Aphorisms, June 2011




Latest evaluation of the cost in treasure, to the USA, of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan: 3.7 trillion to 4.4 trillion dollars. The human cost is even larger, and is in turn dwarfed by the moral hazard of preferring the will to kill to the will to think.

The cost of the wars of whim is also a vicious circle. That means that investment is displaced from internal objectives, to establishing the best killer army the world has ever seen, in lieu of solving said internal problems. (That trick, of using military solutions as a panacea, was tried before: ask the Assyrians!)

Thus the USA is increasingly inefficient, a world of funk. Visiting the back woods there is precisely that, as bungalows made of modern plywood in 1930 are now molding and decrepit. The inefficiency of the decaying physical plant is startling. For example, the USA emits more than three times as much CO2 per unit of GDP as France does. Overall, the energy efficiency of the USA is way down relative to Japan and Europe, by a factor of up to three times (some, such as MSNBC, say four times). China, the USA industrial backyard, and slave market (or is it the other way around?), has an even worse efficiency problem.

The lower the efficiency, the more the USA needs oil, and gas, and the perspective of having enough of these for a long time to come, thus an enormous army in the middle of the main oil area of the planet (Mid East, Afghanistan, bases in several central Asian republics, etc.), insuring that oil and gas will keep on flowing. Some will say: wait a minute, the USA does not get that much oil and gas directly from there, Europe does. But the objection is irrelevant, as it is a one world market for oil and gas, like a giant reservoir. Lower it somewhere, and the prices will fly up everywhere.



Is rational agreement, properly arrived at, the best possible justification of a claim to truth? That is what naïve ivory tower philosophers claim to believe. And then they step inside a plane, and don’t understand the first thing about it.

The truth is not in social conventions. The truth is in the plane that flies.

In other words, social reasoning, and attached consensus, can establish propositions (as is done in math). But the proof is in eating the pudding. Truth is, first of all, an instrument of successful power. It can be a plane flying, or a tomahawk flying. Power, flying true, that’s truth.



There is a lot to be said about credentials. Traditionally, “credentials” are credentials of individuals. Namely some of the prestigious ones from the past gave them their seal of approval (degree, prize, career, etc.) to the little ones they esteem. Fine, but this breaks down in revolutionary times.  especially scientific revolutionary times, as we need now.

Most of the great thinkers of humankind had it hard, sometimes very hard. They did not come up, gliding on petal roses. Hypatia was raped and shredded alive. Boethius, from the “Consolation of Philosophy”, was broken to death.  Abelard emasculated, Bruno burned alive, slowly, after seven years of “judicial” torture by the Vatican. More recently, the Nazis tortured to death many a philosopher. Bohm, one of the best American physicists, ever, had to flee his native land, the USA, just because thinkers were viewed suspiciously (he thrived later in Britain). And so on.

So what about a different approach? IDEAS are the ones we should ask credentials from, not individuals. Namely, were do they come from? What other ideas gave them a seal of approval?

That is what David Bohm did. He carefully asked the main ideas of Quantum physics what their credentials were. He found that all started with De Broglie, rather than with the obscure, ad hoc logic of Bohr, Heisenberg, and the like. De Broglie had a clear vision: particles, any particles, were associated with waves. Real waves.

That was brushed off. Why? Because physicists discovered that the Quantum was all about knowing at a glance the entire geometry which is accessible to it. And that did not have to be in “real” space. Instead of realizing that this meant that what they viewed as real was not really real, physicists espoused Born’s later view that the waves had only a mathematical meaning.

By inspecting carefully the genealogy of the ideas which led to these conclusions, Bohm found their genetics were completely degenerated. The prestigious mathematician Von Neumann had even presented a false proof of the existence and uniqueness of the Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum. De Broglie was no sophisticated mathematician, but he had an explicit model contradicting Von Neumann, as Bohm pointed out.

Ultimately most physicists  viewed the entire subject, as a famous one told me, as “just a way to get headaches”. That was until engineers tried to imitate nature, and make a Quantum computer. Quantum computers are all over nature, here, there, and everywhere, and make the efficiency of biology possible.

Fascinating article in SCIENCE magazine on June 2, 2011. PHOTON TRAJECTORIES are exhibited therein for the 2-slit experiment.

Now you could have asked maybe thirty of the very best mathematicians, and physics Nobel prize winners, people like Bohr, and they would all have told you that they were the authorities, and photon trajectories, that was impossible. Then they would have swelled with pride, hubris, and gravitas, and the mesmerized public would have applauded the great men, and their great minds, definitions of truth, beauty.

Guess what? Apparently NATURE IS MORE AUTHORITATIVE than little boys. And nature has decided that Bohr and company were just little boys with erroneous, crazy, even naïve, not to say puerile ideas. Wow. I have got an ally, and it’s called nature itself. The enemies of reason have nothing to fear, but nature itself, and its overwhelming power.

By focusing too much on credentials of the princelings, our princelings, we, humankind, our civilization, are guilty of hubris. In many domains, we have no idea what the final, and correct idea will be. Ceremonies like the Nobel hid this, and can even be extremely counterproductive, when taken too seriously.

The best example of this contamination of thinking from gravitas and the established order, was provided by the wealthy, hyperinfluential intellectuals under the Antonine emperors. Their thinking was too friendly to intellectual, and political fascism. (And made the break with Christianism much worse than it should have been, leading to the tragedy of the Fourth Century, when philosophy and reason itself were destroyed by vengeful Christians.)  



More protests in Egypt. On one side democracy, on the other, the military-theocratic plutocracy. Europe went through that, for centuries, and only the theocrats lost (the military and plutocratic system are doing fine, thank you). And even then, the theocrats first launched Europe into the Crusades (started against the just Islamized Turks, several of the crusades were within Europe, against Jews, Cathars, and Balts). The fight against the fascist expansion of the (Catholic) church started with Abelard (~ 1120 CE). But, in France herself, it took until 1905, eight centuries later, to master said church thoroughly. In many other countries, the fight is far from finished. May God bless America, as Obama says, in his latest, more sophisticated persona.



Dominique Strauss-Kahn, DSK the skirt chaser, who went one skirt too far, is full university professor of economics (and has taught many French politicians). DSK decided that the present world economic crisis needed more government, not less. An outrage. So now he is indicted, and had to resign as head of the IMF.

DSK is now to be replaced by a 5 foot-10 inches compatriot with a skirt who scoffed that no man has ever dared attack her, as she is too tall and too strong (the alleged victim of DSK is taller, stronger, and more than twenty years younger). In any case Christine Lagarde should prove more willing to play the plutocratic game (without her own means to be completely independent of said plutocracy, as DSK was, Lagarde should be more respectful of the plutocracy, in the hope of getting more crumbs from the worthy ones; from a journalist who knows him very well, Sarkozy himself is obsessed with money… Joining the hyper rich is not just an obsession of U.S. politicians).

Christine Lagarde is now elected head of the IMF. That she will be, for more than a few days, if French justice allows her sweet deal with Tapie, a Frenchman made wealthy by a decision Lagarde contributed to indirectly, to go unpunished.  Just about 380 million euros attributed through arbitrage (private justice instead of normal, republican justice). We are not talking billions, as in the sweet American deals of recent years (where there was no even an attempt at justice, private or not)…

Lagarde used to head one of the largest law firms, from, well, Chicago. Chicago is an important city: that is where the future traders started to poison the world with derivatives. Thus,  many of the puppets they sent, worldwide, to manipulate and fleece the naive sheep, in other words, the politicians they employ, are from Chicago, or have acquired the finishing touch they needed, in the so called “City of Broad Shoulders”.

Strange idea, the way representative  democracy selects the few to lead an uncomprehending and blind multitude. Those selected have ambition, but what humankind needs is wisdom, and that is best attained by informing the multitude.

However, this empowering of the multitudes cannot happen in the money creation through lending by private banks practicing the fractional reserve system we have now. The very convoluted nature of the elaborated description inherent in the name of that affliction, shows that this system is in hiding, like a giant anaconda hidden inside the mud in a swamp. It’s basically the world’s most giant conspiracy, hidden in plain sight, by its sheer complexity, and the inability of the commons to process the veracity of what they are carefully not taught.

This is what the indignant ones should be primarily indignant about: money is created by the rich, for the rich through the banking system harnessing the power of the state.



Low reserve requirements are a measure of financial corruption of a state, as they necessitate huge government back-up, while allowing to the hyper rich leverage inversely proportional to it.

Switzerland has learned the lesson well: it has put the capital requirements for its own banks at 20% (double the proposed Basel III). And they are already satisfied now, by all Swiss banks (not ten years from now!).



OK, before saying nasty things about Socrates, here is some consolation for his admirers. Instead of engineering the Earth, on an ever larger scale, for our evil and crazy ends, we should engineer our minds, for the better. It’s more realistic, more feasible, and more ethical.



The unexamined life was not worth living, sneered Socrates. But, speaking of unexamining life, it’s not him, but Aristotle, born 20 years after Socrates’ execution, who founded biology, by examining life, precisely, and thoroughly. The real tragedy is that all too many people view as the father of philosophy someone who thought learning did not happen by asking questions to the universe, but only by revealing what was inside one’s mind.

A mother loving her child does not examine as much as provide. Many, if not most fathers, too. And they find enough in loving to make life worth living. Actually they find often life more worth living that way than Socrates himself found it, obviously.

Strange bird, this Socrates: one can argue that he lived as a prostitute in the service of his rich boyfriends, so he could eat and party well… After satisfying so much other carnal pursuits, claims Plato, that he could quit that behavior entirely later. Hence the accusation of “corrupting the youth” (since many of said friends became dictators of and traitors of Athens).

In the end, Socrates did not find life worth living (he did not try to escape, although he could have). Aristotle, risking the same fate as Socrates, at the hand of the same perverted democratic justice, sneered that he did not want to let Athens sin against philosophy again, and he fled the ethically challenged city-state.  

A generation later, the philosopher Demosthenes had to commit suicide as he was grabbed by the professional killers of his enemy Philippe of Macedonia.

Nietzsche thought life was all about power. Christ told us roughly the same: serve the power of the Son and the Father, that’s best. The first shall be the last, the last, the first. Life is a competition says Chris: score, to win.

As the word “emotion” indicates, feelings are what cause us to move. Many emotions cause us to move. Ambitions are not all, loves are not all, nor are the many variants of care. 

Once Philip Short, a writer on politics and civilization, an ex-BBC correspondent, who long lived in China and South East Asia, told me that Cambodia suffered the loss of 25% of its own population, at the hand of a small pseudo Marxist clique of compatriots, not so much because of Marx, but because of Buddhism.

Why? Because Buddhism fights e-motions so much that finally no motion happens, indeed, and murderers, and other dictators, are  given liberties. That would explain why Asia has been so friendly to fascism. Variants of Buddhism, and closely related adulations against passion, reign over there (once Buddhism reigned all over India, but Hinduism it sprang from, more friendly to passion, counter-attacked).

Ultimately, how an individual’s brain is, fabricate the emotions which dominate said brain. There are as many motivations as there are emotions, and some are pretty convoluted, not to say twisted. As many as the ways brains can work. And often those ways for the brain to work come out of the social group (string theorists are an example of a group of similar brains; Nazis, or Commies, too). Then group think and group emotion, not to say group madness, is what motivates.


There are therefore no clear rules about what motivates people. What can be built neurologically is what can motivate. And what builds the neurology? Culture. Another reason why Nazism made sense, in its insane way, and why multiculturalism ought to be dead.

Why so intolerant? Because, by accepting all cultures, some feudal, some from desert banditry, some hyper nationalistic or hyper ethnic, one accepts sometimes terrible motivations, incompatible with the present society. And its nukes.



Warrants of arrest have been launched. Libya (whatever that means) has been ordered to surrender to the ICC those individuals. Hopefully that will do two things:

1) Explain to rabid peaceniks that attacking Libya is a completely different thing from the American Attack against the democratic republic of Afghanistan in 1979, and the American attack against Iraq in 2003. It is more like the Franco-British attack against Hitler in 1939.

2) Hitler momentarily won in 1939-1940, because the American government betrayed in 1939 (the US Congress took sanctions against France and Britain for attacking Hitler!), and the American plutocracy did what it does best, and most naturally, namely side with fascism. It’s always more lucrative than siding with the Unions!

The average ignorant American can now plumb the depth of his or her ignorance: polls show most Americans disapprove of the modest help that the USA provide in Libya the French and British bombing fleets with.

56% of Americans disapprove of fighting him, hence approve of Qaddafi. If one does not want to attack Hitler, one approves of Hitler, as it is a crime to be indifferent to enormous crimes. How hard is it for average Americans to recognize a bloody dictator, and to want to do something about it? Are Americans immune to feeling indignant about dictatorship?



Propaganda from the fossil fuel and other feudal plutocracies have confused the issue. The primary problem is not “climate change” (aka planetary heating/broiling).

So it’s NOT about “climate change”, this hypocritical euphemism. Climate change is a second order effect. It may, or may not happen, short term. The gist of my essay https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/sun-cooling-ice-melting/ is that, if the sun cools down spectacularly, as it did TWICE in the last seven centuries, during the Little Ice Age, “climate change” will NOT happen, short term, as much as it could.

The way to look at things correctly, thus, is CO2 POISONING. Because that is what is happening. Even if the sun cooled down spectacularly, as I emphasized more than two years ago, the ACIDIFICATION of the oceans would proceed unabated. After killing the oceans, if the sun goes back to normal, the greenhouse would rebound enormously.

Although I did not speak of it in that particular essay, we now know the density of CO2 in the atmosphere, through shell formation in the ocean, for at least 20 million years (and soon at least 100 million; the method should work for half a billion years!). Thus we know the level of CO2 equivalent we enjoy now is the highest in 20 million years (although some have claimed that transitory fluxes much higher than that have occurred, from volcanoes; that would not be a problem, as a high, very transitory flux does not allow storage in the oceans!)

Let me emphasize that the essay quoted above explains why FLOODING, by no means certain on a proximal massive scale, is, however a clear possibility. London under water seems even a near certainty on the scale of a century (but for enormous works, requiring huge energy to build!)



In the 1930s, American public opinion was hostile to those who opposed Hitler. OK, it was probably not really their opinion, but what they regurgitated from their thought leaders. Leadership is big in the USA, and the plutocrats hold all the levers.

Gore just wrote an excellent editorial on the subject of the press being as biased against the good guys as a referee in catch. But he forgot to mention why the press behaves that way. Simple: it’s owned by the plutocrats. The plutocrats in the West make  solid group. The oiligarchs, the oil plutocrats, do not want to contradict their colleagues in the media, finance, or whatever.


Moral Corruption Shows Up In The Details:

Roger Cohen, editorialist at the New York Times, used to celebrate Bush. In an editorial, “America Awaken“, he quoted approvingly Isaiah Berlin, who supposedly once remarked that the United States was “aesthetically inferior but morally superior” to Europe.

In his editorial, Cohen immediately conflated Western Europe, and its powerful, tolerant, open ideology, especially in France and Britain, and the appropriately named Berlin’s own little corner sick with insane multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, pushed to where east and southern Europe pushed it, that is, everybody at each other’s throats. From Turkey to the Baltic countries.

Isaiah Berlin, a famous philosopher among Anglo-Saxons, came from Riga, a part of the world full of Jews soon to be massacred by the local population, and, or, by the Nazis, in part because the Jews were believed to have colluded with the Soviets (who invaded the area, before being chased out by the Nazis). So I sent the following, and of course, as is often the case, Cohen did not publish it (Cohen used to support the invasion of Iraq, as I said, so our relationship is stormy: when it is advantageous to Cohen’s point of view, he publishes me, when it’s not, he does not; whereas David Brooks is much more honest, always publishing, even scathing critiques; how hard is it to be ethical?):

For the first century of its existence, the USA had no billionaire. Now it is plutocracy central. Berlin could think whatever he wanted in his times, long ago. Those times are gone. And Berlin could think whatever was natural from his morally corrupt corner of Europe, soon to witness terrible wars and massacres. About the creators of Israel, Berlin, a Jew, living by then safely in Britain, said: “They did not listen to us, they listened to Hitler.” So let’s not take him too seriously…

Right now Americans of influence think what they are told to think by the social group they belong to, or aspire to belong to. They are awake, but not cognizant, or they know that they will make power and money if they vest themselves in plutocracy, the social group they belong to, or are apprentice of. They will not try to gather knowledge, wisdom, and altruism, but power and money, because that is how they have been made.

By the way, it’s important to realize that Europe was attacked in August 1914, by a conspiracy of half a dozen fascist generals and admirals. August 1914 was not at all about European countries squabbling, everybody co-responsible. France and Britain, the democracies, had strictly nothing to do with that attack. they were caught by total surprise. Britain did not have an army, the French government was vacationing (need I say so?)

In 1939, France and Britain declared war to Hitler, the morally correct thing to do, while Berlin’s “morally superior” USA decided sanction against France and Britain, for attacking Hitler. By then, indeed, already, the plutocrats were guiding the USA.



Germany refuses to seriously participate in the NATO action in Libya, leaving France and Britain to deal with Qaddafi alone. Why? Because Germany trades with the east, and wants money to be directed that way, to the east. But Libya, and a fortiori the rest of the Maghreb, is closer from France, than France is from Kiev.

Germany is afraid that France and Britain will redirect European investment towards the Maghreb, the soft belly of Europe. Yes, Europe. The Tunisian-Libyan region was part of the center of the Roman empire for 900 years.  By 200 CE, African, often Libyan, Roman generals acquired control of the empire (for example, Septimus Severus). The invasion by Arab Islamized armies brought that Roman world to a very brutal and bloody end… Well, however, the facts of topology and distance have remained as they were under Romanitas… The far east is one thing, far away, whereas the close south is something else, their backyard, for the more than 250 million Europeans living in Europe, west or south of Germany.

Not understanding that dictatorship next door is intolerable is clearly a moral and political failure of Germany, same as before. Same old, same old. When does our children learn?- As Bush would say, in his handicapped English. At least, Obama understood that one, that Libya belongs to the basic strategic interest of the West. Or maybe let’s say, to be fairer, that it is one Obama understood, and could do something about, without crossing the plutocracy. I guess that’s government by consensus.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses to “Aphorisms, June 2011”

  1. Jo Says:

    Hey Patrice,

    it seems you have been right on DSK. It will be interesting to see, how this situation develops in the coming weeks.




    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Jo, I very much appreciate.
      All the more since your are the first of the commenters who grace this blog to come back. I probably went a few outrages too far. well, that cannot be avoided, when one tries to think creatively. All the more since what is the most outrageous about the best outrages is that they are philosophically correct …. I enjoyed two big time victories, one about Kaddafis being indicted for war crimes, the other about photon trajectories! (OK, the later needs to be confirmed!)

      I keep on insisting that, not only is DSK completely innocent, but he was attacked in a deliberate conspiracy, at the judicial level. Now we know that he was also the victim of a plot, at the organized crime level. And that the judicial conspiracy operated hand in hand with organized crime, as happens in banana republics. OK, I am getting carried away: there are no bananas in the USA. Just oil. And greasy judges in black robes, sucking the oil. Wall Street oil in that case..

      Even me, I am baffled by the sequence, I mean the impudence, of events. The police and prosecutors knew, on day one, that the accuser was plotting with at least one convict, and they still kept on going. And of course the case was completely impossible, on physical evidence. It was actually an insult to women to suggest that such a magnificently powerful specimen as Ms. Diallo could be abused by a short, sick, overweight old man on oxygen.

      The pseudo feminists who screamed after DSK are just hysterical vampiric leeches of the worst type whom genuine feminists such as me ought to condemn stridently. I am thinking in particular of the grotesque Maureen Dowd at the NYT.

      The offensive comments against Europeans, the French, DSK, etc. keep on going on American TV. I am monitoring them in utter disbelief. In spite of the blatant evidence that the victim was DSK, not the criminals who raped him with the “justice” baboon system.

      Anyway, thanks again for your comment, and I always appreciated your comments, whether contradicted or not.


  2. g Says:

    Heidegger, in claiming to construct a new ontology, says that the concept of being is very obscure. Pure being is an abstraction and it is in an abstraction that men seek to lay hold upon primary reality, primary life. Human thought is engaged in the pursuit of its own product. It is in this that the tragedy of philosophical learning lies, the tragedy, that is, of all abstract philosophy. The problem which faces us is this: is not being a product of objectification? Does it not turn the subject matter of philosophical knowledge into objects in which the noumenal world disappears?

    In the processes of thought the human mind sought to rise above this world of sense which presents itself to us, and in which everything is unstable, above a world which is a world of becoming, rather than of being. But by that very fact the search for being was made to depend upon thinking, and the impress of thought lay upon it. Being became an object of thought and thereby came to denote objectification. What reason finds is its own product. Reality is made to depend upon the fact that it becomes the subject matter of knowledge, in other words an object. But in actual fact the reverse is true, reality is not in front of the knowing subject but ‘behind’ him, in his existentiality.

    Various kinds of being are formed through the abstraction and hypostatization of attributes and qualities. In this way ontologies have been built up which have constituted a doctrine of abstract being, rather than of the concrete existent. Buf the real subject-matter of philosophy ought to be, not being in general, but that to which and to whom being belongs, that is, the existent, that which exists. A concrete philosophy is an existential philosophy.

    It is not true to say that being is: only the existent is, only that which exists. What being tells of a thing is that something is, it does not speak about what is. The subject of existence confers being. The concept of being is logically and grammatically ambiguous, two meanings are confused in it. Being means that something is, and it also means that which is. This second meaning of “being” ought to have been discarded. Being appears as both a subject and a predicate, in the grammatical sense of those words. In point of fact, being is a predicate only. Being is the common, the universal. But the common has no existence and the universal is only within that which exists, in the subject of existence, not in the object.

    There is something else still more important in characterizing ontologism in philosophy. The recognition of being as the supreme good and value means the primacy of the common over what is individual and this is the philosophy of universals. Being is the world of ideas which crushes the world of the individual, the unique, the unrepeatable. The same thing happens when matter is regarded as the essence of being. Universalist ontologism cannot recognize the supreme value of personality: personality is a means, a tool of the universally common.

    Real philosophy is the philosophy of the concrete living entity and entities and it is that which corresponds most closely to Christianity. It is also the philosophy of concrete spirit, for it is in spirit that value and idea are to be found. Meaning also is something which exists and by its existence is communicated to those that exist. Being and becoming must have a living carrier, a subject, a concrete living entity. That which concretely exists is more profound than value and comes before it, and existence goes deeper than being.

    Heidegger is perhaps the most extreme pessimist in the history of philosophical thought in the West. In any case his pessimism is more extreme and more thorough-going than Schopenhauer’s, for the latter was aware of many things which were a consolation to him. Moreover, he does not in actual fact give us either a philosophy of being, or a philosophy of Existenz, but merely a philosophy of Dasein. He is entirely concerned with the fact that human existence is cast out into the world. But this being cast out into the world, into das man, is the fall. In Heidegger’s view the fall belongs to the structure of being, being strikes its very roots into commonplace existence. He says that anxiety is the structure of being. Anxiety brings being into time.

    But from what elevation can all this be seen? What intelligible meaning can one give it? Heidegger does not explain whence the power of getting to know things is acquired. He looks upon man and the world exclusively from below, and sees nothing but the lowest part of them. As a man he is deeply troubled by this world of care, fear, death and daily dullness. His philosophy, in which he has succeeded in seeing a certain bitter truth, albeit not the final truth, is not existential philosophy, and the depth of existence does not make itself felt in it. This philosophy remains under the sway of objectification. The state of being cast out into the world, into das man, is in fact objectification.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear g: Impressive contribution! I do not know too well what to make of Heidegger. Long long ago, I was impressed. Then I discovered that his thinking was akin to a justification of Nazism, on the metaphysical level. “Anxiety is the structure of being”? Well, Hitler was all about anxiety and being into the world to do something about it. At least so Hitler claimed, and was pro-active about it, correcting a litany of mostly imaginary problems making Germans anxious (Hitler’s actions reduced Germany’s population by more than 10% in 12 years, hence no doubt reducing the overall German anxiety levels…)

      The funny thing is that Quantum physics is all about being, and time! But apparently not on Heidegger’s radar screen. Well, at least the number of questions to be adressed by the philosophical method is so vast, that we don’t have to intersect Heidegger. The biggest practical question of his time was German nationalism cum racism cum fascism. But he does not seem to have really become aware of it, even when he put a uniform on, and became chancellor of his university (replacing colleagues fired or outraged by Nazis). True, he has a big reputation in some philosophy departments, to this day… But as it turns out, some of these departments I do not respect (and it is not purely personal although the chair of UCB philosophy, Dreyfus, once claimed in public, and in outrage, that I said only stupid things! I was never seen again.)

      For my own internal guidance, Heidegger is just Hitler. But less interesting, because less concrete, and all too anxious to hide his true being in the fullness of time.


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: