(Pun intended.)



In brief: Genocidal thinking itself is now promoted in some elite American universities, and widely disseminated by the New York Times. This is the highest imaginable nihilism. To decry it, one needs to foray further than Nietzsche ever did. So I introduce a new instinct, beyond the Will To Power, the Rage To Exterminate. This is an occasion to expose bits and pieces of a new theory of evil. Nihilism, deliberately stupid, is the worst. Indeed, against deliberate stupidity, evil itself contends in vain.



A number of leading American philosophers from superior universities, Singer and Mc Mahan, claim that massive genocide is an acceptable solution. Never mind that there was no drastic problem asking for this draconian solution. The mood is turning ugly in the USA. It is the first time in the history of civilization where salaried philosophers come right out in the favor of genocide. Even Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi philosopher, never expressed himself that brutally, or clearly (Hitler said of Rosenberg’s work:"Nobody understands that stuff"). However, Rosenberg was hanged at Nuremberg.

Yes, salaried American professors are promoting genocide, like in killing all the Jews, all the Native Americans, etc. And yes, this is happening in 2010, that final solutions are presented as wise scenarios, all over the New York Times, as they have never been so clearly presented before. Even the worst Nazis did not dare going official with what they truly intended.

Is there, in these calls to genocide in the most prestigious USA media, a hidden message designed to steer the emotional systems of masses towards final solutions? Should we think about Iran? After all, after contemplating genocide, does not simply committing to one more war come as relief?

Are these calls to genocide related to the ethical evolution, or shall I say devolution of the American presidency? Indeed, the American presidency seems to believe that torture is nothing that the USA engage in, and that assassination of citizens without judicial examination constitute civilization.

Promoting genocide gives a nice backdrop to these practical considerations. It’s the cherry on the cake. Promoting it from the New York Times, and considering this definitive break with tradition to its full perspective, would suggest that genocide is the Novo Ordo Saeculorum, the New Order of the Ages (as the Great Seal of the USA has it).

I stoop down to the sinking that these philosophical critters confuse with thinking to address their murderous squeaking. History has proven aplenty that not taking philosophical vermin seriously has terrible consequences. It’s not because viruses are small and stupid, that they are not dangerous.

Unsurprisingly, those psychopathic professors justify their genocidal posturing by the evil they deplore out there, as psychopaths are wont to do. It’s only understandable that devils would vaunt evil, even in the guise of denouncing it. (Thus the demonization of Hussein allowed to invade Iraq.)

I turn their entire logic on its head. First, by condemning the proposed genocides, as the proposed hate crimes they truly are. It’s not because there is evil out there, those flames necessary to warm up the baby’s bath, that baby and bath ought to be thrown out of the window.

Secondly, when looking at history one can notice the following. The main psychological engine of genocide has consisted precisely into distorting evil into various misrepresentations, some caricatural. American kindness to Nazism before World War Two was justified by decrying out some evils which did not exist (France’s "belligerence") while minimizing others (the Nazis’ racist fascism). The reason for misrepresenting evil is obvious. The preferred tactic is to exaggerate a danger, thus activating the fascist reflex among the tribe, allowing the fascist mode of government to rule.

Pure evil is less culprit than is generally supposed. Patriotism and nationalism’s excesses are not grounded in raw evil, but love. In other words, evil and love can turn into each other. Love as patriotism killed about 5% of humankind, just around the Second World War. (Fascism always puts on the mantle of patriotism.)

Although evil is big, and evil is bad, evil is ethologically meant to be as big and bad, as much of a big bad dad, as needs to be.

Hence Humanity, and humanism, understood in full, are far from being just all about love, and the most gentle sea breezes, warming just so the coconut grove lining the shore of hope we can believe in.

Humanity is the most conscious projection of power onto the world. Love without evil is about as relevant as existence without fields (matter, gravitational, electroweak, strong, etc.) Evil is what brings the imagination into the world. (Parents defending their children to death are a prime example.)

Imagine love and evil as two singularizations of the same action Quantum Wave. Love and evil are entangled, and it’s each others’ business to keep the other in check. Quantum random walk between the alternatives are moderated by conscience. Otherwise criminal madness sets in.

Singer and Mc Maham, as some (mis)interpretations of Buddhism, choose the Dark Side, pure evil. They cannot say it is good, so they say evil is bad, so bad that we have to do away with it, and to do away with it, we have to do away with humankind.

The struggles of conscience seem to them as the highest chore, to be avoided at all cost, even that of the reign of pure evil, and its ultimate achievement, total and complete annihilation, as in the Bible’s "apocalypse", and its Muslim translation, in the Qur’an.

Thus people such as Singer and Mc Mahan are fundamentally anti-thinkers. Most of Heidegger’s work is an example of anti-thinking, and Nazism itself, another. It’s typically the sort of thinking cows would express, if only they could write, a succession of turds on the landscape evoking a path to nowhere only dung beetles find allure in.

The rise to prominence of genocide is no accident. As the USA tries to bite more than its increasingly puny self can chew, increasing savage methods are being promoted (such as using huge lies to invade countries, violating the laws of war relative to occupation, torture, assassination instead of judicial examination). Of course Obama has turned into a perpetrator of these, instead of terminating them as one had every right to expect. Philosophy and history will judge this drift of the USA against the flow of civilization. But let’s start with Singer and Mc Mahan.




The USA seems to be ethically imploding. The New York Times runs a series, on line, "The Stone", "a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless". So here comes Peter Singer, honorable professor, as far as the American establishment is concerned, and recognized philosopher at Princeton.

Verily, Singer is just a parrot of a small part of Nietzsche‘s philosophy, but since Singer is much less intelligent than other, more famous parrots of Nietzsche, he misunderstood Nietzsche completely, and just as much, and in the exact same way, as Adolf Hitler, a famous politician who believed in "One Germany", did (although he was not born there).

Singer wrote “Should This Be the Last Generation?”, June 6, 2010. Indeed why to discriminate against minorities, by just applying genocide to minorities? That would be unfair. Singer proposes to annihilate all. A new moral imperative from the USA: destroying humankind. In its entirety. This is literally genocide, the killing of the genotype. This time, the entire human genome, as it were smallpox. Singer’s “thought experiment”, or rather, suggestive question invites us to compare ourselves to small pox. 

As Singer puts it: "very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself… we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence…If there were to be no future generations, there would be nothing for us to feel to guilty about. Is there anything wrong with this scenario?"

Yes, what is wrong is that Hitler is dead, and left no survivor, aside from Singer and his kind. Some of the ethically aware among us, may not feel guilty about slavery, or various holocausts, but we still regret them, although we did not perpetrate them. In Singer’s “scenario”, though, we are called to perpetrate genocide. No less. And then that idiot wonders "Is there anything wrong with this scenario"? Some people call Singer "lucid", because he is "mild mannered". So was Himmler.

Just as Hitler, or Himmler, Singer claims to be acting out of justified compassion. The first two were out to take care of the German people, and German speaking oppressed minorities, whose pain they were trying to reduce. The weasel weasels, but still devours prey.

Singer’s idea is to do to all men, what Hitler tried to do just to the Jews, the Gypsies, a few million Slavs, and various other groups he did not fancy. I guess Hitler was thinking small. To justify himself, Singer clings to the "19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself. "

Ah, if Schopenhauer said so. I guessed he read Buddhism too much, and chased too many young skirts. Schopenhauer spent 20 years making court ordered payments to a woman he had beaten up because she talked too loud on his doorstep.

Schopenhauer knew better than engaging in vicious cycles. As he said with characteristic depth: "Marrying means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties… Marrying means, to grasp blindfolded into a sack hoping to find out an eel out of an assembly of snakes." Thus, if Singer’s mentor identifies women to snakes, instead of more edible eels, it is only normal that one would not wish to give importance to the fruits of their entrails. So no more children, says Singer. With "philosophers" like that, who needs the most moronic Nazis? Well, apparently the USA needs Singer, tenured at Princeton, in the "Center for Human Values".

Apparently, for the New York Times, doing away with the human race is "both timely and timeless". Maybe we could start with the enemies of America. So many to kill, so little time.

Singer writes: "Should This be The Last Generation? But, If one wrote "Should This be The Last Generation Of Jews?" judicial authorities in several serious countries would react strongly to this violation of anti-hate crime laws. It is rather curious that the famous Singer suggests to do away with all blacks, all Jews, all Arabs, all Muslims, and all Australians (Singer’s homeland), and all children, and do it in the most prestigious media of the USA, while being revered in Princeton. Is Princeton a neo-Nazi university? And what about the laws protecting children against those who advertize that it would be a good idea to kill them? Because that is what Singer is saying, barely hidden by devious, weaselly verbiage.



Not content with proposing the holocaust of the entire human race, the New York Times found another mass murdering terminator, Jeff McMahan, a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University and a visiting research collaborator at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University.

In the “The Meat Eaters" Mr. Mc Mahan claims that "It would be good to prevent the vast suffering and countless violent deaths caused by predation.  There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if  predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species…  The claim that existing animal species are sacred or irreplaceable is subverted by the moral irrelevance of the criteria for individuating animal species.  I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment.”

