spirit from which it came and which still today both transcends it and dwells within it, including in ourselves (as the Atman). 

There are no explanatory notes, which is a pity, since the Upanishads contain many statements which cry out for some, shall we say, knowledge-expansion. At several points, an esoteric anatomy is described. Where you end up is dependent on where your subtle energies are directed. Pro tip: direct them to the top of the head! At other points, I get the impression that the impersonal Oversoul isn´t the highest reality, there is something else which transcends even it. Also, the world around us seems to be real, not an illusion, according to many passages. However, there are examples of the more "negative" teaching, too, as when dreamless sleep is portrayed as the obvíous longing of all creatures. Some Upanishads see the Vedic sacrifices and rituals as expressions of the Brahman, while others seem to repudiate them. Of course, these texts aren´t the work of a single school, so different approaches are to be expected. The most common one is to see the traditional rites as good, but nevertheless of a lower order than the yogic techniques, since the Vedic sacrifices can´t lead to liberation, but at most to a temporary stay in a heaven-world. And so on...

Will perhaps ponder these scriptures more in the future. 

Eternal questions about Mars

 

"Is There Life on Mars?” is a documentary of somewhat unclear provenance, but presumably PBS-related. It must have been released recently (several productions with similar names can be accessed on YouTube, but they´re not it). The docu gives an interesting overview of the search for life on Mars and how this quest interacts with attempts to explain the emergence of life on Earth. The odyssey of the Mars rover “Perseverance” is prominently featured.

Four billion years ago, Mars had both rivers, lakes and oceans, but due to various factors, the red planet lost its magnetic field and most of its atmosphere, perhaps turning it into a dead world. The meteorite ALH 84001, recovered in 1996, sparked considerable controversy (and a televised comment from then-POTUS Bill Clinton) when bacteria-like structures were discovered inside it. It seems good ol´ 84001 isn´t considered smoking gun evidence for Martians anymore, but at least its mysterious texture created an entirely new scientific discipline: astrobiology (exobiology be damned).

The documentary presents three hypothesis on how life could have formed on Earth: hydrothermal vents (where life can get energy even without sunlight), volcanic springs (where “proto-cells” can form) and impact craters (where cyanide – you heard me – forms in abundance). If I understand this correctly, there is evidence for hydrothermal and volcanic activity on the red planet, and of course there are impact craters, but as of today, no evidence for cyanide. Astrobiologists also speculate that life could have survived beneath the Martian surface.

We won´t know for sure…until 2033, when the test tubes filled with interesting samples taken by “Perseverance” will be gathered up by a new NASA space probe and brought back to Earth (is that really a good idea?) for a thorough analysis. Sure wonder how the world will look like in 2033? The ending of the documentary reveals what all this is *really* about: if there is life on Earth, we are not alone, and somewhere out there, there might be somebody peeking back…

That kind of gives the game away, doesn´t it? The search for life on Mars is at bottom religious. It´s the quasi-religion of the modern world. Or at the very least its scientific community subset. Rejecting God (and God within), the atheist needs his aliens.

Stämningsbild

 

 

Folkets vilja är min vetenskap

En del intressanta poänger här. Är det själva tanken att klimatkrisen faktiskt går att lösa som är "populistisk"? 

Observera dock att författaren inte vågar dra konsekvenserna av sitt tal om "hopplösheten". 

När det väl kommer till kritan är han (hen?) lika "populistisk" som alla andra...   

Klimatet räddas inte av blind tilltro till forskare