As if cruelty and viciousness were forlorn orphans, traditional humanism tends to excuse and infantilize them. Confronted with the inexcusable… traditional humanists make excuses. Surely they would not have done it, with a proper education involving nature, as Sade pointed out. If cruelty always came from fear and insecurity, it would always be excused. For example one could apply the logic to mass murderers such as Kaiser Wilhelm II, Stalin or Hitler. The poor little ones felt afraid and insecure, so they had to invade and kill millions. Poor Kaiser, self-declared preferred grandson of queen Victoria, yet… with a crippled arm.

If one believed that fear and insecurity bred cruelty, one could say: Putin is very short, and he had a hard life, so he was very afraid and insecure. Now he is even more afraid and insecure, turning him even more cruel. Putin killed hundreds of thousands, soon he will kill millions. And guess what? It’s because he feels afraid and insecure!

So what to do? Send Putin flowers, express our undying love for him, make him feel safe and secure. Resisting the invasion of Ukraine was all wrong! We should have turned the other cheek! Made Putin feel good! We are the problem: we made Putin feel bad!

In truth, when Obama “reset” with Putin, the wittingly naive US president deliberately ignored Putin’s cruelty, blatant since 1999 with his holocaust in Chechnya. Later Obama turned fully conspiratorial, confidently informing fellow war criminal Medvedev: ”Tell Vladimir I’ll have more freedom after the election”. That’s how denial of cruelty is instrumentalized as an accomplice of cruelty.  

Not understanding the roots, importance and justifications of viciousness and cruelty makes it impossible to understand, and thus stop, Putin’s Russia, a brutalist state based on the worst dark side, lived and thus, expected by its deluded, raging folks.

Trying to explain viciousness and cruelty as the result of mistreatment is to try to deprive viciousness and cruelty of their own free will, and to devalue those primary agents into secondary effects.. 

In truth, cruelty is its own neurological space. It does make sense. Sometimes it has to do with fear and insecurity. Most often it is sourced by greed and viciousness. Even worse, it is sometimes a legitimate and optimal reaction.  

Greed, that’s the territory one wants to seize. Chimps do it. Obsessively. So do lions. And elephant seals. Sometimes, seizing territory is a matter of survival.


Viciousness is what one needs to re-establish ecological balance, as a last resort. Too many people somewhere, and eliminating some of them becomes an ecological virtue. The latter point became dominant when humans became dominant, two million years ago. It’s not pleasant, but it must be done: cruelty may as well be fun. I am not condoning, just describing. Those who refuse to describe, cover-up and become accomplices.


Greed and viciousness are parts of human nature, and the human brain. Denying that they exist, is a clear and present danger, and a moral pitfall. Indeed, deniers become their accomplice, wittingly or not. Metamorality requires to integrate those dark angels of behavior. Be it in the name of mental diversity, and prudent anticipation, accept them in the human community. The purpose? Debate and question them into oblivion… As much as possible.. 

Patrice Ayme


What do you mean you don’t love me?



And what of Will To Power in all this? (Nietzsche made a big deal of it!)

Will To Power is an enabler of humanity, good and evil. In that sense, WTP is beyond good and evil. But WTP can also serve only the Dark Side as when Napoleon said that Washington would be the greatest man who ever lived, if he left power of his own volition. Apparently, Napoleon had never heard of Solon, showing that his cognition was small…In the case of Hitler and Lenin, Will To Power was greatly a way to exact vengeance. And what does vengeance serve? Human culling, an absolute ecological, and, to a point, progressive good… As probably, overall, the war of all against all fosters a supplement of evolutionary pressure .


Real life data was given by the Marquis de Sade, who played an important role in the French revolution, both as an instigator and administrator. Sade’s role was not as expected by naifs, in the later case… I mentioned this in essays, long ago. More later.

Tags: , , ,


  1. benign Says:

    Still working on your Neocon creds, I see; adding a pinch of eugenics …


  2. Simon Brooks Says:

    Simon Brooks:
    Patrice Ayme greed is a trauma response to insecurity, you’re seeking to accumulate as you fear it being taken away – so you get it first/as much as you can (which is never enough). Power craving is also 100% a trauma response, feeling weak/helpless as a child breeds a need to dominate & not feel that way again. Your examples are these on genocidal steroids!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the comment… So you deny people can act from pure greed. For you greed is not a primary emotion, but a derivative of trauma. You excuse greed. So Nazis stealing work of arts from people they killed, all over Europe, were just plain afraid that one would steal from them Nazis, since childhood, dozens of millions of masters’ paintings?

      When chimps wage years of war of extermination on the chimps in the next valley over… It’s out of insecurity and fear? But chimp war is very dangerous and obviously the instigators are more afraid than they were before, when they engage in it! Or when a wolf kills 20 sheep, letting them go to waste, it’s just because Wolfie is afraid to be deprived? And when a cat plays a mouse to death, it’s because of kitten trauma? And when Stalin killed six million Ukrainians that was because? Because as a South Ossetian, one thousand miles away, he had been childhood traumatized by Kyiv? Auschwotz happened because innocent small Nazi children had been traumatized by big bad Jews? So Nazis did what came naturally?

      The latest example shows clearly where this sort of reasoning leads: to the worst of Nazism


      • Simon Brooks Says:

        Patrice Ayme at no point did I excuse, that was a presumption on your part. I was wondering when you (or another) would bring up the Nazi (or Stalin) strawman, it was very predictable. There are many & varied reasons & source problems that developed to explain why the leaders & followers of that regime did what they did over that decade or so, & why some are still fanatical about that kind of cause. There’s always a mental paper trail, this stuff doesn’t just appear – like your assertion of pure greed.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Simon Brooks You wrote: “greed is a trauma response to insecurity, you’re seeking to accumulate as you fear it being taken away…Power craving is also 100% a trauma response” If not an excuse, what is it? Calling Stalin and Hitler, who were allies and killed dozens of millions, “strawmen” is poorly considered semantics.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: