Pax Orbis

I just saw on YouTube an interview to Bjarne Stroustrup. Stroustrup began developing C++ in 1979 (then called “C with Classes”),  and, in his own words, “invented C++, wrote its early definitions, and  produced its first implementation… chose and formulated the design  criteria for C++, designed all its major facilities, and was responsible  for the processing of extension proposals in the C++ standards  committee.” Stroustrup also wrote a textbook for the language in 1985,  The C++ Programming Language. The thing I found most interesting was the assertion by  Stroustrup that higher levels of abstraction (or maybe the right level?)  produces more compact and efficient code. There are two things that  need to be matched, on one side the idea of what needs to be done, that  is in the mind of the programmer, on the other side is the machine  instructions that are executed by the computer. The function of the  programming language, or rather the compiler, is to allow the programmer  to express his idea clearly, so that the optimizer will produce an  executable that its reliable, efficient, and that corresponds to the  idea of the programmer. According to Stroustrup, reliability and efficiency are systems  properties, and the way to achieve them is by simplification. The  central idea is to have a flexible and effective type implementation  that allows the programmer to match the types of his application to his  needs without a performance penalty.

A US army manual says, fair enough, that terror is the calculated use of  violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious  ideological goals through intimidation,coercion, or instilling fear.  That’s terrorism. If you take a look at the definition of Low-Intensity Warfare, which is  official US policy, you find that it is just another name for terrorism.  That’s why all countries call whatever horrendous acts they are  carrying out, counter-terrorism. In December 1987, at the peak of the first war on terrorism, that’s when  the furor over the plague was peaking, The United Nations General  Assembly passed a very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning  the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every state to fight  against it in every possible way. It passed unanimously. One country,  Honduras, abstained. Two votes against; the usual two, United States and  Israel. Why should the United States and Israel vote against a major  resolution condemning terrorism in the strongest terms, in fact pretty  much the terms that the Reagan administration was using? Well, there is a  reason. There was one paragraph in that long resolution which said that  nothing in this resolution infringes on the rights of people struggling  against racist and colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation  to continue with their resistance with the assistance of others, other  states, states outside in their just cause. Well, the United States and  Israel can’t accept that. There was another one at the time. Israel  was occupying Southern Lebanon and was being combated by what the US  calls a terrorist force, Hizbullah, which in fact succeeded in driving  Israel out of Lebanon.

BloombergBusiness reported a sharp uptick in crime rates among senior citizens around the  world. In South Korea for example, crimes committed by people 65 and  over rose 12.2 percent from 2011 to 2013, which includes a shocking 40  percent increase in violent crime, such as murder, robbery, and rape,  according to the Korea Times.

Every day, 100 Americans are killed by gun violence, and hundreds  more are injured. While most of these shootings are not in public  schools, children safety at school is a major concern. Gun control  measures are currently political non-starters and people are turning to  palliatives like bulletproof backpacks among other desperate solutions  in an attempt to protect their children. Sales of bulletproof backpacks have spiked almost 300 percent  following a  spate of school shootings and the recent attacks in El  Paso, Texas, and  Dayton, Ohio. Yet, none of the backpacks currently on the market would  have stopped a single rifle round coming from those gunmen.

Eagle (Arn) is a symbol of leadership and forsight but man knows that his roots are closer to the wolf. The wolf is very dear to man and represent the purity of heart he has lost in his quest  for  godness. The wolf is a loner that fights to death for the clan if  need comes. Gray wolves are  social predators that live in nuclear families consisting of a mated  pair, their offspring and, occasionally, adopted immature wolves. They  primarily feed on ungulates, which they hunt by wearing them down in short chases. Gray wolves are typically apex predators throughout their range, with only humans and tigers posing significant threats to them. The genetic relationship between wolves and dogs was elucidated by  Robert WAYNE and Carles VILÀ, opening the possibility that the split  between wolves and dogs may date back as far as 135,000 years before  present. Such  a long common history of dogs and modern humans begs the question as to  the dog’s part in the endeavor of humans to take control of the world,  and led to the formulation of a hypothetical “lupification” of human  behavior, habits, and even ethics. There is something in the bond among wolves and between dogs and  humans that goes beyond that between us and our closest primate  relatives, the chimpanzees. Here we are not talking about intelligence,  but about what we may poetically associate with kindness of heart. Wolves were pack animals. They survive as a result of teamwork. They  hunt together, den together, raise pups together. This ancient social  order has been helpful in the domestication of the dog. Chimpanzees are  individualists. They are boisterous and volatile in the wild. They are  always on the lookout for opportunities to get the better of each other.  They are not pack animals. If you watch wolves within a pack, nuzzling  each other, wagging their tails in greeting, licking and protecting the  pups, you see all the characteristics we love in dogs, including  loyalty. If you watch wild chimps, you see the love between mother and  offspring, and the bonds between siblings. Other relationships tend to  be opportunistic. And even between family members, disputes often rise  that may even lead to fights. The good relationship as we have with our dogs is not related to  intelligence, but to the desire to help, to be obedient, to gain our  approval.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his 1841 essay Compensation,  wrote: “In the order of nature we cannot render benefits to those from  whom we receive them, or only seldom. But the benefit we receive must be  rendered again, line for line, deed for deed, cent for cent, to  somebody.” In 1916, Lily Hardy Hammond wrote, “You don’t pay love back; you pay it forward.” Woody Hayes (February  14, 1913 – March 12, 1987) was a college football coach who is best  remembered for winning five national titles and 13 Big Ten championships  in 28 years at The Ohio State University.  He misquoted Emerson as having said “You can pay back only seldom. You  can always pay forward, and you must pay line for line, deed for deed,  and cent for cent.” He also shortened the (mis)quotation into “You can  never pay back; but you can always pay forward” and variants.

My grandfather Justino was the Benjamin of a long list of siblings.  The older ones were more surrogate parents than brothers and sisters. The records show that he was born in Cameron County, Texas, in 1897,  however the family folklore says he falsified the records to enlist for  World War I when he was a minor. Justino grew up in San Benito, a  typical Texas town of the beginning of the twentieth century, where the  railroad tracks marked the segregation boundary, on one side was San  Benito, for Texans and Mexicans, and on the other, was Harlingen, for  the new conquerors. Grandpa’s family had been in Texas for over two hundred years and  they were Mexican in the sense that Texas was once part of Mexico. My  grandfather would refer to himself as Texan, without qualifications, to Mexican migrants as “pelones” and to the invaders as “gabachos.”

 Settler-colonial societies eliminate the indigenous population. Thomas Jefferson said, well, we have no choice but to exterminate the indigenous population, the Native Americans; the reason is they’re attacking us. Why are they attacking us? Because we’re taking everything away from them. But since we’re taking their land and resources away and they defend themselves, we have to exterminate them. The settler-colonial societies are a striking illustration of, first of all, the massive destructive power of European imperialism. If some extraterrestrial observer were watching this, they’d think the species was insane. And, in fact, it is. But the insanity goes back to the basic institutional structure. That’s the way it works. It’s built into the institutions. It’s one of the reasons it’s going to be very hard to change. The U.S. was founded on two racist principles: the system of slavery, the source of much of its wealth (and England’s too), and the need to rid the national territory of Native Americans, whom the Declaration of Independence explicitly describes as “the merciless Indian savages,” and whom the framers saw as barring the expansion of the “superior” race. Immigrants were supposed to be basically “Anglo-Saxon,” in accord with racist myths of the founding fathers that persisted through the 19th century.

Going “down the rabbit hole” has become a common metaphor in popular culture, symbolizing everything from exploring a new world, taking drugs, or delving into the unknown. (Think The Matrix, where “following the white rabbit” and later choosing the “red pill” starts Neo off on a journey of philosophical realization with no return.) InAlice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the rabbit hole is the place where it all begins. It’s Alice’s unthinking decision to follow the White Rabbit that leads to all her adventures. The pop culture version of this symbol perhaps doesn’t consider the “unthinking” nature of this choice quite enough. After all, Alice’s decision is foolhardy; if this weren’t a magical fantasyland, she’d probably be killed by the fall, she has no idea where she’s going, what she’s facing, or how to get home. Going down the rabbit hole is a one-way trip – the entry, but not the exit, to the fantasy world.

Humans are instinctively tribal and violent. However instinctive, the tribalism of targeted groups can be manipulated. For example, in my hometown, people have been divided into two groups according to soccer team allegiance. So how is it that something so important to our flourishing as a species — being part of a group, or tribe — is simultaneously one of the primary forces tearing the social fabric apart? At the core of tribalism is not truth, or objective reality, but beliefs. And the one thing you cannot do is reason anyone out of their beliefs. Beliefs are not arrived at with reason, and so cannot be dismantled by logic and data. The human mind has not developed or evolved to get to the truth but to stay safe. We use reason in order to get along with other people, to be part of a tribe, which in turn is crucial, not just to our sociable natures, but to survival itself. With survival at stake it is easy to see why the context of the tribe, and the safety it represents, matters more than logic. Because tribes represent safety in the most fundamental sense (survival), agreeing with the tribe is a safe default position for group members, even when it doesn’t make sense to do so. Humans are social animals, and it’s our natural instinct to be emphatic with others. It’s natural for us to bond by kinship. Unfortunately the same tribal instinct hampers our ability to recognize the essential and vital global brotherhood of man. We cling to nationality, religion, and many artificial walls we build around us that compromise our chances for long term survival (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/merry-xmas/). However, the feeling of group identity can be manipulated. To always have a favorite football team have been promoted as an essential part of our deep identity. But one has to be careful; it might not be healthful to display the wrong loyalty in the wrong bar.