Truth Is Hell: Iraq, etc.


Abstract: I celebrate the Iraq invasion my way, pointing out some of the devils, or evils traditionally ignored. The lack of learning after the disastrous Iraqi crusade is directly due to the persistence, in the USA, of the power structure that brought the war. The war itself was a giant red herring to hide much worse, the collusion between Washington and some of its worst creatures.

A red herring that between 2003 and 2007, killed more than a million Iraqi. A red herring that caused morality in the USA to collapse, and stay collapsed, every day that the war criminals are not prosecuted (interestingly many major French politicians are on trial in France for unlawful activities in Iraq… for much lesser alleged crimes than the ones Bush and company would be charged with).

Often devils (O’Connor, Saint Louis, Joan of Arc) are still viewed honorably. Saint Outside, Devil Inside

With Saint Louis, the Dark Side overwhelmed any other side. Contrarily to his reputation. [In the Sainte Chapelle, Paris, 76 meters high, that he had built in 33 months.]

This failure to perceive devils for what they are is a consequence of the same cognitive-moral failure that brought us Bush, and his adulation by the sheeple. A lack of attention to the details, where devils lurk. Ever since there were evil beasts, and they wore camouflage, precisely because they were evil.

Democracy only survives if a truth machine, elucidating all hidden devils. If the devil is in the details, only the devil knows the truth. Truth should strive to go where evil lurks.



“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Said Edmund Burke, who added: “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

Sounds good. Yet in Burke’s mind, his version of history called to invade France, destroy the Constitutional government there, and  replace it by the Ancient Regime of time honored plutocrats and theocrats. Never mind that king Louis XVI himself had spent all his long reign trying to make plutocrats pay. The alternative was default. So Louis called for a revolution.

Burke yearned for the likes of Saint Louis. Somebody who kills in good faith.

Saint-LouisSaint Outside, Devil Inside.

Saint Louis was a co-patron of the Order of Saint Francis. By modern standards, he would have been caged immediately (see below). Nice to see the present pope being unaware of these intricacies. So he was with the Argentinean dictator Videla who he used to feed.

Never mind that Louis XVI himself, as king, had initiated, condoned, and literally signed on the French Revolution. Burke’s murderous policy was implemented, bringing the death of millions, in France alone. And many times that, over all of Europe. Armies roamed from Lisbon to Moscow.

In the end, Human Rights won, which revolted Burke so much, that he thought moral to risk killing much of Europe for it (as France was three times england, and as the government there was constitutional, to call for an invasion was to call for devastation throughtout Europe, as, indeed, happened).

Unfortunately for Burke and his followers, Human Rights are now the core of the charter of the United Nations. That god who Burke had the presumption to help, is in full retreat, except in the most desolate places (that will include the vacuity of many an American youth’s mind).

Burke was a hero to crypto-fascists such as Hayek and Friedman, who provided the “intellectual” justification for atrocious dictatorships from Chili to Argentina, all the way up to Mexico, just as Heidegger provided it for Nazism. Hayek, Friedman and their ilk, actually provided the ideology  for the new plutocratic order we are enjoying nowadays, all the way to Moscow, Cyprus and Dubai. (More on these forsaken pirates havens in another essay soon.)

So Burke lives to this day, in very many places, including the red hot anti-French hate among a significant part of the Wall Street journal readership (I’m a subscriber, so in a good position to judge.)

In a similar vein, the famous elected German chancellor, Adolf Hitler, started his mesmerizing work, “Mein Kampf” with pages of (anti-French pseudo-) history. Same idea as Burke: hit on human rights hard, right away. Only then did the fascist Guide switch to the ethological description of Jews in Vienna.

By April 1945, and 70 million dead later, the Guide conceded he had been misguided all along about the Germans and the Slavs.

So it’s not just enough to remember history, it’s important to know history, that is the facts as they really happened. History is about the details, and the devils therein, all of them. Leave none unturned.



In Marches Of Folly, an excellent editorial, Paul Krugman asks: “Did we learn anything from Iraq?”.

“Ten years ago, America invaded Iraq; somehow, our political class decided that we should respond to a terrorist attack by making war on a regime that, however vile, had nothing to do with that attack.”

Let me comment  here right away on Krugman’s “somehow”. “Somehow” is the crux. A quick historical reminder helps to understand the madness that gripped the USA.

A similar situation happened after the Second Punic War. Carthage’s own mercenaries revolted, and attacked Carthage. Carthage defeated them with great difficulty.

