Positive discrimination


Associating cause and effect may be discrimination, but it is discrimination of the good kind. Discrimination is next to discernment, both are important to the culinary art, and to intelligence in general. Among the mentally underperforming, and easily whining, all these concepts became the object of disapprobation, in recent decades. Probably too tiring for their lazy little minds.

Propelled by Obama’s intelligence, the Obama administration has seen the light, and courageously decided to act accordingly. Citizens from nations including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria will face intensified screening, but U.S. citizens and most nations will not. This is a worldwide decision, because to screen a terrorist flying into the USA, one has to stop him before he arrives, or, better, before he starts. The problem of the terrorist is a quite a bit like the problem of a nuclear warhead: no use proclaiming victory after he detonates.

[It was amusing that Napolitano, the Homeland Security chief declared: "the system worked", after a Nigerian smoldered inside a plane, when his explosive petered out, and was jumped by a young white male Dutch tourist. One feels well defended.]

Ah, well, how did I dare use the masculine gender above, as in "he", and "him"? Am I discriminating against men? Am I assuming that most terrorists are males? Well, most terrorists are male. OK, there has been a few female bombers, especially in Israel, in no small reason because Israel’s security services had noticed that most terrorists were male, and acted accordingly. The fact remains that in the human species, males are more oriented towards hunting, war, and mayhem. To observe this is not being sexist, it’s seeing what can be seen, which can be seen to be what ought to be seen.

Reality, my dear Watson, nothing like it.

So 14 countries are going to be discriminated against. Too bad. But what is bad, exactly? In the past, Europe used its cultural-technological superiority to exterminate the locals in several continents: the Americas (mostly), Australia, and Northern Eurasia.

OK, I am aware that Dr. Jared Diamond insinuated (in "Guns, Germs and Steel"), that it was not the technological-scientific rational superior culture of Europe which exterminated the natives, and a nasty philosophy or two to go with it, but a variety of beasties and grasses (!) that Europe happened to be associated with, purely coincidentally (!!).

Mr. Diamond’s notion has been most pleasant to the Euro-American imperialists, because it told them that the holocausts that happened were not the fault of the Euro-American imperialist system. But that same desire was not viewed as correct by a large cohort of French associated thinkers, of the rather anti-American, and anti-French type. Those thinkers pushed instead the opposite notion that animated anti-colonialism much earlier. That notion is called MULTICULTURALISM.

According to multiculturalism, all cultures are equivalent. To discriminate against a culture is as if one were discriminating against a race. Now it is true that the white man had used his superior culture to justify superior holocausts. Authorities paying for native scalps in English speaking America, and the holocaust in Namibia under Goering, three centuries later, are extreme examples of culturally founded rabidly murderous racism. Multiculturalism is also correct when it just insists that many of globally inferior cultures sometimes were, and are, locally superior. Excellent ideas can come up from down below.

In recent years, some tried to make multiculturalism into United Nation law. This was of course not just erroneous, but also grotesque… And exploitative. (Because it is often exploitative to encourage people’s stupidity.)

Take an example. Joan of Arc was condemned to be burned alive because she had worn men’s clothing. (The charge of heresy had not been retained, because the very young Jeanne, representing herself, was an excellent advocate; see annex.)

This was Franco-English culture, or more exactly, the French justice system, and culture, circa 1415 CE. Abysmal, is it not? Nowadays not even fiercely sexist countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Iran would execute a woman for wearing men’s clothing. And a fortiori not by burning her alive slowly in a major spectacle (see Annex for some details, once again). Why? Because world culture, today, even in the most primitive places, such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran, is way more advanced than France and England were circa 1415.

How did we get from the primitive European Middle Ages to today’s much more enlightened world civilization? Well, by fighting wars. Some were philosophical wars (a French philosopher was burned alive too, on top of his books, more than a century after Joan of Arc, for having said bad things about Allah, or however they wanted to call their imaginary boss, same as the old boss; many philosophers were burned alive, not just Giordano Bruno).

The fact is most 9/11 assassins came from Saudi Arabia. The fact is most daily terrorism, at this point, is Muslim terrorism, and it is no wonder one would become a terrorist if one believed the Qur’an literally. And most Muslim terrorism originates from young men having a particular physical appearance, from peculiar places. Thus those ought to have their lives, let alone their persons, examined carefully. It is applied Socratism, with very practical consequences.

(This does not mean that all Muslim terrorists do not have, also, legitimate gripes; if you take a young Afghan male, and kill his family in a NATO bombing, he will have, unfortunately, legitimate gripes; that is why bombings should be practiced ONLY on the battlefield, and NEVER in a situation when civilians MIGHT POSSIBLY be hurt. This ought to be a fundamental condition, and when it is not respected, as when some criminal German officer ordered an airstrike on a gasoline truck, not knowing for sure whether there was a civilian there, among more than one hundred people next to the truck; as it was, dozens of innocent civilians were killed, and some NATO officers belong in jail, for an extensive period.)

Back to preventing terrorist attacks: the little white grandmother, or nine year old Caucasian boy from Iceland is unlikely to present as great a danger as the strapping young man from Yemen, as far as carrying explosives on board. This ought to extent to visitors to such countries, or those associating to Muslim terror preaching: they ought to have a big red phosphorescent label following every single one of their apparition in any ID check, worldwide, whatever they are doing, wherever they are going, be it at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or when renting a car, or showing up to rent a plane for the day, or paying for chemicals at the agricultural chemical supply store, or registering at a university, or applying to a job, or a bank account, or piloting lessons. Not that they ought to always be stopped, but secret services should be warned.

(One should not deduce from this that we would get a fascist state: policing the state is as far from fascism as it gets; the expression "police state" is unfortunate, because all too close to the policed state… which we all strive for.)

The ones engaging in discrimination are the countries fostering, tolerating, excusing, and encouraging TERRORIST SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT. They are fine gourmets of terror: let them taste their own dish, if they like it so much.

Those countries, and their citizens, should suffer increasing inconvenience for their mental behavior, and physical consequences thereof. Then maybe they will become more motivated to join civilization with more enthusiasm. It is high time to get basic, and logical. Terrorists countries cannot argue that they are terrorized, and poor victims; they are perpetrators, too, and they, and their citizenry, and their systems of thought, and ought to be treated as such.

Yes, I know this is not "politically correct". But philosophically, logically and historically correct is more important than paying lip service to absurdities. The later often leads to making the absurd into a religion.

An example. Overall, the Germans were collectively culprit of, and for, Nazism, and Hitler: after all, they voted for the guy, and more than once. If the Germans had been punished collectively earlier, things would not have had to become as horrible as they did.

I also know that the collective guilt of the German people was not retained by the Allied justice system at Nuremberg as a valid notion. Well, philosophically speaking, that was a grotesque mistake: the Nazis were elected, and enthusiastically supported, by the German population. (Exonerating the Germans happened under the pretext of Cold War reasons, but, in truth, really to cover the bloody tracks of the plutocracy, and keep the plutocratic system going, as it does, to this day.)

Fortunately for everybody, the Germans themselves did not stay as completely blind as that, and the German state increasingly took measures to flagellate the intellectual mistakes that led to Nazism.

This decriminalization of Germany has been a slow and increasing process; even in the 1950s, some of the notorious Nazis, such as Feldmarschall Erich von Manstein, (1887–1973), Heeresgruppenführer, had regained much of his superb and influence on the German society, or even its military. Never mind that von Manstein, a magnificent general, was a notorious convicted war criminal, culprit of the worst crimes against civilians (and he left plenty of criminal orders in writing too, that is why he got 18 years in jail, of which he served just a portion!). That respectability for Nazi criminals would not be possible nowadays, because the Germans have come to realize the criminality of the old thought system that terrorized Germany and most of Europe.

Erich von Manstein


Earlier, but related, Europe suffered under an insanely cruel form of Christianity more or less invented and certainly installed by the Roman fascist dictators in such an absurd way, that civilization collapsed in the West, while becoming such a monstrous parody of its own terror in the Orient, that it then succumbed to a few rather primitive Arabs from the desert.

After six centuries or so of cloaked secular relief under the Franks, Christianism in a strong literal, terrorizing, version came back, under the guise of the Crusades, first directed against the Muslims in the Orient, but then against the Western populations too. The philosopher Abelard tried to stop the process, nearly all by himself, but the great fascist and fanatic, ("Saint") Bernard de Clairvaux won the day.

At that point the fundamentally secular political power of the West mostly used the fascism of Christianism in a cynical way, it was not prisoner of it (but for the occasional lunatic such as Saint Louis (IX), or emperor Philippe II). Many of the kings and emperors of the Middle Ages considered the Church to be their tool, and acted that way. We are very far from the extremely superstitious sons of Roman emperor Constantine, founder of Christianism, who really believed that Christ was just around the corner, ready to come back, and destroy the world.

As the Bible [Peter 3:10] has it, in typical fashion:"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Passages such as this infuriated many European monarchs, including England’s Henry VIII.

[It is my pleasure not to discriminate here: the Qur’an, in its usual psittacine fashion, has apocalyptic concepts to the same effect.]

Europe freed herself from superstitious religious terror and the fascism that parented it, the hard way: the various Christian insanities killed many millions of people, and caused the Dark Ages. One gets there without even counting the Nazi variant of Christian anti-Judaism, and the Crusades, both of which killed well in excess of ten millions. The fascism hiding behind it all killed an order of magnitude more.

"Hiding" is probably the most important word here. More important than "superstition", "religion", or even "fascism". "Hiding" was enabling.

That the Bible is full of terror and superstition is bad, but, just like its son, the Qur’an, it has its flashes of depth. As John 8:32 puts it:"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."Well, maybe, sort of. Verily, as the philosopher will say, the truth shall be hard to know, but only the truth allows survival.

How do we get to the truth? Step by step. By eliminating first obvious lies, or falsehood. To claim all cultures are equal is an obvious falsehood. Some are superior to others. The whole history of civilization is the effort to define how and why a cultural trait can be superior to another.

Because progress there is. Even the last of today’s terrorists would not respect the otherwise very honorable Maori culture’s cannibalism. (Not that I am down on the Maoris; during the early Crusades, the Franks, perhaps to make fun of, and certainly cynically using Jesus’ weird symbolic cannibalism, did eat tons of Muslims… Not something the official history of the West likes to remember… But this cannibalism was not something central to European culture, whereas it was central to Maori culture, as it was central in all cultures, if one goes back far enough. Al Qaeda is bad, but not that bad: progress!)

A giant truth is that little truths have to be told, first, otherwise the big ones will never dare come out of the closet.

Some nations, some cultures, some people are inferior and dangerous. This is a little truth. To ignore this little truth is not just inferior and dangerous, and not honorable, and not very smart, but it also perfidiously berates those others, one claims to respect the inferior culture thereof, because it does not give them the honor of telling them what we perceive to be the truth, which is often the greatest gift there is.

Moreover, watching carefully obvious potential suspects may help us to go to the restroom in planes, have a blanket, a book, while not being so well chained, that only the stewardesses could change our diapers. What is there not to like?


Patrice Ayme



Annex: OF THE INFERIOR CULTURE EUROPE USED TO HAVE: Joan of Arc was too extraordinary a character, many times over. Some, studying what is known about her nowadays, smell a deep conspiracy. She rode too well, fought too well, reasoned too well, knew too many languages, and performed too many miracles to be the naïve teenage shepherd that she was depicted to be.

Anybody reading transcripts of Jeanne’s trial will be struck by her intelligence. Short of having her sent by God, she may have been sent by some suspect queen who had interest to further the three way civil war between Anglois, Francois and Bourguignons. In any case, once she was captured, a ransom was not paid, and that was strange. She took an oath to stop been a bad girl, but violated her oath after dressing with pants to avoid being raped in jail, she said. The punishment for making fun of the court was burning alive. (I am not discriminating against Western Europeans here, by alleging that the Europeans were particularly cruel: Chinese tortures were quite exquisite; in Japan the punishment for whatever the lower classes had done, was crucifixion.)

Thus somebody was burned alive in Rouen, nice and slow (not necessarily the possibly very well connected Jeanne herself, though, recent scholarship has shown).

Burning women alive was as frequent, in these times, as Hollywood super productions nowadays. To prove she was a woman, after the fire had stripped her, the executioner pushed away the burning wood, and allowed people to see, by touching and exhibiting, here and there, that indeed the moaning criminal was, no doubt, a woman. I am giving some embarrassing details here, so that the reader can realize how inferior European culture was at the time. Not that this sort of horrors was just about Jeanne, or even women. The top Czech religious intellectual Hus was not treated much better by the top cardinals a generation later: burned alive too. A full century later, the religious madman, and hero of Protestantism, Calvin, originally a Frenchman, burned a philosopher alive with lots of green wood, in Geneva, so it would last longer.

Tags: ,

4 Responses to “Positive discrimination”

  1. Eman Says:

    Are you a Jew, ethnically I mean, not religiously?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Bad question. Questions on racial, gender, national, even religious origins shall not be answered, most of the time, on a matter of principle. But, should I believe in God, I could ask Her…


  2. David Says:


    interesting take. I do not agree 100 per cent that “some people are inferior to others,” which takes a decidedly eugenicist tack. But your underlying point is true – “discrimination” per se is not good or bad. And anyone with a rudimentary understanding of language and logic should see this.

    I’m a mathematician by academics, and feel safe in saying that using “random screening” is as closet to useless as one can get without ramming into it and sinking.

    Blindly looking out for the objects terrorists use (shoes, toothpaste-tubes of explosives) is hopeless. Using intelligent screening at least has SOME chance of success.



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      David: I did not try to claim that some people are genetically inferior to others, which is what “eugenics” is about. Although it is obviously true: I, for example am not built for running as some Kenyans and Ethiopians. Which makes me genetically inferior that way. I do love running, long distance, in the mountains, but I have obviously lots of elephant seal genes, or so it seems.

      As far as mental performance is concerned, although some sort of heritabilty plays a role (we know from twin studies), it is irrelevant. But I do believe that inferior systems of thought exist, and should be submitted to the final solution, namely extermination. That is what civilization is all about. Ironically, many European countries have actually made Nazism basically unlawful (France, long ago, and then Germany, Austria did).

      The so called “politically correct” is philosophically erroneous.

      I advocate mainly going to the source through intelligence (=secret services). Concentrating on the obvious suspects among those who express the desire to fly around is a nice little start, and I am happy to observe that the Obama administration decided to do just that since I wrote my essay.

      In any case thanks for your contribution (which was erroneously in my spam box).


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: