Syria, Garden Of Torturous Delights

May 24, 2016

What is going on in Syria? A zoo of human passions, and traditional patterns of history. A war is going on. There are simple wars, and complex ones. Syria’s war started simple, one dictator against his subjects, and it is now very complex, having become the war of all against all.

Big Bombs: Western Coalition Air Strike, Syria, 2015. The Islamist State Buries Underground

Big Bombs: Western Coalition Air Strike, Syria, 2015. The Islamist State Buries Underground

Initially the calm and secular Syrian society came of age, and a consensus was reached: the hereditary dictator got to go. However, the dictator, a trained doctor, son of tough and crafty tyrant, did not want to go, and those attached to him, all the way to Western Europe, in particular the City of London, did not want to go. Chess, Go, and other games people play have rules. War does not. War’s limit as those of the human spirit.

Don’t believe me? Remember then the Obama’s administration “signature strikes”: killing gatherings because terrorists also gather. On the face of it, the theory was as barbarian as anything in known history. Even Genghis Khan’s forces would massacre, but only after a fair warning: ”Surrender, or we will massacre you!” Even the Nazis, who did worse in secret, on a much larger scale, did not dare claim to be as vicious, for all to see.

Thus, definitively, progress is not a quiet, long stream. Instead it can go in full reverse.

Actors in Syria are now many: much of the Western world is involved, including Russia. Yet the motivations of Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, US, Britain, France, Assad, etc.., are all different.

So what does Assad, initial master of that game, want? Initially, dictator Assad wanted just to stay in power, as all dictators do. But then, his strategy to free the Qur’an fundamentalists worked. He helped them, be it only by purchasing “their” oil, just like Turkey did (and sent back weapons, in the case of Erdogan; some people writing this in Turkey, got five years in jail, just for writing this…).

However, Assad is head of the Alawites. Alawites have their own Muslim religion. As the Qur’an promises to kill apostates and unbelievers, worshipping Mahomet and his god differently from one’s neighbor, is a grave, potentially lethal, fateful tragedy. Romeo and Juliet is nothing in comparison. The end result was that the Alawites were badly treated until the French showed up. Under the French, they quickly reached the highest spheres. Alawites have been reluctant to leave them ever since, especially considering that it’s not just a question of social status, but of survival.

Assad was able to get away with his savage repression of pacifist, secular civilians. Then he was able to get away with his manipulations of Islamists, freeing them and endowing them with enough power to become a justification to his brutal, homicidal rule.

Then a new mood surfaced: why not to just eradicate Non-Alawites?

How do I know (correctly guess) that such is the main motivation of Assad now? Too many strikes on schools and hospitals rather than enemy soldiers. That’s called reading between the facts.

So Assad is a monster, in the line of perfectly respectable historical monsters: just as Alexander the Great, or Little Father of the People Stalin, Assad sounds perfectly reasonable. Not to say that the “West” is not also an accomplice. In other words, it’s not just Putin who is a collaborator of genocide (Putin did save Palmyra, so he is not all bad… Far from it, on this subject).

And of course, Assad does not stand alone anymore than Hitler (or the Kaiser) did: when Cameron, France and the US stood ready to strike Assad, British MPs, copiously paid by the sort of fake prosperity the likes of Assad and his family bring to England, voted against striking him, blocking PM Cameron. Thus giving the pusillanimous Obama such cold feet, he had in turn to betray the French…

As we may see next, the mood of the so-called “West” is divided on the subject of striking monsters in a timely manner. In Syria as in many other places. Under the pretext of loud anti-”colonialism”, genocide is authorized… As it is perfectly compatible with the plutocratic doctrine, that evil should rule. Thus anti-”colonialism” is a fig leaf to hide the most significant naughty bits, namely free reins for torturous delights, hidden by tortuous denials.

Genocide of the mostly Sunni population of Syria is a delight many secretly savor. Too bad for the collateral damage.

Patrice Ayme’

Elevate The Games Of Thrones

May 23, 2016

Many people told me to watch “Game of Thrones”, that it was like my essays, full of gore and what not. Not to say: why not. A lot of why not. Why not, indeed? “Popular” “cultural” references to “Game of Thrones” are climbing up, I have to stay with the times, to engage in cultural combat.

So I watched Game of Thrones Season 1 and 2. It is indeed entertaining. Some elements of the Feudal moral code are well reproduced. The fact that explicit references to all too well-known world history (such as Christianism and Islamism) do not occur, is much appreciated.

On the other hand, so far, I see no references to religiously motivated human sacrifices, which were ubiquitous in all cults before the rise of writing (and even after, as in the Euro-Mediterranean case of Carthage and the Celts… and a tiny sprinkling of ancient Romans and Greeks).

“Games of Thrones” shows characters who seem to be significantly more complex than is usual in fiction. I read few novels, because I find usual fictional characters very low dimensional, and base, dealing with all too ordinary circumstances.(Although there are exceptions, most notably in sci-fi, of all places.) Reality always beat fiction to a fine pulp, and then burn it to a crisp:

Game of Thrones, The Old Fashion Way: Killing 300,000, to Save Millions. Hiroshima Uranium Bomb Left, Nagasaki, Plutonium Implosion Bomb, Right.

Game of Thrones, The Old Fashion Way: Killing 300,000, to Save Millions. Hiroshima Uranium Bomb Left, Nagasaki, Plutonium Implosion Bomb, Right.

Real history, on the other hand, is full of extremely complex characters, with very complex fates. Athenian history alone provides with many major characters with incredibly rich personalities, who moreover, had a tremendous impact on civilization through their actions: Draco, Solon, Themistocles, Pericles, Alcibiades, Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle. The lives of these people were those of superheroes, their fates complex and contradictory. As soon as one digs a bit, one finds other influences (say of major philosophers, some female, on Pericles and Socrates).

“Games of Thrones” is an effort in that direction. Some of the bad guys doing very bad things are actually deep and subtle in their analysis of the world.

The real world is worse than “Games Of Thrones”. Brutus is an example. I confess I did not read Shakespeare about Brutus. Why would I? What did a playwright such as Shakespeare know? Five centuries ago? Not much, and certainly not much beyond what the government of Queen Elizabeth wanted to hear. Because, if that government heard something it did not like, horrible punishments were ready on a whim.

So, to know Brutus, I did not go along the route many of those who claim to be literate have followed. After all, Shakespeare was a mental puppet of Elizabeth government, thus, those who learn the world through Shakespeare, become parrots of the puppet whose string were pulled by more or less virgin tyrant. Learning such teaching by rote is assuredly far removed from mastery of reality.

Not that Elizabeth was a tyrant, for tyranny’s sake, only. Among other contrarieties, she was in a world war with Philippe II, the fascist Catholic emperor of Spain. Spain had conquered the entire world. There was only one problem left: the French army, which, not only defended France, but also the Netherlands.

Subjugating England was going to help. After trying marriage, the Spanish Catholic fundamentalist tyrants tried brute force. England did not have much of an army, especially when comparing to the famous “Spanish Squares”, and did not have much of a fleet. But Sir Francis Drake and his colleagues were skilled, and lucky: they repelled the Gran Armada.

So Elizabeth could not be mild. And Shakespeare respected the lines she drew. (Just as Game of Thrones does!) It is under Queen Elizabeth that the “West Country Men” came to dominate the system of mind that brought British supremacy, and Bush to invade Iraq, to grab the oil (since the Geneva Convention was “quaint”!)

The real history of (Marcus Junius) Brutus was fascinating enough. He was long suspected to be Caesar’s son. But there is worse, and much more telling: Brutus was corrupt. At some point he was governor in Anatolia (present day Turkey), and he filled up his coffers industrially, to the point that he had to be recalled. He also got the trust of Senate in Cyprus, and then abused it by lending money to it at the extortionate rate of 48 percent and by using force to exact its payments.

Thus, Brutus could hardly pose as the moral hero he is often depicted to be. Like his co-conspirator Cassius, greed was probably his main motivation in assassinating Caesar (followed by the moral code of plutocracy, which is that the plutocrats deserve the world, and We The People, the Populares Caesar headed, nothing. Or, let’s say, the fact he did, condemn him in the eyes of history. And, indeed, when the Populus Romanus learned that the leader of the Populares, Caesar, had been treacherously assassinated in the Senate, the entire city of Rome was gloomy.

Caesar was the last, and best hope of the Republic. Some will say: but was not he himself corrupt, and the Senate wanted to charge him with war crimes in Gaul, for waging an extravagant war there, even against historical allies of Rome?

Yes. However, corruption is not as much the problem as what one does with it. The Clintons wanted to be nice to the most aggressive “money changers”, so they could fill their own coffers. Caesar wanted to conquer more than Alexander. As it turned out, that was exactly what the Roman Republic needed at the time.

To launch a huge war to the East, in the Orient, and present day Russia, Caesar needed peace at home, so he needed the sort of reforms the Gracchi had tried to make.

Caesar, though, was naive: he did not anticipate the depth of corruption in the likes of Brutus, who were ready for anything, to keep being able to splurge at the through. This is probably why, after blocking several strikes, Caesar gave up the fight, when he saw Brutus armed with a dagger. Caesar was shattered psychologically, by the extent of the mental corruption in plain evidence.

Thus it is why, when we contemplate corruption, in say the European Union, led by the likes of Jean-Claude Juncker, we have to show no mercy: corruption starts with money, and often ends with murder. The early Obama’s administration “signature strikes” are an example of murder which the (secret) decision of Jimmy Carter, on July 3, 1979, led to. Leading astray can take a while (Obama had the head of the Taliban executed in a drone strike over the weekend: this was not a “signature strike”, but a precise strike against a determined enemy of civilization, perfectly appropriate.

Another perfectly appropriate strike was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima: in tandem with the nuclear strike against Nagasaki, it finished the Second World War in less than a week. Yes tens of thousands of innocent people and children died (plus 35 US prisoners, some butchered in reprisal). However, that was the price of peace. Not dropping the bombs would have extended the war for months, with many millions of all ethnicities killed all over Japan, Korea, China. It also told the Soviets slaves to Stalin that an attack in Europe would bring the annihilation of Russian cities.

The Japanese found themselves in a monstrous war that their own emperor, following the game of throne there, had engaged in. Today, US president Obama goes to Hiroshima. Let all those who feel otherwise, be reminded that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima is entangled with the vicious war Japanese plutocracy engaged in, during the 1930s. That war itself was an enormous crime, which assassinated more than 30 million people outside of Japan (latest numbers). Few Japanese, relatively speaking, died: around two million soldiers, mostly through disease, and less than one million Japanese civilians (including the spectacular fire bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo).

The nuclear bomb program was launched by the French in January 1938. And the goal was to nuclear bomb Nazi Germany. After a lot of James Bond like action, for real, from France to Norway, the bomb was not ready soon enough to smash Nazi impudence and violence against civilization. However, The Bomb snuffed the top Japanese military arrogance. The top Japanese General had written poems expressing his desire to see one hundred million Japanese lives cut like flowers in bloom. It did not happen because fissioning the atom went straight through Bushido, the art of the Samurai. The emperor on his throne finally had an excuse to brandish the futility of it all (once he was told he could keep… his throne). The top General tried a coup, which failed, and then seppuku, which worked.

Two moral atrocities, the nuclear bombings of Japan, were morally optimal., in the greater scheme of systems of minds. Polls actually support this view, worldwide, and even in Japan, atomic survivor want no apology. Those who should apologize are those who engineered the attack of Japan onto the world (in French Indochina alone, the Japanese military attack killed two millions). And those who support ideas and moods conducive to this sort of aggression. They are the ones who got all these children killed.

We need to change the nature of the game of thrones. Instead of having particular humans sitting on a throne, with considerable powers, after spending a huge amount of energy to get there, we need to learn to sit ideas on a throne, fight for those, and spend considerable energy debating them.

If you want peace, make ideas fight each other, until the best win, until the best win, in the fair fight which makes understanding grow.

Patrice Ayme’


May 18, 2016

Demolishing The Quantum COPENHAGEN MISINTERPRETATION With Its Own Instruments:

The nature of reality fascinate true philosophers. Do we have to understand the Quantum to understand dreams? The naive will say no. But, well, in truth, probably. The brain is no analogue computer, it’s a QUANTUM computer. So, to understand dreams, one has to try to understand the quantum. However, to go deeper than the foundations of physics is, by definition, to suggest new physics.

I have said for years, nay many decades, that Quantum Waves are real, and obsolete physics are not. OK, just kidding, obsolete physics is heavy. I should not joke: physicists are rarely amused about the foundations of physics: they know they don’t work.

Universe Is Not Empty: It’s Full Of Stiff, Superluminal Quantum Waves

Universe Is Not Empty: It’s Full Of Stiff, Superluminal Quantum Waves

[The picture, made in 2013 by a fundamental physics institute in the Netherlands, was obtained by statistical sampling. Some call that technique a “Quantum Microscope”.]

Quantum Waves are of course real objects. Proof? Well, experimental proofs are coming.

However, I will roll here a slick philosophical proof which I have seen, or even alluded to, nowhere. It’s disarmingly simple, of the order, in the way of baffling simplicity, of the celebrated, 26 centuries old, “this sentence is false” (the precise mathematical dressing of that brain twister is known as the first Godel Incompleteness Theorem).

The first mention of the Copenhagen Interpretation was in Heisenberg’s 1930 book on Quantum Mechanics which, he wrote, “contributes somewhat to the diffusion of that ‘Kopenhagener Geist der Quantentheorie’ [i.e., Copenhagen spirit of quantum theory] if I may so express myself, which has directed the entire development of modern atomic physics”.

So here I am fighting a “spirit” (“Geist”). (When confronted to the De Broglie-Bohm theory in the 1950s, the ex-Nazi Heisenberg called the “Copenhagen Geist” and “Interpretation”… a term he came to regret… Nowadays, people attached to sanity have to fight the “Many Worlds”/”Multiverse” Interpretation, a collective madness worse than smoking.)

Even the most closed minded physicist recognizes that (“elementary”) particles are (“somewhat”) real. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, the property of “wave” and that of “particle” are viewed as “dual” or “complementary” (one or the other).

However the Copenhagen Interpretation then proceeds to contradict said duality. Indeed, if the wave-particle duality is correct (as the Copenhagenists claim), then obviously, if particles are real (something has got to be real!), then surely waves are real.

However the Born Interpretation of the Quantum waves is that they are PROBABILITY waves. But a probability wave is not real. Hence a blatant, fuming, red hot, grotesque, contradiction.

This is an extremely elementary philosophical reasoning, however, it seems to have escaped ALL the physicists who considered the subject. (Do parrots think? Yes, they do… all the same.)

Reciprocally, if one admits that the real world is really made, somehow of particles, then the reasoning I just made suggests that the Quantum Waves are real.

Here is a completely independent demonstration of the latter: it turns out matter is mostly, all the time, launched in dynamical quantum processes. Actually most of the mass is generated by quick motions of quarks and gluons within hadrons, thanks to Poincaré’s relationship, Energy = Mass (“E = mc2”) . During these displacements, matter is under the form of Quantum Waves (or of dynamical quantum fields, as some will want to say, to sound real cool). An example is electronic orbitals in atoms: they have substance… because they are delocalized waves. Thus, matter is clearly made, 99.999% of the time, of delocalized quantum waves.

Patrice Ayme’

Phobias: Trump, France, Islam, Electric Hydrogen

May 17, 2016

PC Thoughtlessly Sinking In Seas Of Protest:

The heckling and howling of do-gooders, Politically Correct critters, pseudo-leftists, false liberals, corrupt economists, government fed plutocrats, and would-be thinkers go on against Soon-To-Be-Elect President Trump, is part of much more general phenomenon. Before I get into that, let me finish with Hillary Clinton. Her latest hare brained plan is to have Bill, her husband, named special economic adviser. Bill is the guy who destroyed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Banking Act of 1933, and brought back the reign of Wall Street and other conspiring financiers of the worst type. I am sure the hilarious one will gather even more moss form Wall Street’s great sharks.

Thankfully perhaps, she will not be elected: the, just as hare brained plan of her corrupt supporters is to have the hilarious one win the states where she defeats Bernie Sanders. Which states are those? The “conservative” states. The so-called “Red States”, the states where… Republicans generally win. You know, states like Georgia, where Trump is already 4% ahead of Clinton in the polls…

Forget Electric, Bring In Fuel Cell Hydrogen. In Paris, Only Hyundai Is Cooperative, So Far.

Forget Electric, Bring In Fuel Cell Hydrogen. In Paris, Only Hyundai Is Cooperative, So Far.

What’s the connection between corrupt politicians and hydrogen cars? Well, corruption, precisely.

The brutal switch of the Obama administration out of hydrogen fuel cells (a genuinely American technology), as I said at the time, can only be attributed to corruption.

Clinton, the hysteria against President Trump (I am training to say the two words together, it’s hard) are animated, just as Brexit is, by some of the planet’s worst operatives, the brokers, hedge fund managers, one could even the say the head funds managers, as they manage the heads of politicians.

Not everybody is fooled by the Brexit madness: normal banks view Brexit as a much bigger crisis than anything they have seen before, and it is. Boris Johnson, the fat clown who wants to be British PM, just like his ex-classmate, David Cameron, now claims he wants to turn Britain into “Britzerland”. An interesting statement, demonstrating the self-mortification of Brexiters, as Switzerland is little more than a puppet state whose strings are pulled in Brussels. But never mind.

People can be fooled only that long. And the same holds in France, the USA’s sister republic, stuck on the old, incontinent continent.

Ever thought of why the Obama administration decided to deploy electric cars? Well, corruption, obviously. I am not saying Obama was personally corrupt. The poor little one had so many things to think about, moving the huge ship of state with a scooter’s engine. But some of his advisers, clearly were.

What is the advantage of electric cars? No pollution when operating, eerily completely silent from inside, powerful acceleration. However, as recently as last Sunday, coming out of an impressive mountain run (I self-impress), I left the dirt to get on a steep country road. Running down at an amazing speed, I suddenly heard a huge din behind me, ever louder. Car! Car coming, general alert! I squeezed to the left side, ready to jump back in the bush, and finally, after long seconds of aurally positioning the heavy, noisy vehicle, let pass a majestic Tesla Model S. Not the most discreet car, that Tesla Model S. I drive a Blue Tech Diesel, five person car with an 800 kilometer, 500 miles range. It’s bigger inside than the Tesla Model S, smaller outside (from experience and official measurements).

Electric cars are very heavy because of their batteries. And it turns out that this weight creates a lot of pollution. A study by the University of Edinburgh shows this.

So what is the solution? HYDROGEN! There is no solution of the GreenHouse Gas (GHG) crisis without creating a massive hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen will allow to store renewable energy.

As far as cars, planes, trains are concerned, compressed hydrogen has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg. Lithium ion batteries have an energy density of 0.6 MJ/kg. That’s 236 times as much energy per kg for hydrogen. Hydrogen cars refuel in 3 minutes to full. They cost less to make. Hydrogen cars mass is far less mass than that of electric vehicles (no more than 10% above the gasoline case).

The Politically Correct has long gone half insane. Not to say some of the madness is not fruitful. But the worst, in Europe, has long been Islamophilia. According to the Islamophiles, Islamophobia is racism. Thus, the more Islam, the better, no?

The National Front blocked Black M, a rapper, to sing in Verdun. The singer was outraged: didn’t his grandfather fight in World War One? Yes, little one. However, that little one, called France a country of “Kouffars” (= Kuffars, Kafirs), a country of “miscreants”. In Islam, “miscreants” are sub-citizens (to put it mildly). They don’t have all the rights, they have to pay a special tax. If they have intercourse with a Muslim woman, get caught, they die, etc..From recent Wahhabist behavior, being a “miscreant” is worth of the death penalty.

The ignorant Black M wanted to celebrate Verdun, by augmenting the hatred against French secularism, and thus, the French in general. Black  M is a mental dwarf, he needed to be taught, And he was taught, by the National Front. The National Front intervened with dignity. Finally the mayor of Verdun rescinded the invitation, and a hefty compensation of 47,000 Euros, for the insulter of civilization to sing in front of Merkel and the French president.


650,000 soldiers died in Verdun, in combat, over a few months, including 350,000 French soldiers who successfully defended the Republic against the fascist, ignorant, robotized, emotionally deprived, monstrously deluded horde of genuine, sophisticated, literate, and literal, barbarians.

Merkel, Chancellor of the German Republic, sister to the French Republic, is going to Verdun to celebrate the victory of the Republic, it’s not to hear a hater of civilization vomit on it, on a stage.

All of this knowledge completely eludes an idiot “socialist” woman who is minister of culture (supposedly, it’s a crime to insult a minister of the French Republic; however, it’s a duty to insult those who destroy civilization, like this idiot did). She called the controversy “nauseabonde” (sickening), bringing immediately millions more votes to the National Front… What’s sickening is that the Pope can come and attack laicity (secularism) in France, and the government does not react to this implicit alliance with the fanatics. The gov should have recalled the ambassador to the Vatican (which was created as a state by Charlemagne, no less)…

As the mess builds up, more and more voters can see that strong solutions are needed. True, Islam has lots of followers. So did Bolshevism. Here is the Nobel Prize in literature, 1950:

“Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world. Their founders would not have resisted the third of the temptations in the wilderness. What Mohammedanism did for the Arabs, Bolshevism may do for the Russians. As Ali went down before the politicians who only rallied to the Prophet after his success, so the genuine Communists may go down before those who are now rallying to the ranks of the Bolsheviks.” – Bertrand Russell in “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism.” (1920)

Well, that was prophetic. Bolshevism brought only the reign of “Stalin”, the man of steel who started as a Christian professional (as Heidegger did, or as the guy who gave his ideas to Mahomet), and professional gangster. Stalin then made an alliance with the Nazis, against the French Republic, which later backfired.

Awareness is a complicated matter.

Patrice Ayme’


May 16, 2016

Sorry for those who cling to the notion of “Politically Correct” like rats do, with a sinking ship. This title is probably rather discombobulating for them. I will justify it thereafter. Yes, it can be smart to ignore much. Yes, it can be cruel and vicious to be naïve. Yes, it can be enlightened, to hate.

Yet, what does the Dark Side thinks of the text “Vous n’aurez pas ma haine/You will not have my hatred”? Does it smirk? Or does it approve of the text, totally? Surely, the latter. The technique advised by Leiris, a selective shut down of one’s mental, not to say neurological, system, is a basic functionality the Dark Side needs to operate, selective attention. There are indeed, neurological reasons for it.

Leiris’ text explores, advocates and celebrates, a crucial, actually life saving, strategy. It is a neurophilosophical approach. That is a neurological approach endorsed by the most sophisticated philosophy, as I will explain presently.

One can go much beyond what La Rochefoucauld smartly observed, more than three centuries ago.

All & Any Human Behavior Can, & Should, Be Used In All The Many Ways Circumstances May Require, For The Greater Good, Of The Greatest Sentience.

All & Any Human Behavior Can, & Should, Be Used In All The Many Ways Circumstances May Require, For The Greater Good, Of The Greatest Sentience.

The key observation is that one can be of many minds, on many things. More exactly, the brain can, and has to, use different Modi Operandi, according to circumstances.


The American People Is Too Naïve For Adult Material:

Is the preceding too ethereal, theoretical, vaporous, nothing to do with day-to-day reality? President Bush, the invader of Iraq, removed 28 pages of the official report on the 9/11 attack. Why? CIA Director John Brennan appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, on May 1, 2016, arguing that the 28 pages should not be released because the American people are incapable of evaluating them. Americans are incapables.

Brennan explained: “I think some people may seize upon that uncorroborated, unvetted information that was in there that was basically just a collation of this information that came out of FBI files, and to point to Saudi involvement, which I think would be very, very inaccurate.” High caste Saudis, of course had nothing to do with 9/11, as demonstrated by the fact that Bush ran several flights to allow them to flee the USA when no plane was allowed to fly, inside, or out of the US.

Brennan in his stupidity, let it slip by denying it: it is known Saudi “civil servants” seem to have help the Islamists of 9/11. That would be no surprise: the SIA and CIA activated Bin Laden, and launched him as a terrorist.

Not only naivety has a Dark Side, but it can be imposed on We The People.


Forgetfulness Can Be A Lifesaver:

When one fights for survival, nothing should matter to the brain, but for activity conducive to said survival. Neurological concentration on the situation can become close to 100%.

What happens in ultra emergency? Time stretches, while the brain mobilizes well beyond 100% (namely neurons, including motor neurons obviously work beyond their normal maximum. Thus superhuman strength and reflexes). The brain is fully in survival mode, and has no thought considered, only strategy implemented. Even sensations not useful for survival are not felt, especially pain.

This is what Mr. Leiris advocates, on the mental level. He excludes from his mind all what is not conducive to provide his son with what the baby needs, a maximally loving environment, even in harrowing circumstances. .

Had I been exactly in Antoine Leiris’ circumstances, I would have actually embraced the same mental strategy. I know, because I have already been in similar circumstances, where my mind had to concentrate absolutely: I was caught in avalanches twice, and saved my life through action which was nothing short of incredible, and resulted from extreme mental concentration. Once, an improvised Explosive Device was thrown on me by some fascists and exploded on a gentleman just in front, who acted as an unwitting human shield. from terrorism.

Why? Because at this point the brain has become god, master of life and death. Its mission is only about survival, whether insuring that of the brain, or the termination of the survival of the adversary. How does the brain focus on survival? It decides what the universe is. And it operates with an extremely simplified version of the universe, and not just of the universe of consideration. The brain also admits only a simplified version of the universe of sensation. The universe of sensations which matters for survival. The rest plain does not exist, because it is outright not perceived.


Naivety Is Part Of The Dark Side:

Naivety can be very useful. But naivety can also kill, has killed, and nearly got me a few times. Naivety is what enables much nefariousness to produce evil industrially. Reconsider Mr. Brennan, the CIA chief, above: why is he allowed to think We The People are a bunch of unteachable idiots, hopelessly infantile, a danger to ourselves, while keeping his job?

In “You will not have my hatred“, Mr. Leiris says that, sometimes, hatred is better left out of it. Is that a new idea? No. The idea is actually central to Christiano-Islamism.

Ironically, the Qur’an reminds us every few lines that “Allah is merciful” (however, it’s not clear we should be merciful too). That obsession, that Allah forgives all day long, was directly inherited from Christianism… Where, indeed, the faithful has to be merciful.

As there is much I dislike in Islamism and Christianism, does this mean I dislike all their concepts? Far from it. I actually love a beautiful mosque or church.

And I love mercifulness. Not just because it’s pretty, but also because it’s necessary.

I think mercifulness is totally fundamental. Mercifulness is not just wise: it’s a fundamental part of the behavior of any social animal. It’s a code to correct errors. A small human group could not function without an error correcting code. The name of that code is mercifulness.

But does that mean that hatred unworthy always? No. Far from it.


And what does “hatred” consists of, anyway?

Let’s suppose something that has happened before, on more than one continent: Patrice is out there, trying to terminate a cockroach infestation. Cockroaches are smart, fast and flat: they can squeeze in the smallest crack in the blink of an eye. So here I am, trying to kill lots of cockroaches, in all sizes from one millimeter to several centimeters. Am I animated by hatred? No. I am just concentrated on all the possibilities, the thinnest cracks. So, to commit mass murder, hatred is not necessary.

So what does hatred consist of? When is it called for? Why is it so bad? Well, the answers are rather surprising.

Hatred is called for, when it is needed. Hatred does not happen by accident. Hatred is, often a supplement of passion needed for an otherwise unsavory task. Faced with something objectively really bad, hatred is not called for. No need for hatred to eliminate mosquitoes. Hatred is needed when other passions are in the way, and these passions prevent the accomplishment of what is viewed, deep down, as a necessary task. For example, when common sense and decency are in the way. But not only. It could be love which is preventing the accomplishment of a needed task.

For example, the Nazis needed hatred to launch the Second World War. They needed the hatred to overwhelm decency, basic common sense, and whatever humanity they still harbored. However, as the war went on, the attitude of the top Nazis, say towards the French, changed. The Nazis did not need hatred anymore: the war was long launched, and was not going well. However, hatred was now in the way of many behaviors the Nazis needed to see deployed such as decency, mercifulness, common sense, humanity… and the more so, the more the war was turning against them. Well before the end, the top Nazis started to disobey Hitler’s orders.

In the end, even Himmler negotiated with the Swedes to save… Jews (they saved thousands!). It’s not just that Himmler was trying to save his precious skin from the cyanide pill in his mouth. It’s also that hatred was not needed anymore.

Hatred against the Islamist Pseudo State is obviously not needed. There is no love, decency, or common sense in the way, which we need to overcome, to accomplish the task at hand. Eradication will be plenty enough.

Finally, the president should tell the CIA that it is naïve, haughty and cruel,  to consider the American People too naïve, ignorant and malevolent, for the truth, while hoping that they are going to  live with that contempt and the trampling of their right to know, much longer.

Patrice Ayme’



“You Will Not Have My Hatred”

May 14, 2016

Six months ago, the Wahhabist attacks in Paris killed and wounded 500. The number of victims to get financial compensation from the state is now 2,500. A young mother, one of many, including many that some would define as “Muslims”, was killed at the Bataclan, a well-known theater, where a Californian band was performing. She was perforated by bullets. Her husband of 12 years, Antoine Leiris, was watching at home their 17 months old son. The world has been talking about Antoine Leiris’ mood and system of thought.

Hours after the tragedy, Antoine Leiris posted the following touching and admirable thoughts and feelings on Facebook, which became “viral”:

“Friday night you stole the life of a being of exception, the love of my life, the mother of my son. But you will not have my hatred. I don’t know who you are and I don’t want to know it, you’re dead souls. If this God for whom you kill blindly, made us in his image, then every bullet in the body of my wife will have been a wound in his heart.

So no. I won’t make you the gift of hating you. You looked for it well, yet to respond to your hatred by anger would be giving in to the same ignorance that has made you what you are. You want me to be afraid, you want me to look at my fellow citizens with suspicion, that I sacrifice my freedom for security. You lost. The same player is still playing.

Helene Muyal Leiris with Her Son Shortly Before She Was Assassinated By Islamists In Paris

Helene Muyal Leiris with Her Son Shortly Before She Was Assassinated By Islamists In Paris

I saw her this morning. At last, after nights and days of waiting. She was as beautiful as when she left that Friday night, as beautiful as when I fell head over heels in love with her more than 12 years ago. Of course I’m devastated by grief. I’ll grant this small victory, but it will not last long. I know she will be with us every day and that we will meet again in this paradise of free souls that you’ll never have access to.

We are two, my son and me, but we are stronger than all the armies of the world. I do not have anymore time to devote to you, I have to be with Melvil who is waking up from his nap. He is barely seventeen months old. He is going to eat his afternoon snack, as he does everyday. Then we will play as we do everyday, and during his entire life, this little boy will make you the affront to be happy and free. Because no, you will not have his hatred either.”

Antoine Leiris


For the original French version, see Facebook “Vous N’Aurez Pas Ma Haine”.

Mr. Leiris has now a vocal version of his message, and has been spreading his philosophy.


So what do I think of this?

Sometimes, silence is the best discourse. Respect, sometimes, is best. But I can only take that much:

Naivety Springs, Eternal. But Eternity Did Not Spring From Naivety Alone.

Naivety Springs, Eternal. But Eternity Did Not Spring From Naivety Alone.

Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Mr. Leiris is apparently confusing Christianism and Islamism. Same god, but there are subtle differences. In Christianism, we have been created in the image of god, indeed. Whereas in the direct Qur’an, we are his slaves. And in the Qur’an, it is ordered to “set every ambush” for the Non-Believers. Such is the “Verse of the Sword”, Sura 5, verse 9, an ABROGATING verse (meaning it makes all verses which contradict it, invalid). Sura 5, verse 9 follows Luke 19; 27 in the New Testament, showing that Christian viciousness inspired many, and far away, for centuries to come (a Christian monk arguably set the basis of Islam in the mind of his close relative, the “Prophet”, PBUH).

When god is nuts, naivety is no long term strategy.


So what do I think of this avalanche of haughty goodness? Well, it’s a long story. I can see perfectly why Mr. Leiris decided to feel, and think, the way he did. I approve of it. It is a defense mechanism which I have, myself, used many times. Hatred is too serious a subject to be embraced frivolously.

Thus, surprisingly for some, no doubt, ignoring hatred is  not a fundamental contradiction from what I deeply advocate. As it turns out, a fundamental debate of the same sort happened during the establishment of the state of Israel.

Same as Israel, or Julius Caesar, a creature born of many subtleties will have many Modi Operandi. Everybody has many Modi Operandi. Real, habitual, virtual, potential… Like everybody else, it turns, out, but even more than everybody else, a would-be philosopher will cultivate perversely an exuberant garden of Modi Operandi (Modes of Operation in Latin; Airbus, a company which makes large flying computers uses a more arrogant concept than M.O., the word “law”. Boeing is affected my the same syndrome. Changing “laws” inappropriately will make a plane crash).

Antoine Leiris’ text is beautiful, it conveys the awesome will of putting love, freedom, play, the positive appreciation of the world,  above anything else. Putting only the positively awesome above everything else, is awesome. I will make sure to inform god of this astonishing revelation, reheated a trillion times again. I could, some will say I should, leave it at that, before I become positively obnoxious anymore. And I will restrain myself, in an exceptional moment of respectful self-control.

Just one point: Antoine observed (in an interview on ONPC) that in other people, or in other circumstances, completely different reactions would be much more appropriate. And of this we will talk later, pretty much as we did before. Here is a foretaste:

Grass is made to be trampled on, we are not. That’s how we play, and appreciate. That’s why we can play, appreciate, love, and be awesome. Survival is also a humanism.

Patrice Ayme’

How Brexit Would Destroy World

May 12, 2016

Cameron goes on with his “Corruption Summit” in London. As if nobody knew already that London was a summit of corruption. The Nigerian president, sitting on Cameron’s left, calmly asked for the return of the billions of stolen Nigerian assets which Great Britain has stolen.

Is that Nigerian, to quote PM Cameron, “fantastically corrupt”? Does not he understand, with his tiny African mind, that Great Britain is very great, and rich, thanks to trillions and trillions and trillions of stolen property from savage countries not worthy of the Great British civilization? Watch “The Economist”, the great Great British economic magazine, always giving economy lessons to the whole world, while shipping all its profits to tax haven Luxembourg, to start with. This reminds me of when Britain was importing food from India, while India starved.

Another of Cameron’s effrontery is his “Brexit” referendum, or whether Great Britain should leave the European Union. “Brexit” is the exit of Britain from the EU. For the second time, Britain is voting in a referendum about whether it should be in the European Union. Why not to hold one whether Great Britain should be a member of the United Nations? As I will show, the question is not in jest. Brexit is a referendum about whether Great Britain should exist.

The Idiot Can Jump Out, To Be Torn Apart, The EU Will Fly Better Than Ever

The Idiot Can Jump Out, To Be Torn Apart, The EU Will Fly Better Than Ever

The first British referendum about whether Britain was in Europe, or in America, did not matter. The French government had consented to let Britain in, after blocking it for decades: that was the only thing which mattered. This time the stakes are completely different.

Specious liars will point out that the expression “European Community” (EC) was then used, instead of “European Union” (EU). This is a distinction without a difference; the concept of “ever closer union” was the fundamental concept of the European Community. The whole idea was to make a European war impossible in the future, something to which the Germans and the French felt, and feel, very strongly about. And it’s not just them: there is another one hundred million people living in the area in between or immediately around Franco-Germania.

Charlemagne’s empire covered France (including Belgium and the Netherlands), Germany, Italy, liberated Spain, and their satellites (Chechia, Austria, Switzerland, much of Poland, etc.). Some, ignorant of real history, may scoff, and say this was just Charlemagne. Not so: the Franks controlled most of Germany from the Sixth Century. The Franks played a strange game with the Pope, using the hated Lombards for leverage, until the Pope thoroughly surrendered (after Charles Martel nationalized the Church, and was NOT excommunicated for it). Then they conquered Italy (before Charlemagne). Finally it’s officially the Franks who extirpated slavery from liberated Britannia in 1066 CE (as the Anglo-Saxon realms in Britain were fundamentally unlawful invasions of Britannia).

The problem with Brexit is not what it will do to the European Union: the EU will do better without a obfuscating, obstructing, fiscally cheating, plutocratically plotting “Great” Britain playing Trojan Horse for global corruptocracy.

Brexit Is A Mental Illness Of Old Idiots Affected Gravely By Encroaching Senility

Brexit Is A Mental Illness Of Old Idiots Affected Gravely By Encroaching Senility

Once the British brats and obsequious servants of global corruptocrats are safely out of the European conference rooms, the grown-ups (Franco-Germania and its satellites) will be able to take the right decisions which are urgently needed.

(Right now, the French are letting Merkel run the European show: according to French socialist president Hollande, there are no disagreements with the conservative German chancellor. A 36 year old punk with red hair and horse teeth, the very cute Lea Salame’, called Hollande a liar about that, to his face, but that’s what happen when one runs a celebrity society. Cute Lea is a star, so she does not need a brain, and can say whatever looks good in the instant.)

A sobering Great Britain will stand outside, all conference rooms. It will take orders, from the EU, just as Switzerland does (through more than 600 bilateral treaties). A difference is that Switzerland is loved by France, Germany and Italy. Switzerland is not just 10% of Germany’s size: its French part is more French than it is attached to its own “German” part. I understand German, but not really Switzerdeutsch. The French spoken by the Swiss is standard French.

So Great Britain, should it Brexit, would be struck by at least ten years of lawsuits. One sixth of British law is pure European law. London is one of the largest French cities (4% of London is French).

Scotland and Wales will immediately vote to keep European law and exit Britain. The argument used by Brussels that Scotland as an independent nation would have to apply to the EU would become vacuous.

Scotland would probably not leave the EU, avoiding an awkward situation such as Albania getting into the EU, while Edinburgh and Glasgow are outside (Albania, a “francophone” country is pushing hard to get in the EU, in part thanks to its president, a perfect francophone; I approve this motion, and not just because it will make president Donald Trump laugh).

The problem with Brexit is mostly what it will do to world peace (no, I am not trying to be funny!)

Indeed, Scotland has made very clear it did not want the “British” nuclear fleet, the only deterrent Britain has. Emergency plans call on sheltering the nuclear fleet in… France (England has no appropriate deep ports).

Moreover, Britain would lose one third of its territory, once Scotland decides to stay inside the EU.

So what of the British permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)?

It would go. And so would the United Nations’ fundamental organization. Once “Britain”, having disappeared, is out of the UNSC, a pandemonium may ensue.

Notice that Obama, at the last moment, told the French he was not attacking Assad, because he had got cold feet from the British refusal to strike (Assad’s family is a  major plutocratic organization, thus a British sacred cow). Obama himself said it. Cold feet. The French pilots were already in their seats.

Britain’s surrender to plutocracy is indeed a major threat to world peace. Cameron talks corruption, but it starts with the minds. Voting about whether Britain is in Europe, is a complete idiocy, the intoxicating fruit of minds corrupted by a corrupt system.

Patrice Ayme’

Is Britain The World’s Most Corrupt Country?

May 11, 2016

Britain is organizing an anti-corruption conference. Is that a form of British humor, or:

Should the EU Expel Britain From The European Onion?

More than 40 years ago, Great Britain’s population voted to join the European Union. Now it’s voting to see whether it wants to leave. This smacks of the tactic of obstruction through obfuscation, the story of the criminal accusing the police of being violent.  From the point of view of justice and solidarity, it should. Then the European Union could apply sanctions against it for TAX FRAUD.

One third of tax havens of the planet are actually states which have as head of state the Queen of England. That makes the Queen of England assuredly one of the greatest head of organized crime in the history of civilization. That criminal network pervades the USA. Just contemplate this:

Anglo-Saxon Plutocrats Own The Anglo-Saxon Main Stream Media Which Wants You To Not Know That Many Of Said Plutocrats Are Just Tax Criminals (To Start With).

Anglo-Saxon Plutocrats Own The Anglo-Saxon Main Stream Media Which Wants You To Not Know That Many Of Said Plutocrats Are Just Tax Criminals (To Start With).

Let me repeat slowly. One third of the world’s tax havens in monetary volume are British: Bermuda, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Isles, Isle of Man, Channel Islands. If one evaluates the half of the world of entities made to avoid all authorities, including tax authorities, are residents of territories headed by the Queen of England.

That corruption is becoming a problem is not just my opinion. David Cameron thinks that Afghanistan and Nigeria are “fantastically corrupt”. Cameron was caught on tape boasting in front of Queen Elizabeth Cameron that  “some leaders of some fantastically corrupt countries [are] coming to Britain” for his anti-corruption summit”. And he was joking with the corrupter in chief, the Queen!

Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari said he did not want an apology from Cameron. Instead he pointed out that Britain could return assets stolen by officials who fled to London.

Forget Nigeria – David Cameron needs to tackle the tax havens in Britain’s own backyard

Says The Telegraph:

“Certainly Nigeria has a reputation. But the Panama Papers have shifted the focus of corruption far up the supply chain, to the people who make corruption possible – and those people are often rather closer to home.  

The UK, to its credit, has been at the forefront of the movement to make the world more financially transparent. The 2009 G20 Summit, hosted by Gordon Brown in London, created the first blacklist of tax havens that were holding out against sharing information on bank accounts with other countries’ tax authorities.

Under David Cameron’s leadership, the UK also became the first country in the world to require companies to be fully transparent about the people who own and control them. This is the key step towards stopping people squirreling money away behind fake companies they secretly own, out of the reach of the taxman and other authorities.

Other countries have since followed suit, and soon all countries that are part of the EU will have to collect information on who ultimately owns and controls companies and make that available to anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate interest.  So we should be proud of our leadership here.     

But careful readers of the Panama Papers will notice an important fact that should have given Cameron pause for thought before he made his comments to the Queen. More than half of the companies named in law firm Mossack Fonseca files are incorporated in Britain’s own tax havens. In fact, a full 50 per cent of the companies are from the British Virgin Islands.

Prime Minister David Cameron knows this. He said so just a few months ago:

“Some of the British Crown Dependences and Overseas Territories are making progress […]. Others, frankly, are not moving anywhere near fast enough. […] If we want to break the business model of stealing money and hiding it in places where it can’t be seen, transparency is the answer.”

Thanks to unfair austerity, avoiding taxes – whether legally or illegally – is coming to be seen as wrong.  If one wants to live in a society with decent schools and hospitals, no terrorism and an army powerful enough to not have tens of millions of refugees trying to smash through the border, all – rich and poor, small companies and giant ones – should be contributing to the public power. A recent poll for anti-corruption organisation, Global Witness, and Oxfam showed that 80 per cent of British adults agreed with the statement that “David Cameron has a moral responsibility to ensure that the UK’s Overseas Territories are as transparent as possible.”

However, PM David Cameron has whined disingenuously, for years, that “he cannot impose his wishes on independent territories.” So, instead of organizing a referendum on whether massive tax fraud can be perpetrated by the Queen of England, her dependencies, dominions and other minions, Cameron organized a referendum about whether Britain wanted to be in Europe or not. As if, after voting against Europe, it would find itself somewhere southeast of New Zealand.

There are fourteen “British Overseas Territories”. The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are also tax havens, under the sovereignty of the British monarch. When Britain want to exert power on the dominions, it can: Britain forced dominions to abandon the death penalty (1991), or punishments against homosexuality (2000).

Meanwhile any fantastically corrupt rogue official, thief or criminal can come to Great Britain and become a “Non Dom”, a non-domiciliated person, not taxed for at least seven years. Canada and the USA have imitated facets of this program. Some of China’s richest billionaires, anxious to be skewered by president Xi’s anti-pollution drive, have their children in Canada, driving around in cars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

All this to say that the “summit in London on the struggle against corruption”, May 12, 2016, is a colossal hypocrisy. And the stakes are not small. Not only is civilization is at stake, but the biosphere itself.

How did Rome fall? Rome fell in many ways: it became a tyranny, a plutocracy (all emperors were born from a small clique of families jousting for power among themselves, and exchanging the imperial throne as if was a frisbee). Rome became also anti-technological, and anti-scientific. Later it became a theocracy.

The historian Edward Gibbon was connected to the British plutocracy, so he could not accuse the plutocratic phenomenon to have caused the Fall of Rome. Instead, he accused Catholicism (as did Nietzsche). However, theocracy was the last justification tyranny found for itself. Plutocracy caused the Fall of Rome, and, over the next centuries, piled up the outrages.

So how did plutocracy blossom? By eschewing old Roman Republican law which limited absolutely the size of a family fortune. And how was that accomplished? With all the overseas dependencies and possessions Rome found itself with after the victory of Rome in the Second Punic War (final victory in 201 BCE). Those included North Africa, Spain, Macedonia, Greece… In those territories, it was not clear that Roman law had jurisdiction. The same loophole allowed slavery in the New World after 1500 CE: Frankish law had established jurisdiction outlawing slavery, all over Europe, in 655 CE. But the law could not be imposed in the New World, be it only because those who ruled there had no interest to see to it.

Recent globalization has operated in a similar fashion. This is all the more strange because American and French jurisdiction proclaim themselves as universal (France is presently judging Rwandan civil war criminals).

The explanation? Great Britain and the USA have been milking the tax haven, international corruption trick: trillions of corrupt, dark, criminal money has kept them afloat, by coming from all over the world. France has done so too, but on a much smaller scale  The latter case explains why Frenchman Pierre Moscovici is showing no alacrity to punish Luxembourg.

France and Germany are the core of the European Onion. It’s high time for them to seize their responsibilities. The terrible example of Britain has led to massive tax thievery by the likes of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. High time to get tough on more than retirees, elementary school children, and the indigent.

The arsenals of democracies have become arsenals of corruption. That may give leverage over Putin, since his plutocrats put their money in Western tax havens, but it’s no way to run a civilization.

Patrice Ayme’

Wisdom Is In the Details

May 10, 2016

Contemplate the Details To Explain Holocaust, Israel, Clinton, Wall Street:

I rarely mention Israel. Not just because the country has suffered enough already. Not just because the situation is not interesting. But mostly because Israel is such a special case that it is hard to extract generalities from it. Also its fate is mostly controlled by external factors. However, something important happened there recently: not just the commemoration of the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis, but how deputy chief of staff Yair Golan, the second in command of the Israeli army chose to kick it off by comparing today’s Israel with Nazi Germany.

I salute the following comment, which has long been pretty much at the core of my own philosophy, for decades. IDF Major General Yair Golan, reading from a prepared text:

“The Holocaust in my eyes must bring us to deep contemplation of the nature of man, even when that man is myself. The Holocaust must bring us to deep contemplation on the matter of the responsibility of leadership, on the matter of the quality of a society… Shoah [Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis] must impel us here and now to reflect fundamentally on how here and now we take care of the stranger, the widow and the orphan.”

Morality, like logic, can be anything. This being said, the IDF has not been too immoral yet...

Morality, like logic, can be anything. This being said, the IDF has not been too immoral yet…

Yair Gollan went all out in warning Israel: “If there’s anything that frightens me in the remembrance of the Holocaust, it is identifying some horrifying processes that took place in Europe in general and in particularly Germany up to 70, 80 and 90 years ago, and finding evidence of their repetition here in our society today in 2016. It is easier and simpler to hate a person. It is easy and simple to arouse fear, to scare-monger. It is easy to become dehumanized, callous, sanctimonious.”

90 years ago brings us back to 1926. But actually, Nietzsche was denouncing strident tribal anti-Judaism in Germany in the 1880s. Inspection of the historical record shows that state legislated anti-Judaism originated in Prussia in the eighteenth century. As a British ally against France, anti-Judaism thus became something that Great Britain condoned, and even outright supported. After the French were defeated in 1815 CE, Anti-Judaism became the law in German-speaking land (Jews could not be doctors and lawyers, etc.)

Yair Golan is a proven hawk in matter of defense, although he started the practice of treating Syrians wounded in the Syrian civil war in Israeli hospitals. Like all the leadership of the Israeli army and the Mossad (Israel CIA, complete with assassinations in what became also the French way, and also, more recently, learning from example, the US way… That the Jews and French decided that to become way nastier, in some circumstances, was more moral, after their experiences with Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini should surprise no one…), Golan sees the present situation as an opportunity to make a real peace with the Palestinians. (An assessment that neither the Likud, Hamas or Hezbollah share, as it would undermine their reasons for being…)

How did the whole anti-Jewish madness start? It was a long story, started in Pagan Rome. It should be its own essay. The evolution of a lucrative madness always presents many twists and turns…

The worst part of anti-Judaism is not that it happened, but that, sometimes, and for centuries, it did not exist, at all. This means that something terrible, only founded on the admittedly very satisfying urge to hate somebody, or an entire category of people, can be reborn after centuries of eradication. In other words, the rebirth of fanatical anti-Judaism from its ashes show that cannibalism and slavery as an industry could well reappear in the future. Let alone strict laws enforcing state sexism, etc.

Speaking of evil reborn, Wall Street has raised already $23 million for Clinton in this election cycle. At least $4.3 million from Wall Street has gone directly into Clinton’s presidential campaign, and another $18.7 million has gone to the super PAC backing her, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

Wall Street is a vast army, and its morality is greed. It’s not about orphans.

One third of financial executives’ donations went to Clinton in 2015 and the first quarter of 2016. Now Wall Street donors to (ex) Republican presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have thrown their weight behind Clinton. Trump received less than 1% of Wall Street donation, and the best financed “candidate” until now has been that of rich Republican donors, AGAINST Trump. (This means that the hysteria against Trump is financed by bedfellows who want to devour each other.)

So how did one get to “The Holocaust”? First “The” Holocaust was part of a much more general, and older pattern: Auschwitz was initially created for Poles, for exterminating Poles, not Jews (although no doubt they were thinking about Jews). And that, in turn was part of a program of extermination of Poland which was at least two centuries old, and itself motivated by greed and world domination: hence the deliberate attack on the world on August 1, 1914.

All this could develop because, all too few saw it for what it was: although Nietzsche condemned the system of thought which would come to be called “Nazism” a generation later, his voice was lonely. Let me notice in passing that the Will To Extermination is the ultimate expression of the Will To Power.

Thus Yair Golan is right: One “must bring us to deep contemplation of the nature of man, even when that man is myself. The Holocaust must bring us to deep contemplation on the matter of the responsibility of leadership, on the matter of the quality of a society.”

After World War Two, the Germans, that is, the German intellectual leadership denied responsibility, as usual. That was an egregious lie. Yet, anxious to fend off Stalin, the Western democracies acquiesced to this fiction. In truth, most of what came to be known as Nazism was the significant essence of (a very significant part of) German society, before Adolf Hitler was even in diapers.

Today’s Israel is in not in such situation, by a very long shot. However, one could imagine that it could well get there if the Jewish “Orthodox” fanatics keep growing in power: they are the ones who had brought the mood conducive to first, and completely pointless Judean War of 66 CE (Greeks had sacrificed birds in front of a synagogue). (The Orthodox Jews escape the military draft, thus don’t intersect with the IDF!)

By, the “leadership” one should not just understand elected politicians. “Leadership” does not mean just elected puppets such as Obama, or the Supreme Court and their meager contributions to the debate. It means mostly the Main Stream Media and the intellectual leadership: those who are viewed as wise, from Paul Krugman to the likes of Bill Gates, or popular authors.

To change minds, we have to change moods and the first mood to change is attention to significant details.

The easier way to destruction of an evil go through its explanation, and that starts with its contemplation. Lack of contemplation gives diabolization an election.

Wisdom is in the details. It may make it sometimes a bit too diabolical, but the ways of goodness are mysterious.

Patrice Ayme’

Entangled Universe: Bell Inequality

May 9, 2016

Abstract: The Bell Inequality shatters the picture of reality civilization previously established. A simple proof is produced.

What is the greatest scientific discovery of the Twentieth Century? Not Jules Henri Poincaré’s Theory of Relativity and his famous equation: E = mcc. Although a spectacular theory, since  Poincaré’s made time local, in order to keep the speed of light constant, it stemmed from Galileo’s Principle of Relativity, extended to Electromagnetism. To save electromagnetism globally, Jules Henri Poincaré made time and length local.

So was the discovery of the Quantum by Planck the greatest discovery? To explain two mysteries of academic physics, Planck posited that energy was emitted in lumps. Philosophically, though, the idea was just to extent to energy the basic philosophical principle of atomism, which was two thousand years old. Energy itself was discovered by Émilie Du Châtelet in the 1730s.

Quantum Entanglement Is NOT AT ALL Classically Predictable

Quantum Entanglement Is NOT AT ALL Classically Predictable

Just as matter went in lumps (strict atomism), so did energy. In light of  Poincaré’s E = mc2, matter and energy are the same, so this is not surprising (by a strange coincidence (?)  Poincaré demonstrated, and published E = mc2, a few month of the same year, 1900, as Max Planck did E = hf; Einstein used both formulas in 1905).

The greatest scientific discovery of Twentieth Century was Entanglement… which is roughly the same as Non-Locality. Non-Locality would have astounded Newton: he was explicitly very much against it, and viewed it, correctly, as the greatest flaw of his theory. My essay “Non-Locality” entangles Newton, Émilie Du Châtelet, and the Quantum, because therefrom the ideas first sprung.


Bell Inequality Is Obvious:

The head of the Theoretical division of CERN, John Bell, discovered an inequality which is trivial and apparently so basic, so incredibly obvious, that it reflects the most basic common sense that it should always be true. Ian Miller (PhD, Physical Chemistry) provided a very nice perspective on all this. Here it is, cut and pasted (with his agreement):

Ian Miller: A Challenge! How can Entangled Particles violate Bell’s Inequalities?

Posted on May 8, 2016 by ianmillerblog           

  The role of mathematics in physics is interesting. Originally, mathematical relationships were used to summarise a myriad of observations, thus from Newtonian gravity and mechanics, it is possible to know where the moon will be in the sky at any time. But somewhere around the beginning of the twentieth century, an odd thing happened: the mathematics of General Relativity became so complicated that many, if not most physicists could not use it. Then came the state vector formalism for quantum mechanics, a procedure that strictly speaking allowed people to come up with an answer without really understanding why. Then, as the twentieth century proceeded, something further developed: a belief that mathematics was the basis of nature. Theory started with equations, not observations. An equation, of course, is a statement, thus A equals B can be written with an equal sign instead of words. Now we have string theory, where a number of physicists have been working for decades without coming up with anything that can be tested. Nevertheless, most physicists would agree that if observation falsifies a mathematical relationship, then something has gone wrong with the mathematics, and the problem is usually a false premise. With Bell’s Inequalities, however, it seems logic goes out the window.

Bell’s inequalities are applicable only when the following premises are satisfied:

Premise 1: One can devise a test that will give one of two discrete results. For simplicity we label these (+) and (-).

Premise 2: We can carry out such a test under three different sets of conditions, which we label A, B and C. When we do this, the results between tests have to be comparable, and the simplest way of doing this is to represent the probability of a positive result at A as A(+). The reason for this is that if we did 10 tests at A, 10 at B, and 500 at C, we cannot properly compare the results simply by totalling results.

Premise 1 is reasonably easily met. John Bell used as an example, washing socks. The socks would either pass a test (e.g. they are clean) or fail, (i.e. they need rewashing). In quantum mechanics there are good examples of suitable candidates, e.g. a spin can be either clockwise or counterclockwise, but not both. Further, all particles must have the same spin, and as long as they are the same particle, this is imposed by quantum mechanics. Thus an electron has a spin of either +1/2 or -1/2.

Premises 1 and 2 can be combined. By working with probabilities, we can say that each particle must register once, one way or the other (or each sock is tested once), which gives us

A(+) + A(-) = 1; B(+) + B(-) = 1;   C(+) + C(-) = 1

i.e. the probability of one particle tested once and giving one of the two results is 1. At this point we neglect experimental error, such as a particle failing to register.

Now, let us do a little algebra/set theory by combining probabilities from more than one determination. By combining, we might take two pieces of apparatus, and with one determine the (+) result at condition A, and the negative one at (B) If so, we take the product of these, because probabilities are multiplicative. If so, we can write

A(+) B(-) = A(+) B(-) [C(+) + C(-)]

because the bracketed term [C(+) + C(-)] equals 1, the sum of the probabilities of results that occurred under conditions C.


B(+)C(-)   = [A(+) + A(-)] B(+)C(-)

By adding and expanding

A(+) B(-) + B(+)C(-) = A(+) B(-) C(+) + A(+) B(-) C(-) + A(+) B(+)C(-) + A(-)B(+)C(-)

=   A(+)C(-) [(B(+) + B(-)] + A+B C+ + AB(+)C(-)

Since the bracketed term [(B(+) + B(-)] equals 1 and the last two terms are positive numbers, or at least zero, we have

A(+) B(-) + B(+)C(-) ≧ A(+)C(-)

This is the simplest form of a Bell inequality. In Bell’s sock-washing example, he showed how socks washed at three different temperatures had to comply.

An important point is that provided the samples in the tests must give only one result from only two possible results, and provided the tests are applied under three sets of conditions, the mathematics say the results must comply with the inequality. Further, only premise 1 relates to the physics of the samples tested; the second is merely a requirement that the tests are done competently. The problem is, modern physicists say entangled particles violate the inequality. How can this be?

Non-compliance by entangled particles is usually considered a consequence of the entanglement being non-local, but that makes no sense because in the above derivation, locality is not mentioned. All that is required is that premise 1 holds, i.e. measuring the spin of one particle, say, means the other is known without measurement. So, the entangled particles have properties that fulfil premise 1. Thus violation of the inequality means either one of the premises is false, or the associative law of sets, used in the derivation, is false, which would mean all mathematics are invalid.

So my challenge is to produce a mathematical relationship that shows how these violations could conceivably occur? You must come up with a mathematical relationship or a logic statement that falsifies the above inequality, and it must include a term that specifies when the inequality is violated. So, any takers? My answer in my next Monday post.

[Ian Miller.]


The treatment above shows how ludicrous it should be that reality violate that inequality… BUT IT DOES! This is something which nobody had seen coming. No philosopher ever imagined something as weird. I gave an immediate answer to Ian:

‘Locality is going to come in the following way: A is going to be in the Milky Way, B and C, on Andromeda. A(+) B(-) is going to be 1/2 square [cos(b-a)]. Therefrom the contradiction. There is more to be said. But first of all, I will re-blog your essay, as it makes the situation very clear.’

Patrice Ayme’


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 418 other followers