So Mc Mahan claims that species are not moral persons, and so have no moral rights. Interesting in a country, the USA, where the superior, so called "supreme", court, recently decided that corporations were moral persons, and had the right to give money for fascist or plutocratic political causes, lest their right of free speech were taken away from them.

This reminds me a bit of the Tea Party candidate with the "fully functional human brain mice”, but in a much more sinister way. Stupidity rules, and takes itself seriously. "Replace by new herbivores"? Why “new”? Apparently Mc Mahan never heard of the hundreds of people killed by elephants in India? Much more than by sharks, leopards, tigers…

Mr. Mc Mahan tries to flatter himself by posing as an "heretic", one who chooses. Implicitly: one who chooses to not follow the dictates of the Biblical God, as ordered by the catholic hierarchy at the beck and call of Roman emperor (self proclaimed as the "13th apostle", no less!).

However, in truth, Mc Mahan, far from being an innovator (as emperor Constantine and Saint Augustine were) is just a vulgar parrot. Indeed what Mc Mahan chooses to do is actually to quote the Bible, to justify his pathetic attempt at reason, when he is just at sea. Here professor Mc Mahan finding justification in the Bible: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and the little child shall lead them.  And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.” (Isaiah 2: 4 and 11: 6-7)

Mc Mahan takes the Bible at face value: "Isaiah was, of course, looking to the future rather than indulging in whimsical fantasies of doing a better job of Creation, and we should do the same."

"We should do the same": Mc Mahan-Isaiah has spoken of the future. Why? Well, it’s in the Bible. Prophets can’t be wrong, otherwise they would not be called prophets, but they are called thus, so they are right (I just made an imitation of Mc Mahan’s and Singer’s exalted verbiage, which they confuse with ethical thinking). Mc Mahan then anticipates the objection that he is "playing God", by saying that there is no God.

I went into the details of this because it shows how Main Stream Thinking (Princeton professors) make genocide honorable, using, naturally enough, that genocidal book par excellence, the Bible. And this demonstrates what I long claimed; the interest of the Bible’s main mission is as an encouragement to genocide. "God" is just a backdrop, representing the emperor.

The basic argument of Singer and Mc Mahan is that avoiding pain ought to be the ultimate metaprinciple. To avoid pain, one ought to do anything, and genocide comes in handy. (hey, maybe Hitler got something right!) Humankind hurts, therefore humankind ought to die.

Either eliminate humans (Singer), or eliminate carnivores (Mc Mahan; carnivores include man in a fundamental way, as the rise of man was possible only through meat; by the way coyotes are omnivores classified as carnivores…). But, in any case, eliminate. Brandish a final genocidal solutions as what works best.

Those for-profit philosophers are contradicting themselves, though. If they thought that there is so much pain, they ought to swallow enough barbiturates, and put an end to their own suffering. And if their own suffering is not that great, why do they want to kill us all? Instead, by writing monstrosities in the New York Times, they make the rest of humankind anxious, knowing such monsters are teaching the youth in American universities, draped into the mantle of alleged "ethics". The ethics of elimination of what Obama calls "band that perverts religion", no doubt.

See how it all fits together, in the end. Obama has called for the physical elimination of American born citizens, without indictment, and, a fortiori, trial. Obama exhibited the same sort of cool detachment as the suspects above, Singer, and Mc Mahan: we have a problem, problem causes pain, so let’s exterminate problem.

This metaprinciple of extermination advocated by Singer, Mc Mahan, and unfortunately, or so it seems, and more worrisomely, by Obama himself, is nothing new. Extermination, and especially mass extermination has been the last resort of politicians, since ever, and it has been used, since ever. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Roman emperor Justinian used it to massacre millions of Christians he viewed as heretics, thus causing a monster war with the Persian Sassanids, and making the bed of Islam, two generations later. That, in turn caused the destruction of the 2,000 year old Persian civilization, and the near total destruction of the even older Creto-Greco-Roman civilization, saved ultimately by those Germans known as the Franks.

The Nazis had their own philosopher of extermination, Dr. Alfred Rosenberg. Although he was never as clear as Singer and Mc Mahan, but actually completely obscure, Dr. Rosenberg was hanged at Nuremberg. That Hitler said "Nobody understand that stuff", speaking of Rosenberg’s work, did not save him.



Life on Earth is one system, and predation is how it avoids terminal imbalance: pare down the herbivores before they kill the last grass, algae, tree, or phytoplankton. Thus, destroying predation is destroying balance and then life, all of life.

And pain is irrelevant to that splendor that life is. Pain is life’s friend. Faced between average life with average pain, and death, all conscious animals, most of the time, prefer life, with the pain associated to it, to simple, merciful, death. Death is not what life does, what life strives for, it is what life rises above, what it contradicts.

Not always, of course: buffaloes cornered in water by lions have been seen committing suicide rather than waiting in water forever. In general, although conscious animals view life as a value, but they do not avoid their own death at all cost. To protect the young, or family, group, pride, pack, territory or leadership, they often commit for the "ultimate sacrifice".

Thus Schopenhauer’s contention that “one simple test of the claim that the pleasure in the world outweighs the pain…is to compare the feelings of an animal that is devouring another with those of the animal being devoured,” does not hold water. How did Schopenhauer compare devouring 10,000 times versus being devoured once? He should have interviewed a lion in the savannah, somewhere. Differently from Schopenhauer, I have exchanged view points, or at least glances and shouts, with wild, free lions, lucidly exerting their free will and caution.

Besides, so as not to destroy the predators predating, by uselessly violent struggles, prey animals are blessed with endorphins which are released profusely when they are put to death, so they do not suffer as much as Schopenhauer thought, the one time they get devoured. And certainly not as much as genocidal "philosophers" deserve to. Natural evil is not a monster, but more like an equilibrium. Stupid monstrosities such as Singer’s and Mc Mahan’s divagations, are a new type of synthetic evil, funded, just as Schopenhauer’s , on a total misrepresentation of nature.

Singer says, among other things, that rats are more aware than humans, because he is not aware of what a rat is, that a rat is made to be eaten, and that, for saying such absurdities, most human cultures would have put him, Singer, on the menu. Right away.



What else do we need predators for? First, what is a "predator"? (Besides being the name of a flying robot used by the USA to kill people they don’t like, plus whoever happens to be there, far from battlefield?)

"Predator" etymologically comes from plunderer, taking booty. But, when buffaloes, the most dangerous animal in (wild) Africa for humans, charge, it is not because the buffalo wants to acquire booty. Similarly, when France and Britain declared war to Hitler, they had decided to act as two lions when they decide to eliminate a hyena. Not for food. France and Britain did not intend to predate on Germany, just like lions don’t intent to eat hyenas. France and Britain were not out to acquire something material, but to eliminate Nazism, a spiritual movement they found intolerable.

France and Britain wanted to terminate the Nazis, just as buffaloes or elephants, when they charge lions want to terminate the lions. France and Britain acted on an important ethological drive: the RAGE TO EXTERMINATE. Nietzsche brought us the Will To Power, which I salute in passing, but the Rage To Exterminate is still something else.

The rage to exterminate is a great motivator, and it does not reduce to Nietzsche’s Will To Power. The rage to exterminate is what kept, historically speaking, the human-ruled planet in balance.

Buffaloes and elephants attack lions because lions are dangerous to them and their young. Lions and hyenas fight each other for the same reason, plus their competition about natural resources, namely prey. This is also found intra-specifically: lions fight lions to death to access territory and pride control (or even sex and food). Wolves do the same.

But that Will To Exterminate is even more prominent in people, to keep the earth in balance. Human beings are no simple predators, or carnivores. They are not just brainy Tyrannosaurus Rexes, or killer apes.



The Will To Exterminate is animating Singer, Mc Mahan… and made Obama forget the constitution he used to teach. They don’t know it, because the Will to Exterminate has not be recognized yet as fundamental drive. However, it is even more important than the Will To Power (that wolves, or elephant seals have), or the Will To Survive (that buffaloes and elephants have). Interestingly, chimpanzees seem to some of have it (they are obsessed with eradicating the chimpanzee group in the next valley over).

As the Will To Exterminate blossoms it brings in the darkest most violent neurological structures and hormones, and it tends to persevere ever more diabolically. Thus the Roman sentence "Perseverare Diabolicum" (it is diabolical to persevere… implied: in one’s error). The perseverance is hard to avoid, because once the neurological structures are built, they tend to persist.

And they tend to persist all the more, because eliminating the maximum of human beings is an absolute good for the planetary ecology. By the way, Singer says nothing less, or more, while thinking of himself as very creative, just because he does not know the past. So what he confuses for a deep reasoning is actually the deep ethological instinct of extermination Homo Erectus was completely animated with. People think Singer is a philosopher, but he is just a living fossil from a terrible past.

Perseverance and its tie-up with extermination, is not just philosophy in the clouds: NATO is persevering diabolically in Afghanistan, a decade late, if you count naively, or four decades later, if you count intelligently, precisely because the Will To Exterminate is so powerful. The more the adversary resists, the greater the perseverance, the greater the Will To Exterminate.

It’s not all negative. The Will To Exterminate, humankind’s ultimate weapon, can sometimes also be the weapon of progress, because humankind is all about progress. Progress in all ways. Spiritual, moral, technological, scientific, philosophical, poetical…

Not all humans are about progress, indeed. Some, devoured by the Will To Exterminate, express the ecological necessity of destroying other men as the ultimate value. Sometimes they do this in sneaky ways, say by just promoting stupidity beyond any reason (the adulators of Reagan, such as the desperate Obama, spring to mind).

In the worst cases, such as Nazism, one needs to exterminate the exterminators in turn. The Will To Exterminate can, and must, sometimes be applied to the exterminators themselves (now, of course, in Afghanistan, it is mostly NATO which is exterminating, and has long been exterminating, and the Afghans, defending; as I said, the USA attacked there in the 1970s, and even earlier, if one takes into account the ISI-CIA alchemy of violent interference).

We need terminators to eliminate fools, the Mickey-mouse world falsely installed in their tiny minds, and other dangerous fantasies they want us to drown into. This means that we need, within the most advanced intelligence, the most advanced capability and inclination to inflict pain on the elected target of our ire. Humanity is not about avoiding Evil, but about inflicting it appropriately, never forgetting that ultimate value, progress.

That the worst revolutions, and the worst excesses have made that discourse before, and they were wrong in their circumstances, does not mean that it is wrong always, or that it is not the basic discourse of human evolution. Because it is. In the human species, extermination has driven evolution. That does not mean that all and any extermination is good, but it means that it is always there as an instinct. Certainly nastier, and much more powerful than, say, the sexual instinct.

When France and Britain declared war to Hitler on September 3, 1939, the Will To Exterminate, the infliction of pain came to the rescue of the highest moral principles. "Blood, sweat, and tears" were further promised by Churchill, nearly a year later. In the name of a greater good. Even buffaloes understand this. Extermination and infliction of pain and violence can be the best next action to engage into.

But some Princeton professors do not understand this, because they have no interest in understanding this. Their fame comes from having a reputation for intelligence and scholarship, while not understanding what even buffaloes understand. So doing, they become living miracles: so dumb, and yet so smart about being dumb! So good, and yet, so evil at implementing their goodness.

(Singer is not always stupid; he was against G. W. Bush’s Iraq war). As I said, the same objection can be made against some Buddhist formulations, and against pacifism, when it reaches the rarefied heights of complete idiocy, where only the most stupid organisms represent life.



Economy means house-management. What about human-management? It is curious that we have no word for it, since it is the main obsession of philosophy, politics and, per force, civilization. Would its homonymy be the neologism homonomy? Is that humanity, in full, the entanglement of love, and evil, and conscience?

We saw above that tough, cruel, brutal, violent, inhuman decisions had to be taken to save humanity. Inhuman bombing and strafing by aircraft all over German cities was very effective to destroy Nazism. That was OK, because it was OK, said Satan, to kill children.


Bodies of school children in Braunschweig, Germany, after a bombing raid.


Berlin was 33% destroyed by aerial bombing. Cologne: 61% destroyed by aerial bombing. Dortmund: 54% Dresden 59%. Dusseldorf: 64%. Essen 50%. Frankfurt; 53%. Hamburg: 75% destroyed by aerial bombing. Munich: 42% destroyed by aerial bombing. All these cities had more than half a million people. Many of these cities got further destroyed by ground fighting.

Evil motivates us to do what needs to be done, and that love, alone, cannot compel us to do. Think Hiroshima plus Nagasaki: 400,000 killed (maybe), 3 millions saved (or much more).

So if evil, in the abstract, is a tolerable, even indispensable characteristic of our human ethology, if Evil, the inner part of our psychobiology that is mean and cruel, can be OK, what is not OK? Abstract evil allows us, gives us the emotional motivation, to cut through love, or indifference, when they preventing us to do something which, if not done, would ultimately kill love.

Without the help of Satan, of the Dark Side, it would have been impossible for the crews wasting Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or those doing aerial bombings all over Germany, to do their duty. It was not just the duty of the West, and democracy, but that of civilization. However, viewed from our heavenly side, it was so disgusting, that only a taste for evil allowed to do it.

Some of the brutes performing their evil deeds may call what drives their conscience "God". And that is why the God of the Bible and the Qur’an is so mean, cruel, jealous, and more than a bit demented in his drive to extermination (see the book of apocalypse in the Bible, and the end of the Qur’an). Otherwise the most arduous ethical tasks would never get done, and this explains that Christo-Islamism is by far the world’s greatest religion (by comparison there are only 500 million Buddhists).



Churchill’s activities in 1940 are revealing: no mountain was high enough, which he could not climb, but neither was any evil, that he would not muster to his help. Absent Churchill’s evil activities, the going would have been tougher (although a Nazi victory had become unlikely after the enormous losses Hitler’s armed forces sustained during the Battle Of France).

1) Churchill ordered the head of the Royal Air Force to send all his squadrons to France, keeping only the minimum needed for survival of England (his subordinate lied to him, and kept more than needed).

2) Churchill (and de Gaulle) ordered the unification of Great Britain and France (it failed by happenstance).

3) Churchill ordered the preparation of toxic gas and of the poisoning of wells throughout South East England (in contradiction with international treaties that even the Nazis respected).

4) Churchill ordered the destruction of the French fleet (lest it fell in Nazi hands, but also to encourage the others). British Admiral Somerville was asked to carry the orders, and did so, calling it: "…the biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us…we all feel thoroughly ashamed…" Instead it showed the world that the British were even nastier than the Nazis (the nastiness was accidental, due to a miscommunication, as both French and British commands had agreed to send the fleet to the USA… but the point is that the nastiness looked good…).

What is not OK, is stupid evil. For example going into Afghanistan to support a corrupt fundamentalist theocracy (that of Karzai), while calling the opposition "a sorry band of men, which PERVERTS RELIGION, " is too dumb for easy analysis. The ways of the stupid are mysterious, and they take great umbrage when they are told they know nothing. But then, at some point, instead of tolerating stupidity, we have to crush the stupid so much that they can’t impose their stupidity anymore. So we have to be mean, at some point, with the insufficiently mentally endowed. We need a touch of evil. Thus it is a greater evil to not have a touch of evil. That is where we lose Buddhists, holier-than-thous, Obama, and those who appease at all cost. Obama needed a touch of evil to get a health care plan that made sense, or for opposing his generals, obsessed as they are, by conquering the next valley over, or for understanding that he banks were rolling him in flour, before putting him to fry.



SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE WHILE CREATING A LOT OF THE UNIVERSE AROUND US IS WHAT HUMANS DO, AND HAVE DONE, FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, EVOLVING INTO IT, AND THROUGH IT. This is the essence of humanity, and thus, it’s ultimate good. I THINK, THEREFORE I CAN (hopefully without messing things up too much). We if I don’t think enough, we can’t do enough.( Obama’s problem.)

How do humans create so much of the universe? By constructing first a putative universe in their brains, inspired by the observed universe. In other words they create first a model in their mind, naturally it’s a flawed model, something which is not, but a real little universe, made of quantum and neurological connections.

They may well use Quantum Logics and quantum Random Walk to do that, because Quantum processes can be in two places at once, making them a tempting mechanism to entangle what is happening and what might have been, or could well be. Quantum potentialities go hand in hand with free will.

The ultimate stupidity is the unconscious. However being conscious means one will experience pain. Let me explain. It is pretty clear that the simplest animals, such as Aplysia, a sea slug with 600 neurons, experience pain. Is that bad? No. Pain actually is good for Aplysia: it keeps it out of harm’s way, and that is why pain was invented, as Aplysia’s ancestors evolved. So, if pain is good for Aplysia, most of the time, why should not it be good for us, some of the time? But then what is left of philosophies which make pain avoidance their metaprinciple, and prefer kill to will?



Although it can suffer, it is not clear that Aplysia is conscious, whatever conscious means. "Conscious" probably means that it can invent stuff. Namely go from a neurology which is purely reactive and descriptive, to one where an imaginary universe embodies itself, the putative universe.

It is clear that Aplysia knows pain, and maybe pain is the only thing it knows, whatever "knowing" means. Thus pain is more fundamental than consciousness, and a fundamental part of knowledge. Of course Buddha did not know what Aplysia was, and, a fortiori, never engaged a dialogue with it, modulo mild electric discharges. But now we have talked that way to Aplysia, and Aplysia responded, and instructed us. There is more wisdom in gaining other animals’ wisdom, than in imposing ours, without having listened to them first.

Hence, when Princeton professors want to exterminate us according to their mission, or more exactly, their front, of simple minded goodness to eliminate the pain, as an overarching principle, they are, de facto, deploring consciousness first.

Conspiracy theorists will notice that Princeton and Rutgers are private, "Ivy League" universities. These elite universities attend to the plutocracy. The plutocracy prefers its victims to be unconscious; thus Singer and Mc Mahan theorize in accordance with their pay masters: by attacking pain, they attack consciousness, and thus the adversaries of plutocracy, and you can bet that they are not even conscious of that.



Ultimately life and consciousness are ultimate goods, the ultimate goods. Pain originated as a way to help life and consciousness, an unavoidable way to them, a protector and parent. Actually a lot of neurobiology may have risen from pain circuitry. But it still plays this role, even in the highest way. When pain comes from the catastrophic rise of CO2, it will be a way to warn against further catastrophe, a way more persuasive to most than intellectual reasoning. Hurting the beast brings up the soul, in those who did not have enough of it to start with.

In any case, viewing the elimination of pain as an ultimate good is, itself, one of the greatest evils, because it is promoting the annihilation of what makes consciousness possible.



More prosaically we need predators, because predation is a great source of mind and poetry. We evolved with them, through them, in a mental exchange with them. Without predators to worry about, and admire, we are not fully us. A sea full of sharks, a bush, full of lions, concentrate the minds as only the proximity of putative death can. While relativizing and putting back in their tiny places inferior values.

The human species is not just omnivorous as pigs are omnivorous. Pigs love to kill (warthogs have been known to kill lions, with their razor sharp tusks propelled by their mean dispositions). But pigs did not evolve as killing machines. And only because they were killing machines. We did, though. We can’t live on tubers, acorns and mushrooms alone.

The human species evolved through epigenetic pressure towards making meat its source of energy, because meat is a superior source of energy (even the biggest whales use meat as energy; the tiniest meat, under the form of plankton, sure, but still meat). The earliest bones found with human made cut marks stand at 3.4 million years, a 2010 discovery. Those marks are apparently older than Homo Habilis, previously thought as the earliest tool maker. That would mean that meat eating was a solid pressure in human evolution, from way back, and that it mixed with tool, weapon, and knife usage.

Everything indicates that the difference between chimps and the human lineage is all about meat, and thus is at least 6 million years old.

Our energy guzzling brains evolved us, through millions of years, into the stewards of the land, and the lords of good and evil, each defining the other. Do away with evil, and you do away with goodness too.

Mc Mahan, the Rutgers-Princeton master thinker suggests to go kill all the sharks, all the sea turtles, sea serpents, and sea eagles. Kill all the cows, because they eat slugs and insects in their pernicious pseudo herbivorous ways. don’t forget to kill all the sea lions, and all the elephant seals, all the whales (much of plankton is made of small animals). Nazism, generalized, Hitler made coherent with himself: nothing like it, no doubt the present and more of the future of the USA.

We, the predators and carnivores will argue that doing away with stupidity is our first and proximal mission, and everything else is secondary. Such is the deepest nature of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It is dishonest to claim that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is not a carnivorous predator. It’s our reality, we have to take it into account, if we want to keep on living. Just eating grass will not change this, and the ecological weight on the planet is commensurate with just eating meat (it’s less, but still commensurate, so either feeding mode is a problem of the same nature). Singer’s and Mc Mahan’s solution, to eliminate life itself, is no solution, not anymore that one would have solved Fermat conjecture by deciding to do no more mathematics. Singer and Mc Mahan have a problem, so they suggest to jump off the bridge collectively. It would be more moral to engage in nuclear world war, or , even more moral, to have the USA take over the world. And of course these milder solutions may be why the absurdly criminogenic propositions of Singer and Mc Mahan are given such a big soap box.

Since as predators and carnivores we are used to adversity, and we welcome their hatred, we will not be disheartened, because, to impose our superior morality, no evil will stand in the way, as the Nazis, should they still be around, could testify.



Even the Nazis never advocated publicly, no Nazi ever advocated publicly, the "final solution". But now American professors from the highest ivory towers indulge themselves that way, and the most prestigious media give them amplification. All indicates that that ethics is sinking ever more in the USA. When do we hit bottom? Torture, assassination, advocacy of genocide: why so much impudence against civilization? Well, because civilization is losing. Losing to plutocracy, that is.

The war in Afghanistan plays a devious role in this. The USA, NATO, the West are losing in Afghanistan. They are losing, and it was a deliberate plot. They don’t mind: it is becoming the plan, increasingly so.

Various agents, starting under Carter, consciously, decided to use Afghanistan as a trap for the USSR. What they did not say was that it was a trap also for the USA, the West, democracy. What is boosted? Fascism, and thus plutocracy.

Suppose that Al Qaeda, the godchild of the Pakistani ISI, got its hands on one of the 200 Pakistani thermonuclear bombs, and exploded in a major Western city, say New York. The reaction of the American establishment would be to impose instant fascism, the dream regime for plutocracy. So, logically, plutocracy, through its influence in Washington, should have used American taxpayer money to finance the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. And that is exactly what it did (last under G. W. Bush).

Creating a semantic context where extra-judicial governmental violence, torture, and assassination are tolerated and genocide accepted as a possible, even "ethical" solutions, are part of this general effort. They are both implied threat and distraction. The increasingly satanic ambiance benefits the plutocracy, this nebulous association of the richest and most powerful. Because it makes their activities expected, accepted, acceptable, it makes the flames and heavy clouds of hell, torture, assassination, genocide, into what the respected and supposedly respectable preaches. It’s hell, it’s now, and let nobody say in the future they did not know that it was going on. Because it is. Just look.


Patrice Ayme


Note 1: BEFORE WE KILL ALL OF HUMANKIND, LET’S START WITH IRAN: I am aware of the drumbeat about attacking Iran. I view the evil "philosophical" sing-song by such abysmal critters, and the advertizing of their slime, as if wisdom’s musings, part of the sneaky instauration of an evil ambiance conducive to expanding the military-industrial fascism where it would love to go. Making final solutions, genocides, objects of philosophical reflection is modern propaganda at its best. Tweak the hearts and dull the principles, and soon torture will go officially unpunished, and the president will order citizens to be assassinated, without even bothering to indict them.


Note 2. CLEVER EVIL IS THE DEFINITION OF HUMANITY. Indeed, how do we maximize cleverness of a civilization? Through giving much to the many. MULTUM ET MULTA.

One does not increase cleverness, as Reagan wanted to do, by turning everybody in hamburger flippers and servants of the rich. That is what the USA has leaned towards, ever since it decided to trust in ‘god" in 1954. Whatever god is. Probably lives in a mansion, is a "philanthropist", pays few taxes, if any, and makes up most of what is called GDP (Gross Demonic Plutocracy).

Instead, to advance intelligence, one needs to produce children, better educated than any children before, and more than ever before. Giving more ("multum") to the many (‘multa"). But giving, that is the point. Humanity is giving, that is why it took so much, and why it needs to know to say no, and knows when to say no.


Note 3: WAS HITLER A SINGER? Peter Singer’s books are widely read, his articles frequently appear in anthologies, he is very much in demand throughout the world as a speaker. He is tenured chair in the "Center For Human Values" at Princeton University.

In his book "Rethinking Life and Death", Peter Singer asserts that "Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus."

Singer makes a big difference between humans who are "persons", and those who are not. A brand new baby, or the mentally handicapped are not persons, and can be killed at leisure (except when it upsets their parents, because that may not be safe). The Nazis went down that exact route, an euthanasia program of the mentally deficient, and had to stop, because the German people protested.

Statements of that idiot are all over his work. Here is another, in the same vein: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation." It all depends what "aware" means. awareness does not seem to include intelligence, with Peter Singer, so he finds rats more "aware".

Singer’s view that "human babies are not capable of grasping their lives over time" is offensive, completely erroneous hogwash.

My own two weeks premature daughter was clearly extremely aware of me as an individual different from other individuals, right from her first hour out of the womb. Alerted by the sound of my voice, she turned her head, opened her eyes and looked at me intently, for about a minute, before closing her eyes for the next two days. If she could distinguish me from others, clearly, everything indicated that she was aware of her own self. As we moved from the high mountains to an oceanic coast, she seemed to remember, and long for the early environment of her first few months.

Singer is the one who is "not capable of grasping his life over time": clearly for advocating to kill the most innocent among us humans, he is as bad as the worst Nazis, on the theoretical side. Enthusiastic defenders of real human values may want to open season on him, so he clearly does not grasp his life over time.

Was Hitler a "person"? In some ways, Hitler was clearly deranged. So, according to Singer, he should have been considered for elimination (Singer never quite express himself that way, because he prefers weasel words, but his weasel ways bring someone there, and nowhere else). Singer’s theses are as deranged, if not more deranged (Hitler never advocated genocide publicly, or even in private that we know of, and Hitler never said that babies were not people). So accordingly Singer may be viewed as even more deeply mentally disabled than Hitler. According to his own viewpoint, he should be taken care of.

Singer claims that advocating infanticide isn’t a large part of his philosophy. I guess genocide is more like it: "I haven’t focused on infanticide. It’s always been a minor aspect of my work. The focus is that of my opponents, and the media." Infanticide, I dabble in, say Singer, and he sings in many prestigious universities. His eugenics go where eugenics have never gone before. "Eugenics" means good birth. But singer has found possible use for the lowest of the low. "It would not be wrong" to breed them for experiments on the children thus produced(which is very close to what Nazi doctor Mengele did) : "Some people carry genes that mean any children they produce will be severely mentally retarded. As long as the lives of these children are pleasant, it would not, according to the replaceability argument, be wrong to perform a scientific experiment on a child that resulted in the death of the child, provided another child could be conceived to take its place." If the next generation was like Singer, indeed, I understand that life would not be worth living. But it will not be, as long as there are no more Singers, of any power, looking forward.


Despite the vehemence his grotesque homicidal boasts lend themselves to, Professor Singer is regarded, in many circles, as an important and highly respected philosopher and bioethicist. In particular, the ethicist in Obama’s administration, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, had held a similar discourse (with the view of influencing policy, by economizing money through withholding treatment to people who are viewed as less of a “person”, the exact line down which the Nazis went, now to be followed by our weasel friends, Drs. Singer and Emanuel).


Note on Mc Mahan, the killer of life:


In the “The Meat Eaters”, McMahan whines that:

"the natural world often presents a vista of sublime, majestic placidity. Yet beneath the foliage and hidden from the distant eye, a vast, unceasing slaughter rages. Wherever there is animal life, predators are stalking, chasing, capturing, killing, and devouring their prey. Agonized suffering and violent death are ubiquitous and continuous. This hidden carnage provided one ground for the philosophical pessimism of Schopenhauer, who contended that “one simple test of the claim that the pleasure in the world outweighs the pain…is to compare the feelings of an animal that is devouring another with those of the animal being devoured.”"


Note on aerial bombing: IT WORKED. Pacifists sometimes claim that aerial bombing was not effective in WWII. This is true as far as raids on England were concerned. But aerial bombing on Japan, and especially Germany were highly effective. One million soldiers were used in anti-aircraft capacity in Germany, alone, and, even then, they were not nearly enough. German industry had to be dispersed, all over. Soon daily transportation became impossible, etc. Just an aside: when the Renault factory in Boulogne-Billancourt (Paris suburbs) was destroyed, what could the Nazis do? Nothing. No more precious trucks. The factory was made functional again only well after fighting stopped in Paris.


Note on Sade: Sade seems to have anticipated the description of the Rage To Exterminate, by making a parody of the gory effects of the way, he alleged, that it habitated the plutocracy in his day and age. That is why he was sent to prison for decades, especially by the fascist dictator Napoleon. And that is one reason for not burning Sade (De Beauvoir has asked the question).


Tags: , ,

30 Responses to “EVIL IS WITH US, BUT IT CAN BE GOOD.”

  1. Luke Says:

    Paranoia much?

    If you read the articles you link, you would see they’re not about genocide at all. I would also venture you’re not much familiar with Singer’s work; he’s very controversial as he takes moral principles to their logical extreme (i.e. what would it really require to maximize happiness across Earth).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Terminating a species is committing genocide relative to this species. That is what Singer proposes for human beings. “Should this be the last generation?”, as Singer puts it, is a weasel way of suggesting that the human species ought to be exterminated.

      I have bought all of Singer’s books, for years, the day they come out. I view him as an important critter. I own also several books of Hitler (the two Mein Kampfs, and various speeches and journal; same for Goebbels, Hitler’s ephemeral successor). I made extensive quotes of Hitler, I mean Singer, what is the difference indeed, in the notes in my 8200 words essay. Singer has proposed to breed idiots to conduct “scientific experiments” on them. Singer proposes to do what the Nazis in part did, but never dared to talk about loudly.

      There is no logic in Singer, just a parody of it. He obviously, with Mc Mahan, stole a lot of ideas from Nietzsche, without picking up the context that Nietzsche was ANTI-NIHILISTIC.

      So I read the articles, they are indeed about genocide. I reacted to them at the time in no uncertain manner. Genocide means killing the genotype. Both Singer and Mc Cahan proposed it very clearly (although Mc Cahan insisted later that he was not talking about killing all human beings, his argument was specious and fallacious, and he proposed to do it for all carnovores).

      That many oligarchic Americans, and their most prestigious universities and media do not feel that the promotion of genocide and the worst morality ever proposed by Peter Singer is an attack against civilization has only one explanation: the elite in the USA has turned its back to civilization. As demonstrated by presidentially mandated official torture and assassination. Let alone invasion and devastation of most of the Middle East.



  2. Wowbagger Says:


    This is a dishonest misrepresentation of Singer’s philosophy. Nowhere did he ever advocate genocide. And even his radical views, i.e. ‘infanticide is not inherently immoral’ have absolutely nothing to do with ‘hate’. Much rather, Singer’s preference utilitiarianism makes up the most logical, consistent and evident account of ethics.

    Obviously, whoever wrote the text in the OP has not read any works by Singer and only heard some (misrepresented) proposals. Go to a bookstore and pick up ‘Practical Ethics’, you at least want to know what you’re arguing against so vehemently.

    As for the rest of this post, I’ll look at it later, the topic is interesting, but from the first few paragraphs I don’t think it’s worth much..


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You expect that I did not read Singer. Then you admit you are the one who talks about what you do not read. Namely you did not read my essay, nor any of the quotes I made of Singer, and then you tell me vehemently that my work is not worth much. Well, I do not think that such a procedure is worth much. I let you judge of its honesty.

      As far as Singer not advocating genocide of the human species, this is exactly what his question:”Should this be the last generation?”, the title of his essay in the New York Times, obviously implies (except if one is a rat, and one cannot read).

      Another thing; I have read Singer for years. I buy all his books, and study his mind. He is to philosophy what Aplysia is to basic neurology. Is Singer more aware than a rat? That is what I wonder, after he explained to me that my human baby was less aware than a rat.

      I would go as far as calling Singer an American racist (thus his apology of genocide, historically an American speciality, and comparing defavorably babies to rats). I know he is Australian, let me reassure you. Just like Hitler, he may be trying to ingratiate himself with the assumed utilitarianism of his hosts.


  3. Joseph Says:


    to ask “is life worth living” is a relevant and age old question. If you come to the conclusion that it is not worth living, then the question “why continue?” is an obvious follow up. This little game is not only played by philosophers or so called bioethicists but by anyone with a brain and life experience. Sadly, a small percentage of people actually take action.

    When Singer moves these questions from the level of the individual to the level of the species you decry him as a genocidal maniac. However you ignore that Singer answers the first question with “yes”:

    “In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now.”

    But let’s assume for a moment he concluded “No, life is not worth living” and “We should not continue and stop reproducing”. This stance can only be considered genocidal if suicide is murder. Do you believe that ? Would you for example agree that someone, who failed at a suicide attempt, should be charged with attempted homicide ? I guess not. It is even more obvious that you are not going to see somone, who successfully comited suicide, being postmortem charged with murder. Why is that (technicalities aside) ? One could argue that the person that kills himself at one point of the time also kills 1000 other versions of his future self, who albeit being the “same” biological person, are as individuals distinguishable from his former self. Can this not be called murder ? I say no, unless, of course, one considers the annihilation of potential life murder. A person inclined to do this might as well join the catholic church. In the same way how can a stop of reproduction be considered genocide?

    Would you call me a murderer because i and my girlfriend use contraceptions ?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Joseph:
      To ponder if life is worth living is not a question worth having: life just goes on, that is what life does.

      Some individuals are in too much pain to keep on going, like Socrates, and they ought to have the right, as many of the ill, to terminate their suffering, as they see fit.

      But to entice people to commit suicide is attempted murder. The principals in the American cult in Guyana who suicided nearly 1,000 people were murderers (although they suicided themselves too). What Singer does is a bit more elaborated approach to all of this.

      Better: Singer undermines all human values, thus working discreetly for the rough methods American based plutocracy is using to maintain its imperium. [I know Singer wrote an anti-Bush book; I bought it, and started to read it, before getting bored to death, no doubt a new sneaky way Singer has found to try to kill me.] I do not know whether Singer is conscious of this, his role as a termite boring through the timber of human values so as reinforcing the empire. He may well not be so, because, overall, he does not seem very conscious: is Singer what he himself calls a “person”, according to my own standards?

      I think that, in the developed world, most people have used contraception, and, actually, so it is in most of the world, more recently (birthrates have collapsed). I never suggested that contraception was murder, have used it myself, and I think nearly all adults I know did.

      Peter Singer has been talking as I said in the notes. His ethics is close to Dr. Mengele’s, as when Peter Singer suggests to breed CHILDREN he does not view as “persons”, so that “scientific experiments” could be conducted on them.

      To answer the suicide question: of course people trying to commit suicide are not charged with murder, but they get mandatory psychiatric treatment. One of the reasons being that, if you are ready to kill someone, you may well kill someone else too. A suicide is not murder, but close to it.

      Peter Singer is inciting to suicide. That is an offense in the penal code. He does not get arrested because he uses weasel thinking, with devious use of the third person, a method popularized by Julius Caesar. After the two sentences you gave, here is the entire rest of Peter Singer’s essay, in its full weaselly splendor:

      “But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?


      What do you think?

      Readers are invited to respond to the following questions in the comment section below:

      If a child is likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing the child into existence?

      If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence?

      Is life worth living, for most people in developed nations today?

      Is a world with people in it better than a world with no sentient beings at all?

      Would it be wrong for us all to agree not to have children, so that we would be the last generation on Earth?”

      I can play that game too. Would it be wrong to indict Peter Singer for incitation to commit crimes against children? [Refering to Singer’s suggestion to conduct “scientific experiments” on them if they are mentally deficient to the point Singer does not view them as “persons”…. As Singer did suggest in other places.]

      Notice in passing that one cannot talk of the “interests” of somebody who does not exist, so Singer ought to tighten his logic, if he wants to progress in his “deep” questions…


  4. Joseph Says:

    Dear Patrice,

    thank you for your response. i strongly disagree with this statement: “To ponder if life is worth living is not a question worth having: life just goes on, that is what life does”. On the contrary i think this simple question lies at the heart of human progress and development materially and socially. Imagine the slave would never have asked himself the question “is my life even worth living?” and “just went on”. Would a student ever place himself in front of a tank without asking this very question ? Would millions of individuals commited to social progress and freedom have ever run into a sea of swords, spears, bayonettes and machine guns without asking this question ? In fact i believe asking this question more than anything divides us from cattle. A pig in a meatfactory never asks itself if this live is worth living, it just eats, shits, gets slaughtered and devoured by its master. No utterance of discontend or regret except an involuntary squeal.

    No, this question is not an enticement to suicide neither on the level of the individual nor on the level of society, it is an enticement to revolution and progress. If you see a drug addict and ask him to look in the mirror and contemplate if his or her life is worth living, are you doing it because you want him to commit suicide or because you want him to see the sad reality of his every day for what it is and bring about positive change. Yes, in a very abstract sence this question most necessarily brings about destruction – and, if you want, murder – , but it is not destruction aimed at leaving a wasteland it is not murder of the biological entity but of the sick “alter ego” of addiction and aimed at the restoration of a healthy lifestyle. People that ask themselves this question with regards to society like Spartacus, Zapata, Mandela, Mao Zedong, Lenin etc . have indeed brought about destruction and murder or at least have other people enticed to murder / get murdered. However they were not out to create a wastland filled with ruins and corpses but wanted to achieve social progress.

    Indeed it is the reactionary that wants to supress this question either by the physical elimination of the agent (good old times) or by diverting the attention of the cattle with, well, shiny stuff.

    Singers question is not a denial of all human values, but lies at the heart of all that we consider human values.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Joseph:
      I am myself very much in the style of confronting tanks with bare hands. I was attacked for my views, and words, and even bombed, and, apparently I am not any wiser about it. But that has nothing to do, this aggressive attitude of mine, with “life”. It has to do with my fierce character, my passion for justice, my irritation towards idiots, criminals, greedsters, banksters, fanatics, etc.

      When people engage in the great struggles you mentioned, it is not in general because they decided to suicide themselves, or because they came to the realization that life is not worth living. Quite the opposite.

      For example Obama decided to expand the war in Afghanistan, and become personally responsible of the death of thousands of people, but it is not because he wants some terrorist to blow him or his kind up. No, no, no. Obama thinks of that not, he thinks that he is invicible. Obama thinks he will become glorious, accomplish a great task, climb his own towering mountain, awing the masses, and have the right Islam triumph, while serving the military-industrial complex, thus seducing the mighty plutocracy as its best errant boy ever. It is often glory seeking, or pure rage, or a sense of fairness which animate humans. No need to go metaphysical. To explain why we love French fries, no need to ponder if it is worth digesting.

      When other primates act, it is not because they ponder metaphysics. Nor did Socrates do what he did because he pondered whether life was worth it, or not. He just liked his creature comforts, and his rich friends, Athens’ gilded, and soon enough dictatorial, youth.

      Demosthenes killed himself as Macedonian soldiers were seizing him (he carried poison). Obviously he wanted to avoid torture, or being forced to deny his anti-Macedonian ideals. But when Demosthenes vociferated against Macedonian fascism, there again, it was not because life was worth living.

      My philosophical point is that there is no need, in most of philosophy, to evoke “to be, or not to be”. When Camus claimed that:”the only question in philosophy is death”, he was being flippant to hide his philosophical shallowness (while criticizing the pataphysical verbiage of contemporary philosophers). Down that road I do not go. Most people, in most normal circumstances, like most normal crocodiles, live, as it comes.

      Whether one just put a bullet in Hitler’s face (there was such a plot in 1943 among German officers and marshalls) is an entirely different, much more interesting question.


  5. Joseph Says:

    Dear Partrice,

    as you can probably imagine I’m now bursting with curiosity to find out the circumstances in which you were bombed, but i suspect you’d rather keep that to yourself. However, thank you for that interesting exchange.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I was bombed by a European neofascist group, years ago. The gentleman (a guitar player) next to me was ripped to shreds, and thus protected me. I knew the bombers, and had talked to them politely, extensively (not roughly as I do for Singer). This showed me the limits of polite discourse, coolness, and dispassionate exchange. I will keep the rest to myself. Differently from Obama, I do not have a security detail.

      Then there was this time in Iran, close to the Caspian Sea, when a group of 30 young men or so, intercepted me on a run, somewhere in the wilderness, and coolly told me they would kill me if I were an American, which I disingenously guaranteed to them I was not. My few words of Farsi may have helped. They were nicer than the Euro fascists. They were not manipulated by Al Qaeda or whatever, but just harbored a resentment against Uncle Sam… And so on. The Ivory Tower works best, if it is revivified by the occasional Ivory Charge, tusks down.


  6. Kapra Says:


    Tyranosopher that was bloody good essay. It covers a vast area of what is evil, the nature of evil and of the cyborg “human” in this case Singer against natural humanity itself.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Kapra!
      The cyborg has exasperated me for years. He often gives me the impression Hitler got tenured at Princeton, and cavernously resonate with his otherwordly message of devastation of the dearest human values, and his preying on the most innocent among us. Off with his thoughts!


  7. Wowbagger Says:

    Singer says that adult, healthy rats are more aware than newborn infants. And he is right about that. And a rat isn’t ‘made to be eaten’. And neither is Singer… anyway, babies aren’t even intelligent, much less so than rats!

    Awareness has nothing to do with intelligence. Or do you think torturing and killing a person with IQ 120 is not worse than torturing and killing a person with IQ 90? And anyway, babies aren’t even intelligent, much less so than rats! Human babies don’t think. All they do is instinct-based. Self-awareness comes slowly and gradually as the baby matures. People don’t have memories from before 3 years of age. That’s because before that, there was ‘nothing there’ to remember anything.

    You are confusing instinct with awareness.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thank you for proving how right I am of calling a venimous snake a venimous snake. The way you consider babies inferior to rats in important and fallacious ways, reflect well that of your master of the dark and ugly arts, Peter Singer his name. Even from Hitler’s writings such atrociously disgusting ooze cannot be extracted.

      The most charitable to say is that you clearly do not have a baby. I do. She is next to me right now, studying a book. She is 12 months old, and has been a delightful human being from day one, although she was prematurely born, by several weeks, for medical reasons. She was endowed with memory, reflection, and the most exquisite love and tenderness, from day one.

      Those who, like Peter Singer, want to kill babies, human babies, or suggest it’s OK to do so, and compare them with rats, calling them less aware, less intelligent,than rats, etc. are beneath contempt, and dreadfully misinformed about human nature. They place somewhere lower than pedophiles, since pedophiles, at least, as their name indicates do not necessarily claim that babies are worse than rats mentally, and the natural consequences thereof.

      OK, I have to stop, because baby wants to type… She thinks my protests are really funny… Now she is playing hide and seek around the computer… Not aware, you said? She makes jokes all day long!


  8. Wowbagger Says:

    Wowbagger wrote:
    Singer doesn’t advocate ‘killing babies just for the hell of it’.

    For instance, he made the following point:

    “If cruel experiments on adult chimpanzees are morally justifiable, we might as well experiment with orphaned babies, for they would suffer less than the chimps.”

    Note that he didn’t even positively advocate experimenting, he simply made a valid comparison.

    Singer would still agree that killing a baby for no good reason is bad, 1) because it causes a lot of emotional suffering for the family, and 2) because the infant might feel pain in the process of dying.

    However, his main point is that the infant is not self-aware, thus it has no conscious interests except not-suffering. And since one doesn’t suffer in death, it isn’t inherently wrong to kill a newborn infant, or a fetus for that matter (for what difference does being inside or outside the womb make?). It’s the same with i.e. killing cows. Singer is a vegetarian himself, because he believes meat animals suffer too much pain. However, he wouldn’t object to eating meat if the animals lived in good conditions and were killed without pain.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It often sounds as if it were Singer who is not self aware of the absurdities which erupts from him as from an out of control volcano.

      Infants are self aware, and scientific experiments have demonstrated that, let alone a few million years of mothers taking care.

      A serious problem I have with Singer is that even Hitler would not have said something that insensitive. Like Alfred Rosenberg, but worse, Singer has created a criminally insane, completely idiotic ambiance in the way of looking at humanity, and specious ways of defining who is a “person”, and who is not (following in this the Nazis).

      His devious reasonings have been found, again and again under Bush, this time to justify torture, violation of the constitution, civilization, etc.