Why did Carthage employ armies of mercenaries? Because it was a plutocracy. At that time, the Roman republic was a rather direct democracy. So Rome could bring up armies of citizens, who were fighting for themselves. Self motivation made Roman soldiers much more determined than any of their paid adversaries.

The lesson of that disaster was that Carthage had to become much more democratic. Ironically, considerably enriched by conquests all over, plutocracy simultaneously took Rome over (and that was going to lead to the crash of Greco-Roman civilization).

How does this relate to the “somehow”? Very simple.

Carter, the very Christian president, had launched war, secretly, against Afghanistan. Although he had entire armies of goons at his disposal, the Geneva Fourth Convention violator in Washington needed more, to attack an entire country. Using a mercenary army raised by the Saudi plutocrats was the solution implemented in 1979.

Al Qaeda was initially an organization created by the CIA and the Saudi Intelligence Agency: they literally went to fetch the young Osama Bin laden in Turkey. As he was very pious, the bellicose side of the Qur’an could be manipulated to guide him, by making him believe he was as good as anyone to interpret the sacred texts. Then the godless goons taught Al Qaeda how to conduct asymmetric warfare against the Afghan republic (attack schools, not the military).

The entire political, plutocratic and propaganda class of the USA was immersed in all this. And it worked well for 15 years, until, well, just as with Carthage, the mercenaries understood they were being played, and underpaid. Then they turned against the hands that had taught them. The result: an asymmetric war between the gigantic army manipulated by Washington and the mercenary force. And then 9/11.

By then the Washington establishment had to admit everything, namely that, since 1945, it had instrumentalized Salafist Islam, in Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Algeria, etc. Or then it had to deny everything, and be more in power than ever. It just had to tell a good story, and stick to it. The story was that on 9/11, the sky was very blue, and then planes came out of nowhere…

Just charging bin Laden presented the inconvenience that some were bound to dig, and ask how bin laden appeared on the scene. It was best to go charge an enormous red herring first, with the largest imaginable lies possible ( a technique used and explained by no less than the German Chancellor above). The very size of the lies would have distracting properties, all by their absurdity.  So Powell went to the UN with kindergarten drawings.

How does one disguise all this mess? Under which carpet does one hide it? Well, war against Saddam Hussein. (It also had the advantage of destabilizing the Middle East, and that is to Israel’s colonizing advantage.)



Here is Krugman again: “Some voices warned that we were making a terrible mistake — that the case for war was weak and possibly fraudulent, and that far from yielding the promised easy victory, the venture was all too likely to end in costly grief. And those warnings were, of course, right.

There were, it turned out, no weapons of mass destruction; it was obvious in retrospect that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into war. And the war — having cost thousands of American lives and scores of thousands of Iraqi lives, having imposed financial costs vastly higher than the war’s boosters predicted — left America weaker, not stronger, and ended up creating an Iraqi regime that is closer to Tehran than it is to Washington.”

Counter-intuitively, many of the war party of the USA love a bigger and more influential Teheran:  with a bit of luck, Teheran will do like Saddam, feel overconfident, and offer a casus belli. Then full war against Iran could be joined. However, of course, not all wars can be won. Overall, although it may not look like it to the clueless, the war against Iraq was a defeat for the USA.

The USA has a lot of false friends in the Middle East. The SIA is feeding Al Nusra, a Syrian Salafist army in Syria, and something will have to be done about that, and soon.

Krugman again: “So did our political elite and our news media learn from this experience? It sure doesn’t look like it.”

Why would they look as if they learned something? That would mean they went, somehow, through something untoward, that something adverse happened, to THEM. It certainly did not happen to them; they are richer, and more domineering than ever. Fortunes were made. Not far from New York, a war profiteer built for himself a sort of Versailles. Don’t expect to see this sort of data points, or giant architecture, appear in USA Main Stream Media (it was on French TV).



The USA invaded Iraq. Now it has completely lost that war. 4,500 USA soldiers died, and more than that in allied soldiers and mercenaries. Dozens of thousands of other soldiers were gravely wounded and millions got psychologically damaged by suffering, or inflicting extreme violence.

After the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, Tomas Young, then a 22-year-old from Kansas City, Mo., made a naive decision parroted by many other Americans around the country: he enlisted in the military in hopes of getting even with the enemies who killed nearly 3,000 men, women and children. Little did he know that those enemies were in Washington, where the war had been fully engaged July 3, 1979. Little did he know that these enemies were just American mercenary forces. As a good vacuous American youth, he was unaware that his own government had already caused the death of three millions, not three thousands, in Afghanistan.

Less than three years later, Young’s Army service placed him not in Afghanistan — where then-President George W. Bush had told the nation the terrorist plot had originated — but in Iraq. On April 4, 2004, just five days into his first tour, Young’s convoy was attacked by resistance fighters. A bullet from an AK-47 severed his spine. Another struck his knee. Young would never walk again. For the next nearly nine years, he would suffer a number of medical setbacks, and now intent to die by withdrawing treatment. Neofascists should not worry: Young will not count as an Iraq war casualty.

From Young’s letter, published on TruthDig:

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Young goes on to attack the “cowardice” of Bush and Cheney for avoiding military service themselves, and to encourage them to “stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.”

(Read Young’s entire letter here.)

Not to worry: plutocracy is also a mood, where all values are inverted. Greed is viewed in more regards than altruism. As far as Bush and Cheney are concerned, Tomas Young is just a loser, with not enough brains to make the correct investment.

It goes without saying that international law ought to be brought to bear on all war criminals. Justice is not just about trying Serbs and Africans. Plutocrats should qualify too.

One of the USA’s main axes of exploitation, since 1945, has been to instrumentalize Salafist Islam. That was initially used against Britain, France, and even Israel (times change…) The difference between now and 60 years ago, is that many of the Salafists have realized they have been played (and first of all the Iranians; OK, technically the term “Salafist”, the “old ones” does not usually qualify Shiites, but I am generalizing, for semantic convenience!)

The hostility of the USA against the French republic during the Franco-Algerian civil war made a bad situation irreversibly worse:



51 years ago, on March 19, 1962, the Evian Accords finalized the transfer of power from the French Republic to the (“Algerian”) FNL (Front National de Liberation). Officially, this was a good thing, a step forward, the flow of history. In truth, it was basically a transfer of power from one terrorist organization, to another.

That was a disaster for the populations concerned. About 15% of the people living in Algeria fled, living everything behind, and many committed suicide. Algeria has known dictatorship ever since, first from the FNL, then from the military. Hundreds of thousands were killed in the following decades, at the hands of terrorists (from official Algerian numbers).

There is no doubt that the French state behaved extremely badly in Algeria, starting in 1945. Before that, it was just behaving badly. There is also no doubt that the FNL was an extremely nasty terrorist organization.

So there is nothing good to celebrate there. And the mayor of Perpignan, a major French city had the courage to recognize this simple fact today, that a very bad thing happened on March 19, 1962. The mayor ordered to bring down the French flags, and circled them with black.

Truth always start with an emotional admission. Even in mathematics, or science.

The politically correct emotion about the Evian Accords has been, for 51 years, that they were good, and necessary, however grim it was to sign them. They went with history. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The French republic’s abuses in Algeria were not wiped out clean by another 51 years of abuse, starting with abusing truth.  

Confronted to that sort of past, in Algeria or Iraq, where reality is viewed as unbearable, there is only one principle worth having first. Namely that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, can prevent nasty outcomes. Especially those lies festering to this day.

Because, of course, the basic reasons for the Franco-Algerian civil war, are festering to this day, just on a grander scale. And now, the USA, instead of pulling nasty (Salafist) strings from the shadows (against France, BTW), is now on the frontlines (with France, happily).

The main reason why Germany is, finally, doing so well nowadays, is that a lot of the truth finally came out about some very bad ways German minds used to consider politically correct to operate under, while knowing no others.



Not that only Germany has to be freed from simplistic, hence devil laden history. It’s not just that the American Founding fathers were slave masters. By contemporary standards, Saint Louis was a vicious criminal, and, at best, would have been interned as an insane maniac (he had declared, in writing, that nothing could be more pleasing to him than planting a knife into a non believer’s gut, and then playing around with the blade, once so inserted; why the Catholic church considers such a creep a saint rests on the fact that Catholics are not familiar with the lives of their most famous saints… and of course, that the church hierarchy is deeply evil).

Speaking of saints, the most revered Joan of Arc was a peace breaker. Paris and London had come to terms, and decided to reunify the kingdom (Treaty of Troyes). The king of England reigned over France. Unfortunately, he died within 2 months. His infant son was supposed to reign upon his majority. Wise people in England and France knew that this was an excellent arrangement, because, France being much bigger than England in all ways, there was no risk she would be gobbled up by England (contrarily to misrepresentations ever since). End of the 100 years war.

But then Jeanne, or rather the forces behind her (Yolande of Aragon) , from the south (Armagnac, Bourguignons, etc.) stepped in.

Jeanne restarted the Franco-French(-English) civil war. This time London and Paris were on the same side. Jeanne had quite a difficult time seizing Paris. Why such a divisive theocratic war monger is admired to this day is no mystery. Once Bush was selected, I mean when Charles VII had been unconstitutionally made king, there was no turning back. Jeanne d’Arc had to be made into a saint, or at least the judgments against her thrown out.

So will say it was better that England and France kept fighting each other for another 4 centuries: war is a force that gives us meaning. Perhaps. However, it’s neither wise, nor glorious not to teach in detail the reality of what happened. What happened is that Joan of Arc is another Christian “saint” who killed millions, and whose message, bloody sword in hand, voices from god in her head telling her war was all we needed, for no rational reason, is really not something one anyone wise would want to promote.

History is sometimes made by rats. As the famous sayingobservation has it, a rat gnawing through a dike can drown a nation. Now to this list of most creative creatures, we can add Sandra O’Connor, a so called “Justice”. Not only she has no notion of history, or justification, but that most fundamental human instinct, regret, central to learning anything important, has been extinguished in her. Her excuse? She is a “Westerner”. (Is that supposed to mean she has a gun instead of a head?)

Speaking of handing the presidency to plutocrat Bush, the vacuous Sandra reverted to a three year old persona. Said she: There’s no point in my, at this point, saying I regret some decision I made. I’m not going to do that.”

Another bratty behaviour she may want to consider is to stop breathing and turning all blue until wiser people take pity. The Sandra girl by ordering to NOT recount Florida, gave the presidency to plutocrat Bush. The one who won the popular vote by two million, and also won Florida, Al Gore, was given a Nobel Prize instead of the presidency of the USA, to calm his nerves!

The point, O’Connor baby, is that, by saying that you regret your unconstitutional demolition of democracy, you would turn your back to Pluto, and join humanity. At least, symbolically speaking. That’s better than nothing. And better than staying forever, in the judgment of history, not just somebody who should never have existed, a one person democracy destroyer, but someone who persists into not even regretting her badness, contrarily to, say, Darth Vader.

It’s astounding one has to spell such an elementary truth to a big time Supreme Court “Justice”. Why are people such as these next to god? (Answer: because their very mediocrity insures that they will do the bidding of the plutocratic order.)

As the Romans knew, but O’Connor, and most of the truly bad soldiers of evil, do not want to admit: Errare Humanum Est, Perseverare Diabolicum! (Error Is Human, Persevering Diabolical!)

Going for the truth, and yanking it out of the entanglements where it lurks is always hellish in character. After all, woe onto those through whom scandal arrives.

Jean-Paul Sartre said: “Hell, it’s the others.” (L’enfer, c’est les autres): that was a neologism, an unusual way of using “autres”. It is mistranslated as “Hell is other people”, a different idea.

More generally, hell comes with the full reality that requires us to understand we would become obsolete, lest we change our minds. It may be painful to visit hell, but that’s where the hardest truths are lurking. Being ultimately good means turning hell into heavens.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to “Truth Is Hell: Iraq, etc.”

  1. Alexi Helligar Says:

    “Patrice, you provoke me. We share the same values so it pains me to say that your commend that Heidegger provided the intellectual framework for Nazism is plainly wrong. Nazism, did not need an intellectual framework. Given the debasement of Germany after WWI any flimsy idea would have sufficed to justify the wounded pride of postwar Germans. Hitler did not play to the intellect of Germans but to their emotions and vanity. Nazi leaders may have tried to co-opt the ideas of Heidegger for their nefarious purposes, and Heidegger might have gone along (shame on him!), but the fact remains that there is nothing I can find in his major work “Being and Time” that says antisemitism, genocide, eugenics, or total war is necessary. If you can find something, I invite you to share it with us, otherwise, you should put aside your dubious comments regarding the work of Heidegger as they appear not worthy of your intellect.”
    … Have not read the rest of your article as that comment took me right out of it. I might go back to it later.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Gee, Alexi, you are so sensitive… I am perfectly capable of reading for hours people I disagree 99.9% with… OK, I have been accused to be insensitive… I still read the Qur’an and the Bible, when I want to have fun… even Mein Kampf, Heidegger…

      I will answer you thoroughly in an essay/dialogue. This goes indeed to the heart of the problem of systems of moods and thoughts. Hitler was the sharp point of a lance he did not build. So it’s not enough to take him out. Many have to answer, from Burke, Kant, Hegel to Keynes, Hayek, etc. Many whose systems of moods and thoughts are alive and well.


  2. Dominique Deux Says:

    Interesting take on Joan or Arc; the idea that had England be allowed to reign on in France, it would not have been able to “gobble it up” and eventually the two kingdoms would have been one and (technically) French is fascinating.

    However you forget that historically, England has been able and eager to “gobble up” huge territories with very little concern for the indigenous lifeforms. America, Canada, Australia all were much bigger than the UK – so was India. That did not deter our fearless wonders.

    France would have become, IMHO, a version of Ireland – plundered and starved with the sanctimonious good conscience of the Herrenvolk, under a despicable local collaborating gentry. Not something I’d wish on my worse enemy. Thinking that Burke was Irish makes me sorry for Ireland, but such is the price of totalitarian enslavement – indignity. Thank God for Jonathan Swift.

    I remember seeing the gloomy movie “Angela’s ashes” and commenting “that, but for Joan of Arc, would be us.” But of course she was of little relative import in France’s ejection of England. It was a shared goal of most of the population, except those local nobles and merchants who would have loved being the collaborating gentry, and had to be taught lessons in citizenship.

    It would be interesting if from time to time you’d give some attention to the battle of Castillon, every bit as important as Charles Martel’s stand in Poitiers, yet almost forgotten in historical storytelling – France has been muffling its own history for decades, having been persuaded it would be arrogant not to do so. Technology kicked the last British troops out of France, with very little fanfare, where sainthood and chivalry had failed.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Dominique: “the idea that had England be allowed to reign on in France, it would not have been able to “gobble it up” and eventually the two kingdoms would have been one and (technically) French is fascinating.” This idea is not mine, let me insist on this. It was the considerate opinion of all advanced intellectual institutions in the Ile de France. And that is why Paris was on the side of London and had to be attacked by Jeanne La Jihadiste.
      There is no excuse for present day intellectuals to not point this out. Like the fact that, one century earlier, Buridan, master of Psris, had done, for real, the work Copernic advertized a century later…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: I view the entire quasi 500 year war between England and France fundamentally a Franco-French civil war, so it does not compare with the Muslim Jihadist invasion, broken by the Franks over 30 years, starting at Toulouse, 721 CE.
      The war started because a few lawyers in Paris built a sexist case to explain that Isabelle de France, daughter of Philipe IV Le Bel, should not be queen of France. Although, according to the Salian law, she should have been.So not only were the plutocrats in Paris then unconstitutional, but SEXIST.

      Isabelle soon abdicated to let her son, Edouard III, make her case.

      The Castillon micro battle was fought at the request of the locals who did not feel like being subjected to Paris.

      Nationalism is a terrible evil, and the pettier, the worse it gets.


  3. de Foucaud Paul Says:

    Brillant essai as usual.
    I fully agree with you against plutocrats as most of aristocrats are like Saint Louis and others still living today.
    WW Bush was a criminal of war by liing his people and other countries inbound to look better as his father when he go in that à full second war in Iraq.
    He killed more people there than Sadam Hussein would be abble to do there for the results we know today : chaos and no big profits with oil and reconstruction.
    That war was a shame and the USA Will have


    • de Foucaud Paul Says:

      …to pay one day for that.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Paul! Aristocrats are plutocrats so insolent that they called themselves the best (full disclosure: my family’s armoiries come all the way back to the creation of the Aragon County under Charlemagne!!!!!!!!!!! So one can hardly argue that I am envious.)

      Nasty regimes (Bush’s USA) can go on and on for centuries, without reckoning. Plutocracies can survived very long and even create their own civilization: Carthage, Ptolemaic Egypt are obvious examples. But, nowadays, history is moving real fast. Yet, the USA’s main asset is its size; one can frack to smitherens several times the areas of France and Germany combined, and nobody will notice… As it is the economy is rebounding, precisely because of massive fracking…


  4. Dominique Deux Says:

    Well Patrice I had not realized the point was that in Joan of Arc’s time, the wise and the great were of the unanimous opinion that English rule would be for the best.

    I’ll willingly grant that. Like today, the unanimous opinion of the wise of the great is that the Holy Invisible Hand must be given free rein in order to exercise Its benevolence.

    My own point is that they most probably were wrong (as they are now). I shudder thinking what an English-dominated France, or indeed world (for who would have opposed its appetite then) would look like now. I certainly cannot share your optimism. Generally speaking, French intellectuals throughout the ages have been very useful as a political compass, provided one understood the needle pointed South.

    This is not about Joan’s character. However I must look askance as you call her a Jihadist. She never sought to impose a faith or a creed. If anything, fanaticism was on the side of those (French and non-French) who thought it expedient to execute her on religious grounds. Her following was not at all like the murderous hordes of the Childrens’ Crusade, even if her patronage was invoked, without the slightest substantiation, by the French anti-semitic rabble after the Dreyfus affair – like it has been kidnapped, in modern times, by their Le Penist heirs.

    I’ll be in more agreement about Louis the Ninth, a rather unpleasant character by modern standards. However he never mentioned a knife being twirled inside an Infidel’s abdominal cavity, but a sword – presumably wielded in combat. Not quite the same thing, ethically speaking. Rummaging a bit before withdrawing your blade was considered good form, and still is taught in specialized circles.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Dominique: the point was not that “the english were to rule”. Those people were French on both sides. The problem is that the regent (Duke of Bedford, I’m sure he had actually a French title, just as Lancaster was actually Lancastre, etc.), to save money, used English speaking troops instead of French speaking (at the times there were MANY languages over the whole area).

      It’s the Armagnac & Bourguignons who rebelled (and won!). “English dominated” I don’t know what that means. England was invaded and conquered in 1688, by the Netherlands, itself created (out of necessity) by France, with the aim, precisely to vanquish France, using England as a device. At the times, the most enlightened, most barbarous and catholic fanatic Roi Soleil reigned in Paris (although when begged by the legitimate monarch, refused to intervene in England).

      When we are talking of that period, the Middle Ages, the word “Gothic” does not even exist. Instead, it’s “Frankish”. So it’s Frankish cathedrals that are built in England, and Oxford is built into the Frankish style. it’s precisely the eternal war with the rest of France that made England a den of nasty plutocrats.

      A war created a dichotomy. I do not respect the war. I know it was a mistake. French plutocrats were fighting French plutocrats, it was not about “english” this, “English” that.

      In my own ancestral region, my fief was devastated during the Crusades of the Albigeois (one million dead, and the victory of the Inquisition over the open (religion) society). In that case, Paris plutocracy was taking over the de facto republic in Toulouse.


  5. bowtiejack Says:

    “their very mediocrity insures that they will do the bidding of the plutocratic order”.

    The other day I had one of those little insights, which we all get from time to time. You’ve captured it perfectly.

    What hit me was how it is never enough in the US that the latest Conservative hero be saluted for their success in dissembling or whatever. No! These are demi-gods! Super genius polymaths for the ages! Giant-sized leaders for our time! Bow down!

    So it was, for example, for Newt Gingrich (failed community college professor or something), Scalia (reliable spear carrier for the forces of darkness before they gave him robes), and Paul Ryan (embarrassing Ayn Rand junkie and life-long government employee). These are people of very modest talent at best.

    They are, however, hailed as a combination of Augustus, Charlemagne and Einstein (actually, Newtie may have described himself in just those sort of terms). I believe this is what Alfred Adler called “compensation”.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Welcome bowtiejack, and happy to have captured an idea of yours in a form that conveys it well! It goes all beyond this. When polls are made in the USA, the sheeple opines, as instructed, that the country is not corrupt. And all the emperors without any clothes on climb up their private jets!

      The mediocre talking head who was French president last year has just been indicted by French justice. What is the USA waiting to indict Bush? Bush cannot go to several European countries, lest he be arested as soon as he steps out of his private jet. He was told so, officially, so he won’t dare!

      To hail the likes of these rats as combination of the greatest is to protect the order they incarnate.


  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    The advantage the smallies or even entropy get (as explained in Neanderthalian Disappearance) from exponential extinction, shows the following. Growth better not stop, it just has to be vigorous in new dimensions. It’s important to grow sustainable energy industries while we can, for example.
    This would all follow from, and necessitate, moral growth.


  7. Gena Dix Says:

    I don’t think growth can be stopped, its just a matter of it growing in a sustainable way for human survival. Our sun will burn for 6 billion more years, I don’t see HSS surviving at the rate we are going. The problem is that growth on this planet has always been about survival, those that change and adapt survive, which led our species to great things. My hope is that HSS ( as you say) doesn’t slip away from what made us divergent, not just communication, agriculture, science, but our core of empathy and altruism. People have to start giving a shit, and so many, too many, don’t


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, Gena, that’s indeed a problem. I think it comes greatly fom the growth of atheism. (I am one myself.) Atheism is growing, because yesterday’s religions are obviously stupid. However, as it grows, and there are officially more than one billion of them (not countng me as I am officially from the most numerous religion!), a loss of communion, a loss of a sense of community intervenes…. In other words, there is a need for a godless church… People have to be made to feel that selfishness is not cool, that vacuous minds are terrible, a moral failure, etc…


  8. Gena Dix Says:

    Gena Dix I think a lot of our unsustainablity comes from globalization and crony capitalism. A secular community that teaches equality and tolerance would not need to rely on religion.
    I don’t think atheism is the root cause for unsustainable communitees I think it is quite the opposite. Humanism is a wonderful progressive alternative to the historical religous based community. I do agree that there needs to be more education based on hard work and sacrifice, give back, pay it forward, the Golden Rule.
    But again these are not religious based concepts they are human nature, evolved into our brains for better survival. Scientific evidence replaces the need for religious dogma because we know better now. But the greed that is rampent today and they majorities willingness accept it is the real moral failure for sure.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Gena: Sorry if I misexpressed myself. I do NOT believe that atheism, per se, leads to unsustainability. I was saying that there is a need for an ATHEIST CHURCH, so to speak, teaching godlessness, so to speak, but also altruism. This is actually what communism did for a lot of the 20C. Also French existentialism (but not in the ridiculously biased and restrictive meaning of Sartre, and company.)

      Humanism is the default state, that is what has been forgotten and needs to be taught again (with hefty taxes on the lords). The problem with the Golden Rule is that it is in a junior position to the Dark Rule. (To be explained later, hahaha.) I distinguish between religion and superstition. Abrahamic religion is superstitious. Republican secularism, French style, IS A RELIGION.


  9. pshakkottai Says:

    Hi Patrice; What do you think of Buddhism which is a religion with no God. Is it close enough to an ATHEIST CHURCH?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Partha: Well, let me answer with an apparent diversion. Islam is very very varied. Senegalese Islam (with which I am very content) has nothing, but really nothing to do with Wahhabism. There are at least 100 types of Islam, some so unconventional, they refuse to reveal whether they are Islam or not (only the initiates know).

      I will not say it’s the same with Buddhism, but sort of. I have known “buddhists” who sing-songed to get refridgerators…Japanese Zen Buddhism seems to me quite distant from the laments of the Lamas in Tibet. Buddha himself taught one thing, then the other. Although I spoke of “atheim”, atheism is itself a subset of superstition. Now we are all a bit superstitious, and it’s a good thing. For example the loathing of HUBRIS is best experienced as a superstition.

      What’s really bad is institutionalized superstition. And certainly Tibetan buddhism is such. it’s full of weird deities of sorts, and when one talks with practicioneer, those seem to be viewed as real.

      I knew a famous BBC contributor and writer, who lived in Asia most of his life, and wrote a famous biography of Moa, and a book on the civil war of the Khemrs Rouges. He think the indifference to human life of Cambodjian Buddhism is why the holocaust happened there.

      A non superstitious church, that’s called a secular republic. A public thing that lives in the age at hand.


  10. Laurent Coq Says:

    Accusing dead brain war monger Bush of rooting his white house term on tortures is wrong for actually the Clintons open the black boxes in Poland using old WWII deep underground bunkers.
    Now Patrick you can’t rebut that fact for I saw it myself with my own 2 eyes on my way to Warsaw from Görlitz…


  11. Laurent Coq Says:

    The Algerian war… did “an Italian Oil company” armed rebels and started the war or not? ????
    (They were mad after Brits and Yankees took over Iran oil…)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The Algerian War was complicated. As I explained in 8 May 1945, it started then. However, there was considerable foreign intervention later. It did not stay a Franco-Algeriano-French affair. And De Gaulle, and the PCF, and Sartre and his ilk, played in the enemies’ hands.


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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: