Comments on: Great Extermination, Big Nation, Little Minds?

By: Patrice Ayme

Patrice Ayme — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 01:17:37 +0000

Adam: Some will say that there has been, there is, billions of Jews. Technically, “Islam” (whatever that is) and “Christianity” (a little bit better defined than Islam, but still quite varied) are heresies of Judaism. We looked in a mirror, and we found we were the ones…
As I pointed out in https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/beat-beast-eats-middle-east/, A magnificent mosque in Jerusalem sits on Mount Zion, making Muslims into Zionists…

This being said, would you please give an example of “dirty work” done by others? (The Iraq invasion does not qualify, as it was mostly, obviously, the work of Bush and his advisers, none of them Jews, to my knowledge… OK, I don’t know everything….)
I am not trying to be sarcastic, I really wonder… OK, the Rothschild financed the Brits when they engaged in aggression against France, starting in 1792… But the rothschilds did not seem to have had Judaic aims, just plutocratic ones… And they were so cynical about them, that they could be viewed as loudly critical of this financial system we still have…
PA

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:42:52 +0000

Patrice said:

As far as anti-Judaism. There was never billions of Jews, and the confused nature of Judaism, truly a debate on their god, has never connected to vast military dictatorial theocratic empires”.

It just makes me shudder with horror —- what if there were “billions” of jews. Jews (Israeli powers) never needed a debate on their god to “connect” to vast military dictatorial theocratic empires. They use others to do their “dirty work”.

Hope your readers of my post, think deep and honest before labeling me “Jew hater” because I am not.
Adam.

By: Patrice Ayme

Patrice Ayme — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 15:15:42 +0000

Thank you Martin! I never claimed to be easy to swallow. Actually, quite the opposite: really new philosophy is generally found impossible to swallow, and that is why so many philosophers were executed. The symbolic summum being probably that French philosopher who was burned alive on a pile of his books, during the half century of religious wars all over France (16C).
The idea that her own religion cast a lethal spell on Carthage is completely new (although probably implicit already in Flaubert?). The same applies clearly to the Celts. But, because of the vastness of the Celtic ensemble, its many nations, and the extent of its meta religious habits, the Celts did not mind at all that their own basic religion was removed from them… That was smart.
BTW, when I see something interesting on the Internet, I copy it, for further reading or reference later…

You have to point at a government window everyday? Figuratively speaking? I think that unemployment is a grave social problem connected directly to the rise of plutocracy. Rome is the reference there. It invented it all, including why people were unemployed, what it brought to plutocracy, and, of course, welfare to hold it all together. massive unemployment as we have nowadays, is what plutocracy needs to flourish and justify its existence. A carbon tax would reduce it considerably, so plutocracy thinks a carbon tax is not good.
PA

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 08:59:31 +0000

That all sounds very interesting but, like you, I only have 24 hours in a day… I am sure those who do not have to give a daily account of their actions to the government (N.B. I am unemployed not on day-release from prison) will take the time to read it all. I may do so; but will have to spread the investment of time over a few days… For the benefit of other readers of your blog (i.e. those attempting to swallow it whole), I would recommend opening a duplicate window – then you can read the post in one; and type your comments into another.

By: Patrice Ayme

Patrice Ayme — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:53:35 +0000

Dear Martin: If you want to under-stand me, you have to under-stand my ideas. That means to understand which reasons and facts lead to these ideas. This is the method one has to use with people who think on their own, rather than regurgitate what they are supposed, they believe, to regurgitate.

I have no religion, but for the truth, to the best of my knowledge, and I try to make the latter as good as possible.

For example I have a 5,500 words essay on religion coming. It explores little known ground on religion in Carthage, Gaul and the Imperium Francorum, let alone Islam. I actually nearly cut out the Carthage part to put it in a separate essay. But it’s really part of a whole. And the whole has very practical consequences, for war, today, tomorrow, against what, and how much.

OK, it’s big, it’s long, it’s complicated. But so is the world.

Last point: Socrates did not care about being understood as an individual. No true philosopher does. Socrates cared about his arguments being understood. My case is worse than Socrates, or Nietzsche, because I inject a maximum quantity of facts (for example from history). It’s not all about little logical games and incestuous literary criticism (as all too much ‘philosophy’ is nowadays).

Philosophers do not want to be believed as the god Jesus wanted to be. It’s not about me me me me (as Jesus was, when he did not obsess about his dad or his dreams). Philosophy is about the truth. A better truth.
PA

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:16:12 +0000

Thanks Patrice. There is only one reason I sent the email (which was out of respect for your privacy). To the extent that you have done, I am grateful to you for answering my questions. As I have said, I am not trying to annoy you; only to understand you – and to do so without having to read everything you have ever written and then piece it all together like some giant jigsaw.

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:10:53 +0000

Thanks Patrice. I did not set out to upset you; I have just found it hard to understand you.

By: Patrice Ayme

Patrice Ayme — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:23:51 +0000

Dear Martin: I do not accept personal mail, as part of a public debate. Once a public debate is started, it should keep on being public. This site is not a dating service. This is an intellectual and spiritual site.

One of the reason being that days have only 24 hours. Another reason is that going from public to ad hominem is just inappropriate. You, in particular, have been known to transform philosophical debates in personal attacks, without clear connections between the former and the latter.

Still another reason is that I have declined to give conferences, so I do not see why I should give private tutoring. As a teacher, I am used to teach to many at once, and the Internet is the ultimate device for this. There are 7 billions of us, it’s not just about me me me me, and you you you you. I also have to teach my daughter, privately.
PA

By: Patrice Ayme

Patrice Ayme — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:13:14 +0000

Martin: As you want me to answer you, here it is.

I am commenting some texts that have been viewed as important by billions of innocents. I am not out to criticize particular individuals.

As far as anti-Judaism. There was never billions of Jews, and the confused nature of Judaism, truly a debate on their god, has never connected to vast military dictatorial theocratic empires. Xtianism and Islamism did, and still do. BTW, I belong to a family of “Just”, so anti-Judaism is not exactly my cup of tea.

What this historian concluded is well known, and can be read on my site, years ago. Written Arabic did not even fully exist when the qur’an was ‘written”, and it was not written by Muhammad, but long after his death. All this has been known since 660 CE.
PA

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:07:16 +0000

Thanks Patrice – I have emailed my response.