      I know Singer disagreed with Bush, and that is ironical, since he helped so much to create that monster, by the very weaselly, insensitive way he reasons.

      Replace “infant” by “enemy combatant”, and you get Bush. And as I said, that conceptual serpent is alive and well, as the Obama presidency is feeding it, in its wars, and with Obamacare’s coming triage.


  9. multumnonmulta Says:

    Based on the above exchange only, the problem is ontological. Whereas Patrice takes LIFE as axiomatic value, Singer et al view it less so. Based on this difference, each party in the conversation starts with the other’s assumption and they both reach conclusions the originating party would not recognize/endorse; albeit, they all agree that genocide is not on the same level as contraception.

    I guess, Singer may say something like this, since not all life is worth living, current generations have a duty to leave behind […].

    P.S. Patrice, is this conversation going on live, as it were, or it’s from your other blog?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear multumnonmulta:
      You way to put it is excellent. LIFE is definitively definable. On this solid ground I stand.

      The notions Singer uses, such as happiness of creatures who do not even exist, are not so easily definable. Verily, what Singer tries to hide is his hatred of humankind, and especially of the innocent (infants, babies, the mentally deficient, upon whom, in pure Nazi style, he suggests to experiment; except the Nazis did not dare talk about it, and it was done secretly, even among the Nazis themselves).

      One thing wowbagger was clear on, is that Singer did not promote genocide. Clearly, neither wowbagger, nor Singer, nor Mc Mahan want to know what a genocide is. It means killing an entire genotype.

      Killing an entire genotype is clearly what Singer suggested. Singer (differently from wowbagger who does not know what a genocide is), Singer then obscured what he was saying in his New York Times essay, as he always does by using the STUPOID ALLUSION method invented by his masters, Hitler, Heidegger and Rosenberg (Heidegger was forbidden to teach after the war, Rosenberg was hanged, and Hitler did not have the courage to defend his criminal absurdities in person).

      This way, Singer can present and advocate atrocities and then claim he was just doing “thought experiments” (as if he were Einstein, and talking about particles).

      I know that method well: Hitler invented it. Singer has copied Hitler’s style rigorously (just read the first 6 pages of “Mein Kampf”). Like Hitler, Singer is a loud vegetarian, and is trying to protect the animals. Hitler and Singer protect the animals, so they can say they are morally correct, and then move on with concrete decisions advocating the killing of people. Or the whole human species. Or all carnivores, like Mc Cahan, Singer’s sidekick.

      P/S: A part is reproduced from an exchange on a philosophy site. The rest is “live”, so to speak. I think that wowbagger’s ideas are close to what Singer thinks, but does not utter always frankly. I did not reproduce all what he said, because it was too long (and the editing was way too complex, as he quoted me extensively, not always negatively, but it was not clear who said what, and I do not feel like spending hours sorting out who said what, so that readers would not confuse me and him, which would be really an ominous fate).


  10. Kapra Says:


    @ Wowbanger
    Quote of Peter Singer:
    “If cruel experiments on adult chimpanzees are morally justifiable, we might as well experiment with orphaned babies, for they would suffer less than the chimps.”

    I don`t agree with abuse on baby chimps, but How does Singer know that they suffer more than babies? Does he abuse baby chimps and babies?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Very good questions, well put, Kapra!
      This is the thing about Singer: he plays logical on TV, but he is actually guided very practically by esoteric metaphysics (God, or more exactly Pluto, told him lots of deep and surprising things). Such as rats are mentally superior to babies… Rats are more “aware” than babies…

      Either that, or he hates humankind, especially the innocent… that would reflect his “utilitarian” “philosophy”. So one of his “ideas” is that the innocent and babies can’t defend themselves, so we can do them in. He mentioned explicitly that this would be safe to do, except if parents were around, and took umbrage. In which case the utilitarian “philosopher” may not want to proceed, because it’s not safe, thus not useful. Warning: this sound like, but is NOT a parody.
      Peter Singer is to philosophy what Aplysia is to neurology… Except aplysia is not venomous, so Singer is more like a cone, not just a conehead…


  11. Wowbagger Says:

    Chimps can speak in sign language if taught. They remember dates. They recognize themselves in mirrors. They have moral codes and shun the ones that disobey them. They make elaborate, non-instinct-based plans for the future, proving that they have imagination. They are our closest natural relatives, and very much like us. It’s obvious that they are MUCH more self-aware than babies.

    As for rats, it’s more difficult to tell. But think of it this way, you put a rat and a baby into the wild. Who’s going to survive longer? What useful things can babies actually do? That’s a relevant question because consciousness is about choosing ‘what to do’. Babies don’t need that. They just scream when they’re uncomfortable and then mother takes care of it. Of course, it depends on the age of a baby, and at around 1.5 or 2 years, the baby is probably more aware than any rat. It’s a gradual process.

    There have been some interesting experiments demonstrating to what extent animals actually feel pain. Yes – it can be demonstrated with ingenous experiment ideas. But I won’t go into details here, whoever is interested shoud read Singer’s ‘Practical Ethics’.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:


      One could put Singer in the wild too, see how long he survives…

      Funny: the guy is of Jewish origin, his parents fled to Australia. And what he is telling us is that non-survival is synonymous with lack of awareness, and thus being less of a person, or, even, a non person. In other words, Singer is justifying the Nazi holocaust of the Jews. Some will say it is not as bad as perpetrating the holocaust. But the argument can also easily be made that it is WORSE.

      I have interacted with wild lions, as a child, in wild Africa. The key is respect for the king of the jungle, although acting as if one owned the universe. Then lions rise, and make way.

      The argument that babies would not survive in the wild is silly. as adviser to the local tribe, I would put Singer on the menu first. “Not really a person”, I would argue, “he thinks our children are less than rats”. I know the indigenes would understand my discourse, and find it human.

      I have a 12 months old baby. I studied her very carefully. I read all the conventional stuff before. None of it is true. A one day old baby is already capable of astounding mental performances. It’s not because Singer is unaware of them that they do not happen.

      In the following months, I was totally floored by the baby’s intelligence. She passed all and any chimps by 3 weeks, as she did something no chimp could ever do.

      She now speaks more than 20 words, in 2 languages. She understands sophisticated discourses, and knows how to differentiate waiting for 5 minutes, 20 minutes, or two hours. After a long winded explanation, she can, and has, said:”OK”. And so on.

      Some things have to be sacred. Singer is basically a greedy type. “Utilitarian” as he puts it. So is Wall Street. Utilitarian. So were the Nazis. Singer has an animal cult, perhaps as he feels he is just like them, rats. Hitler too was a vegetarian, and had an animal cult,too, for dogs, and thought they were as good, or better than people. OK, it’s not as bad as that: Hitler, differently from the utilitarian Singer, behaved as if he loved human children. Hitler did a lot for the ecology, I recognize.

      But the point, for those of us who are not Nazis, and hate fascism, is that we saw that utilitarian movie before. It was called Nazism. Singer is proposing something worse, the reign of king rat, probably feasting on what he calls “non aware” infants.


  12. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Tyranosopher wrote:

    The argument that babies would not survive in the wild is silly. as adviser to the local tribe, I would put Singer on the menu first. “Not really a person”, I would argue, “he thinks our children are less than rats”. I know the indigenes would understand my discourse, and find it human.

    Actually, most forager tribes routinely practise infanticide on weak or disabled babies. Even the ancient Greeks and the Romans did it. That by itself isn’t a justification, far from it for they also practised slavery, just saying it’s less uncommon that you’d think.

    Tyranosopher wrote:

    She now speaks more than 20 words, in 2 languages. She understands sophisticated discourses, and knows how to differentiate waiting for 5 minutes, 20 minutes, or two hours. After a long winded explanation, she can, and has, said:”OK”. And so on.

    Okay I’m really no expert on child development. You’re probably right, it’s very possible that a 1 year old child is more aware than any rat. My point, and Singer’s, is that there is a time when babies are less aware than rats. Certainly that’s the case at the moment of birth, or in the first month. Then the baby gradually becomes more self-aware, and at some point, surpasses the rat’s awareness. I can’t say exactly where that point is, and maybe it’s very early, i.e. 6 months. But you must agree with me that humans aren’t born smart and conscious. That’s the point you keep missing.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      @ Wowbagger:

      You don’t read what I say. I said my baby was super intelligent on day one. And she was premature. On day one she left clearly most animals behind. She knew well who her parents were, and they were heaven for her. In the love dimension she was already where no other animal would ever get. Most of what she did was love, but she did it on an astronomical scale.

      Before being so incredibly honored by knowing her, I had explained to my spouse that the baby would not be very interesting for the first 6 months, more like a crying vegetable.

      I have never been so wrong in my life. Within half an hour of holding her tiny body, I knew I was holding a soul, and a wisdom, and love incarnated. That a creature would love and trust me so much shattered all what I expected.

      Although there were other people around, nurses, surgeon, lab techs, etc, she behaved completely differently with me. I had become god. At least for her, but my new nature became my new reality. I could soothe her by just rocking her ever so gently, and peace came all over her features, her color even changed in seconds. It was the most intense moment of my entire life. And it lasted days.

      Actually she has always cried for a reason, and when she has no reason to cry, she loves life, and loves her parents, and likes everybody.

      As I already said, by 3 weeks she had passed chimps in psychological intelligence. She basically understood the joking state, and begged her dad to get out of it as her infant’s distress about not much made him laugh. It was so second degree that no chimp could have done it. No way. Actually I do not feel like fully revealing what she did, because some people tend not to believe it, and I find it hard to believe it myself. Although I was there… One thing she did, that no dumb chimp could ever do, is that she said one word, very distinctly (some have said it may have sounded like it. But the word was perfect, its tone was perfect too and both fit the the context superbly; her dad was astounded, and ever since has been obeying baby religiously).

      However, she confirmed amply her sense of humor in the following months. Now she spends several hours a day joking continuously, with my computer being the number one butt of her jokes (disconnecting the Wi Fi in at least three ways, one of them being to push the appropriate button, removing the power supply, and then putting it back in, hyper fast typing to enter mysterious combinations to lock the keyboard, or part thereof, deconstructing the keys, then hiding them, in seconds, biting the computer, and making the screen turn an angry red and yellow by twisting it very fast, are a few of her reprehensible activities.)

      Many of these feats are rewarded by direct trips to the crib, where she jumps up and down while chanting the code word to get her out… Unfortunately she knows well that I obey her when she speaks… So we start the cycle again: she approaches, chuckling, proud to show me how well she walks, and when I look alarmed, she points out somewhere else, and say: “Regardes!” (the French for “Look!”), and chuckles again, as she does one more step. When I protest, she emits innocent, surprised sounds:”Ha?”. And so on. Busy are the days…

      I actually believe that Singer ought to be indicted for what he claims. It is demonstrably erroneous: there is plenty of lab data proving that, if thousands of years of civilization are not enough. I do not know an example of greater hate speech anywhere. Osama bin Laden sounds sedate, reasonable and human, relative to Peter Singer.

      Singer is encouraging a criminally insane point of view. To compare a one year old baby, to a rat, defavorably, and say, as you do, that, early on, a baby is NOT CONSCIOUS, ought to be against the law. And actually, it MAYBE. Sexual fantasies about children are AGAINST THE LAW, WORLDWIDE.

      To say that an infant is not conscious is not only erroneous, as any parent who has been taking care of an infant would testify, but it is worse than fantaisies in pedophilia, because it invites dimwits to commit assassinations, or at least abuse, of children.

      Sexual fantaisies about fictive children only invites IMPLICITLY to harm children sexually. Singer invites IMPLICITLY to kill children as if they were vermin, as rats are generally considered to be.

      So Singer’s discourses on children are worse than those of a pedophile. That he uses weasel words, weasel reasonings, and weasel rhetorical questions to brush his hateful tracks away, as a sort of weasel fox with his tail, only makes it worse, because he is a coward. Thus he shows that he does not believe he can stand his ground, probably because he knows his discourse is criminally insane, and he holds it, just because it advances his career, as good utilitarian, fitting just right in a country that pushes for invasions, torture, assassination. I know he covered his tracks with a book against Bush. But, of the two, Singer is the less human.

      It may be more useful to put him in jail. For incting violence against children.

      I never considered the frequency of infanticide. Infanticide in this civilization is generally punished by the death penalty, or its equivalent. China instituted such a law in the Twentieth Century, to protect girls, in particular.

      I do not agree with your statement that children are not conscious, I think it is about as smart and civilized as saying that blacks are unconscious idiots. Except when clearly said in jest, as I said, it ought to be against the law.

      The more you try to justify Singer’s moronic abominations, the worse he looks.
      Tyranosopher aka Patrice Ayme


  13. Kapra Says:


    Quote of Tyranosopher:
    It may be more useful to put him in jail. For inciting violence against children.

    I never considered the frequency of infanticide. Infanticide in this civilization is generally punished by the death penalty, or its equivalent. China instituted such a law in the Twentieth Century, to protect girls, in particular.

    Singer: an animal rights lover that incites infanticide. Is he the architypal practicing paradox of pantheism? Is his love of nature cancelling out his love of humanity? He sounds very crazy to me.

    Quote of Tyranosopher:
    This is the thing about Singer: he plays logical on TV, but actually guided very practically by esoteric metaphysics

    Interesting analogy esoteric metaphysics. In what method do you mean this as applied?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      @ Kapra:
      When I compare Singer to Hitler, I am very serious. People in the democracies never quite knew Hitler’s electoral platforms, and the old Nazis have been dying off, while younger Germans are not too anxious to remember what happened (although they should, because some remaining institutional fascist structures, legal, political or emotional in Germany have been slow to disappear).

      Hitler and the Nazis were fanatical ecologists, and set-up lots of parks in Germany (a good thing). Hitler ran for office completely on helping (German speaking) minorities throughout Eastern Europe. He was such a good man that he could not hurt the animals by eating their flesh. Naturally, according to Hitler, Jews were less than animals, since they organized the destruction of Germany, with their allies, the French.

      Of course the argument that some human beings are not “persons” was invented by the Nazis. Singer is just using the Nazis’ mental work there, word for word. I guess it’s easier than creative thinking, in line with Singer’s utilitarianism.

      The Nazis launched a program similar to those advocated by Singer and what Obama’s adviser, Ezekiel Emanuel has been discretly promoting. The Nazis had to stop, because of protests.

      So when a small kernel of extreme Nazis headed by Heidrich launched the holocaust they convened other Nazis to explain to them that some unsavory activities would happen, and they better not find out what these violations of Nazi laws were exactly; the Nazi justice minister was not amused.

      Normal metaphysics naturally extends observed (and thus real and true) physics. It gives it context.

      By opposition Singer uses metaphysics which is very far removed from common sense. It is esoteric metaphysics.

      Common sense says that a baby is more aware than a rat. Judges in the Middle Ages would have considered this was self obvious, before sending Singer to the fire (to not encourage this line of reasoning: one of the main reason to be burned alive was infanticide; La Voisin admitted that she had taken part in the murder of 2,000 children, in Paris, 17C).


  14. Wowbagger Says:

    @Kapra, Singer is consequent. He is for animal rights, humans are animals, he’s for human rights too. But he is consequent and states that humans shouldn’t have undeserved rights. Simply because something is of the species ‘homo sapiens’, doesn’t justify treating it better than other animals. One has to look at specifics.

    Example: On average, males are better architects than femals. However, there are females that are better at it than the majority of males. So if your an employer of an architect enterprise, you shouldn’t discriminate against applicants simply because they are females.

    In ethics, what matters is self-awareness and capacity to suffer. We don’t mind killing insects, because they don’t have that. Now, on average, humans are more aware than chimpanzees. However, an adult chimpanzee is more aware than infants or late stage Alzheimer patients. By saying ‘he isn’t human, so we don’t care about his interests’, we are being bigots. That’s a logical freaking argument, and in certain circumstances it leads to the conclusion that infanticide can be condoned.

    @Tyranosopher, So you want to execute or put people in jail for stating a coherent argument? Have you heard of this thing called freedom of speech? You keep comparing people to Hitler, well you’re Kim Jong Ill then.

    And you still don’t get it, it’s like talking to a wall. Instinct isn’t the same as self-awareness or intelligence.

    And NO, Singer doesn’t want to kill your baby. He doesn’t want to kill any babies. I’ll give you a hint: He isn’t the Anti-Christ. That’s Chris Angel. Oh shoot, I gave it away.

    I’m done here. So long, and thanks for all the fish! *Exiting*


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      @ Wowbagger:
      You keep on saying that babies have only “instincts” whatever “instinct” is, whereas superior animals as chimpanzees and rats have a higher sense of awareness. As I said this is completely CONTRADICTED by science. Go read the book “the philosophical baby”. That’s brand new science, supported by on-going experiment. I have a signed copy from the author, by the way.

      Freedom of speech has never been absolute. Hate speech or murderous threats against people are against the law. Sexual fantaisies about children are also completely against the law. Although they were long tolerated, before civilization realized that there was a serious problem of sexual tourism oriented towards children.

      If you do not believe me, write death threats against the president of the USA on the internet, and see what happens.

      Singer’s dehumanization of children is arguably much worse.

      Some thoughts and pulsions better belong to the dark, indeed. I understand that Singer has crazy pulsions about babies, I contest that he ought to be allowed to advertize his views, all the more since they constitute not just insults against civilization, but incitations towards crime against mankind.

      Singer’s Hitlerian dehumanization goes well beyond what Hitler ever advocated, and could have a really nefarious effect in a future dictatorship, somewhere.

      You seem to have a religion of the rat. Thus I understand that you disappear into some crevice somewhere. I hope that down there in the dark, you may find that your insistence that human infants are not persons, and inferior to various animals, is not just erroneous, but borderline criminals.



  15. natural treatment for hemorrhoids at home Says:

    […]here are some hyperlinks to web pages that we link to due to the fact we think they may be really worth visiting[…]


  16. Software de facturacion Gratis Says:

    I am always a huge fan of linking to bloggers that I enjoy…


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: