Archive for the ‘Intellectual Fascism’ Category

Socrates A Poisonous, Unexamined Fascist?

September 22, 2016

The Pathos Of Truth Seeked & Violated. Unexamined Fascist, Unexamined Prostitute? Both. Why Was That Covered Up, So Long? For The Same Exact Cause Which Made Socrates Famous!

The death of Socrates keeps haunting philosophy. And that, per se, is a sad, yet very revealing tale. The old common wisdom was that Socrates died, as a martyr to truth (as Hypatia, Boetius, Giordano Bruno, and many others certainly did). You want a hero for philosophy? Pick Jean Cavaillès. In the presence of Cavaillès, Sartre nearly wetted his pants. We will see that the mood behind Socrates’ actions is significantly different. Socrates was on the side of those who killed Cavaillès.

Indeed, a casual look at the basic setup of Socrates’ trial contradicts the theme that Socrates was mostly a martyr for truth. Socrates was simply accused to be the mastermind of the young dictators who ruled Athens after her tremendous defeat, and half annihilation. Socrates was also mentor, friend and lover (!) of the young Alcibiades who, deprived of a generalship by Athens, then betrayed her for her lethal enemy, fascist, ultra-racist Sparta.

Agreed, philosophy needs heroes, and has plenty. Here is one:

Jean Cavaillès. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

Jean Cavaillès, Anti-Fascist Martyr. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

[Jean Cavaillès was tortured and assassinated by the Gestapo in 1943-1944. He is buried in the crypt of the Sorbonne.]

Thus Socrates was a sort of Charlie Manson of serial traitors and killers, whose mental actions led, or accompanied, Athens’ near-death experience in losing a devastating war, and the resulting dictatorship by Socrates’ students. Temples of democracy such as Britain, France, and the USA have gaily executed traitors, or incompetents, for much less than that.

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Stanford political science and classics professor, Josiah Ober opines in “The Civic Drama Of Socrates’ Trial” that:  “Conventional wisdom sees Socrates as a martyr for free speech, but he accepted his death sentence for a different cause… In his influential interpretation The Trial of Socrates (1988), the US journalist-turned-classicist I F Stone saw this trial as an embattled democracy defending itself. In Stone’s view, Socrates had helped to justify the junta’s savage programme of oligarchic misrule and was a traitor. More commonly, Socrates is seen as a victim of an opportunistic prosecutor and a wilfully ignorant citizenry. In truth, politics is indispensable to understanding the trial of Socrates, but in a slightly more sophisticated way.”

I love sophistication, philosophy is all about increased sophistication (so is science). Sophistication, translated, is wisdomization: sticking to reality ever better by ever more subtle, complex logic.

The point was not so much that Socrates justified the savage programme, but that he formed the minds who organized said programme, “corrupting the youth”. And he was at it again, even after being amnestied. Professor Ober describes the problem well (although he fails to fathom the enormity of what he describes).

Stanford’s Josiah: For what people today call ‘the wisdom of crowds’, Socrates had nothing but scorn. Athenian democrats who argued that the many, the group, were collectively more likely to get important matters right than any individual expert earned his antipathy. Whether or not anyone actually was expert in the art of politics, Socrates certainly supposed that there could be such an expert, and that the Athenians were deluded in thinking themselves collectively wise.”

The “experts” would have been naturally his rich, best (“aristos”) boyfriends. Professor Ober is led to the obvious question, but fail to recognize that he does not answer it:

“How did Socrates both scorn the idea of collective wisdom and yet maintain obedience to Athens’ laws, even when he disagreed with how they were interpreted? The rudimentary answer lay in the foundation that Athens (as opposed to, for example, Sparta) provided in its laws and political culture. Athens mandated liberty of public speech and tolerance for a wide range of private behaviour.”

Yes, but public incompetence could lead to trial (as happened to Pericles and many strategoi, generals and admirals). Anyway, that is not an answer. I will give a better answer: Socrates himself had no answer to his drastic self-contradictions, so hise self-delusion fatally committed him to self-destruction. Yet political science professor Ober sees the problem:

“By 399 BCE, however, four years after the end of the tyranny, and with Socrates doing the same things in public that had seemingly inspired the junta’s leaders, the Athenians regarded his speech very differently. In the eyes of the majority of his fellow citizens, Socrates was no longer an eccentric with potential for contributing to public life. He was now either a malevolent public enemy, or deluded and dangerously unable to recognise that his speech predictably produced seriously bad outcomes. And so the way was left open for Meletus to launch his prosecution.”

Right. What professor Ober fails to mention is that only the intervention of mighty Sparta prevented Athens’ annihilation after she surrendered, having lost already half of her population (other cities wanted to do to Athens what Athens did to Melos). Try to imagine this: the city-state half annihilated, democracy destroyed by Socrates’ students, and then? The strongest mood that Socrates had been instilling was to oppose democracy. And he was again at it, after the amnesty he had profited from. What could motivate such a rage?

Unsurprisingly, Socrates was put on trial for “corrupting the youth and impiety”. (The City was to some extent divinized, with Athena as her protecting goddess.)

“With unsettling metaphors and logical demonstrations, he made it clear that he [Socrates] opposed democracy… Xenophon implies that Socrates chose that sort of speech as a method of jury-assisted suicide: he was… tired of life and allowed the Athenians to end it for him.”

This is what I believe. And I go further than Xenophon, by explaining the cause of Socrates’ depression. Socrates may have been tired of his own contradictions.And may have been ravaged by regret. (Regret, I reckon, is a powerful human instinct.)

The Socrates’ worship interpretation is due to Plato. It poses Socrates as martyr to civic duty. But, as it turns out, “civic duty”, for Socrates, seems to be mostly blind obedience to “the Laws”, while viciously criticizing the Direct Democracy which gave birth to them.

That Socrates respected the laws of Athens while despising the Direct Democracy which had passed them is illogical in the extreme. Yes, I know Socrates said he respected “the Laws”, as if they were disembodied gods with a life of their own. But We The People passed said laws, and they lived only because We The People had created them, and We thge People could extinguish them just the same.

The “Laws” were nothing. We The People was everything. Socrates behaved as if he could not understand that.

Insisting that the Laws were everything reveals that the concept of blind obedience was more important to Socrates than arguing about the nature of what one should be obeying to, and why. Blind obedience is also the traditional ultimate value of standard fascism: law and order as supreme.

Blind obedience had been what the junta’s rule was all about. What the rule of Socrates’ young students and lovers had been all about. That’s also what fascism is all about. However, arguing, debating, fighting is how to get to the thorough examination necessary for the “examined life”.   

The contradiction was, and is, blatant. Socrates’ mental system was shorting out. Socrates had been shorting out for half a decade or more: he ambitiously wanted to “examine life”, but he could not even examine the minds of his followers, let alone his own, or why he was hanging around them. Why was he hanging around them? They were rich, he was not, but he lived off their backs and crumbs. And the feeling of power they provided with (after Obama got to power I saw some in his entourage becoming drunk with power).  

Arguably, Socrates was a martyr to fascism, a Jihadist without god. There is nothing remarkable about that. The very instinct of fascism is to give one’s life, just because fanatical combat is the ultimate value, when one gets in the fascist mood. In this case, the fanatical combat was against We The People.

Posing Socrates as a martyr for intellectual freedom is farfetched: fascism, blind obedience, passion for oligarchs are all opposed to the broad mind searching for wisdom requires.

Some will sneer: you accuse Socrates to be a fascist, why not a racist? Well, I will do this too. The golden youth Socrates loved so much and drank with were hereditary so. Socrates believed knowledge was innate (so an ignorant shepherd boy knew all of math: this is the example he rolled out!) If knowledge was innate, one can guess that the “aristos”, the best, were also innately superior. That is the essence of racism.

Logically enough, Socrates disliked science: nothing was truly new under the sun (as all knowledge was innate). So much for examining life.

It is more probable that Socrates was indeed, just a stinging insect buzzing around, stinging the idea of Direct Democracy. In exchange, his rich, young, plutocratic boyfriends would fete and feed him. Such was Socrates’ life, a rather sad state of affair, something that needed to be examined, indeed, by the head doctor.

Socrates may have been clever enough to feel that he was an ethical wreck. His suicidal submission may have been an attempt to redeem himself, or whatever was left of his honor (which he also tried to regain with his insolence to the jury).

Plato would pursue the fight for fascism (“kingship”). Aristotle, by teaching, mentoring, educating, befriending, advising a number of extremely close, family-like friends, the abominable Alexander, Craterus and Antipater, finally fulfilled Socrates’ wet dream: Athenian Direct Democracy was destroyed and replaced by an official plutocracy overlorded by Antipater (supremo dictator, and executor of Aristotle’s will, in more ways than one).

This trio of philosophical malefactors became the heroes 22 centuries of dictatorship (“monarchy”) needed as a justification. A justification where “civic duty” was defined as blind obedience to the “Laws” (whatever they were, even unjust “Laws”). This amplified Socrates’ hatred of Direct Democracy. So the works of the trio were preciously preserved, and elevated to the rank of the admirable.

It is rather a basket of deplorables. We owe them the destruction of Direct Democracy for 23 centuries, and counting.

And what Of Socrates’ regret for being so deplorable? (Which I alleged he had to experience.) A dying Socrates lying on a couch, uncovered his face and uttered— “Crito, I owe the sacrifice of a rooster to Asklepios; will you pay that debt and not neglect to do so?”  Asklepios cured disease, and provided with rebirth, symbolized by the singing of the rooster calling the new day. This has been traditionally interpreted (by Nietzsche) as meaning that (Socrates’?) death was a cure for (his?) life. Nietzsche accused Socrates to be culprit of the subsequent degeneracy of civilization (and I do agree with that thesis). Certainly, Socrates, a self-described “gadfly” was deprived of gravitas.

Wisdom needs to dance, but cannot be altogether deprived of gravitas, as it is, after all, the gravest thing.. Maybe Socrates felt this confusedly, besides having regrets for his status of thinking insect. Socrates could have easily escaped, and Crito had an evasion ready. By killing himself Socrates behaved like a serious Japanese Lord opening his belly to show his insides were clean, and its intent good. Well, many a scoundrel has committed seppuku, and hemlock is nothing like cutting the belly.

Human beings are endowed with the instinct of regret, because we are the thinking species. It is crucial that we find the truth, and when we have lived a lie, indulged in error, the best of use are haunted by the past, and revisit it to find what the truth really was. Regrets has many stages, like cancer. The most correct philosophical form of regret is to re-established the truth. The cheap way out is to flee from reality, as Socrates did.

How to explain Socrates’ insolence to the jury? There again, it was a desperate attempt at reaching the sensation of self-righteousness and trying to impart it to the jury (this is often seen  on the Internet, with the glib one-liners and vacuous logic which pass for depth nowadays).

The inexperienced democracy in Athens did not always behave well. Athens behaved terribly with Melos (see link above). But the case of Socrates is different. Ultimately, the train of thoughts and moods promoted by Socrates weakened those who wanted to defend the free republics of Greece against the fascist, exterminationist Macedonian plutocracy. Demosthenes and Athenian Direct Democracy was mortally poisoned by Socrates.

Thus, Socrates execution was not just tit for tat. It was not enough of tit for tat. It was a preventive measure, in defense of Direct Democracy, which failed, because it was too meek.

Democracy does not mean to turn the other cheek, to have the golden beast eat that one too. In ultimate circumstances, democracy has an ultimate weapon too, and that is fascism. This is why the Roman, French and American republics prominently brandish the fasces. Fascism is the ultimate war weapon. But fascism is not the ultimate society. Far from it: political fascism, just a few individuals leading entails intellectual fascism, namely just a few moods and ideas leading. Before one knows it, one is in plutocracy, where not only wealth rules, but so does the cortege of the worst ideas and moods which characterize it.

Socrates often talk the talk, contradicting completely the way he lived (for example he said one should never return an injury, but, as a hoplite, he killed at least four men in combat!)

Socrates spoke so well sometimes, that he can stay a symbol of truth persecuted. But, because it is a lie, replacing him by Hypatia, Boetius, Bruno and, or Cavaillès, and, or, others, is urgent. Indeed, the reality is that Socrates was not just inimical to democracy. The current of thought he floated by was inimical to science, mental progress, and the truth he claimed to be pining for.  And even him may have been so overwhelmed by these astounding contradictions, that, in the end, assisted suicide for his pathetic mental writhing was, indeed, the optimal outcome.

Patrice Ayme’


Hawaiian Savagery & Planet Nine

January 20, 2016

New Giant Planet Around Sun? Hawaiian Savages Learned Nothing Important Yet?

After all these hard discourses, my friends, as Ludwig Van would say,  time for a little levity. Could spaceships some day fuel far out? It has long been suspected. And now indirect, computational proofs are piling up.

Science is just common sense. The edge of science is the edge of common sense, thus on the edge of the totally unfamiliar. Thus, it’s not obvious. But still, common sense should stay front and center.

For example, the dwarf planets around the orbit of Neptune and beyond, have extremely weird orbits. Pluto actually cuts the orbit of Neptune. And others do. These highly elliptical orbits always baffled me.

Or Maybe Planet Ninth Is All Frozen, Its Atmosphere All On The Ground?

Or Maybe Planet Ninth Is All Frozen, Its Atmosphere All On The Ground?

[Hypothetical lightning has been represented on Planet Nine, in this art from Caltech; this was observed with other giant planets; distant Sun is visible, but won’t warm things much; at this sort of distances, only  energy of  nuclear origin could enable colonization, except if one make work completely new sources such as my suggested vacuum energy method. See: Zero Point Energy Machine.]

Caltech’s Batygin (theorist) and Brown (experimentalist) published their work in the current issue of the Astronomical Journal: “Evidence For A Distant Giant Planet In the Solar System”. “Planet Nine” explains a number of mysterious features of the orbits of icy dwarf planets, objects and debris beyond Neptune known as the Kuiper Belt.

“Although we were initially quite skeptical that this planet could exist, as we continued to investigate its orbit and what it would mean for the outer solar system, we become increasingly convinced that it is out there,” says Batygin, an assistant professor of planetary science. “For the first time in over 150 years, there is solid evidence that the solar system’s planetary census is incomplete.”

The discovery was long anticipated: I mentioned myself many times that the weird orbits made sense only if there was a huge weird planet out there. Although a star dashing through the solar system could have brought the same effect, and there was indeed such a star!

(A red dwarf star zoomed through the Solar System 70,000 years ago, at 20% of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the (red dwarf) star closest to the Sun.)

In 2014, an ex-postdoc of Brown’s, Chad Trujillo, and a colleague, Scott Shepherd, noted just that: 13 of the most distant objects in the Kuiper Belt are similar in some orbital features. To explain that similarity, they suggested the possible presence of a small planet.

The six most distant objects from Trujillo and Shepherd’s original collection all follow elliptical orbits that point in the same direction in physical space (with a thirty degree angle off the plane of the ecliptic, the plane of planets). That is particularly surprising because the outermost points of their orbits (“perihelions”) move around the solar system, and they travel at different speeds.

“It’s almost like having six hands on a clock all moving at different rates, and when you happen to look up, they’re all in exactly the same place,” says Brown. The odds of having that happen are something like 1 in 100, he says. But on top of that, the orbits of the six objects are also all tilted in the same way — pointing about 30 degrees downward in the same direction relative to the plane of the eight known planets. The probability of that happening is about 0.007 percent. “Basically it shouldn’t happen randomly,” Brown says. “So we thought something else must be shaping these orbits.”

The researchers tried different possibilities, quite a bit as Kepler did with Mars. Whereas Kepler, using Tycho’s work, took decades, modern computers compute fast. It soon became obvious that only a massive planet explained what was observed. In particular it explains the orbits of  Sedna and 2012 VP113 which never get very close to Neptune, yet behave as if they were “kicked” by something (as Pluto and others which, coming close to Neptune, are kicked by Neptune).

The Ninth Planet would also explain the weird orbits perpendicular to the ecliptic of some objects, which were recently discovered…

Science is not over. Actually, it’s barely starting. Ironically only telescopes based in Hawai’i have enough light gathering capability to detect the hypothetical Ninth Planet, if it is close to its furthest point from the Sun. It’s ironical: these telescopes are on one of two giant volcanoes in Hawai’i (the other, just as tall, explodes periodically). Those telescopes, the largest functioning telescopes in the world, ten meters across, profits from the fact they are, atmospherically speaking, half way to space.

The savages in Hawai’i, apparently gravely offended by all this science, persuaded the Hawaiian Supreme Court to order to stop the construction of a giant Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) in Hawai’i. The TMT offends the Hawaiian gods. So Planet Nine now has a good chance to not be discovered in Hawai’i, and the savages there can keep on roasting people according to their old religion.

For those who forgot: the famous Captain Cook was captured, roasted and devoured in Hawai’i. (Hence the allusion to roasting, as this was not just culinary, but religious.) And the global mood, promoted by the powers that be is to respect all religions, especially if they are gravely offended by common sense and basic humanism. Or offended by free, unaccompanied German women in front of Cologne’s cathedral.

Hawaiians, I am afraid, learned nothing. In spite of their tragic history.

In the early Nineteenth Century, American missionaries came to Hawai’i and persuaded the authorities of that independent nation, to persecute Catholics.  That was promptly done, maybe in the hope of Hawaiian authorities to ingratiate themselves with American plutocracy. The French military intervened twice to force Hawaiian authorities to stop abusing Catholics (the first treaty was signed, but then violated, bringing the second French intervention, a decade later).

Ultimately American plutocrats and their Protestant missionaries acting as a fifth column, staged a coup against the legitimate Queen of Hawai’i. The Hawaiian Constitutional monarchy and its national assembly was then destroyed and annexed by the USA, to plant pineapple, sugar cane, and now tourists and pot. Fortunes were made. By American plutocrats. Hawai’i, for 15 centuries independent, and a civilization, not to say a culinary hot spot, became an other possession of the American empire.

One would think that Hawaiians would have learned that blind anger, irrationality and scorn for common sense only bring their doom. But apparently, not so. Instead of contributing to the Enlightenment, Hawai’i has decided to contribute to Obscurantism, in a frantic rage against astronomy, and the discovery of worlds untold.

You would think that Barack Obama, who was born in Honolulu, on the island of Oahu, Hawai’i, would have said something loud, along the preceding lines. Not so.

Abysmal. Astronomically abysmal.

Patrice Aymé


Christian Civilization Never Existed

December 10, 2015

Many fanatics, Christian or Muslim, insist that there was a “Christian Civilization”. Well, no. It’s not because people with vested interest repeat always the same thing, that it is decisively supported by the facts. It is not because some aspects of a civilization are of such and such a nature, that one particular aspect defines the whole thing. The philosophical, legal and behavioral foundations of the West were not “Christian”. Christianism was the fig leaf thrown, by the Roman plutocracy, over the apocalypse it preferred to the taxing continuance of civilization.

Although something called “Christianity” contributed to civilization considerably, the Christianism of bishop (Saint) Jerome, a “Founding Father of the Church“, in 400 CE Milan, was very different from the idiosyncratic Pagano-Christianism of Consul (and king of the Franks) Clovis in 500 CE (who re-invented Christianism thoroughly).

As so-called “Christmas” approaches, it’s good to remember that the Winter Solstice feast was Greco-Roman, and preceded the displacement of “Jesus” birth to the Winter Solstice, by more than a millennium.

“Christian” Hatred Of The Body Was Rejected By The Popes Themselves

“Christian” Hatred Of The Body Was Rejected By The Popes Themselves

[“What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?” Michelangelo.]

Christianism initially hated the body, in opposition to Greco-Roman civilization: love the body, and soon you will love the mind, and will want one of your own.

So Christianism closed and destroyed the baths (thus promoting devastating, civilization destroying, epidemics among the 99%) and longed for the Apocalypse (generously provided by the telling collaboration of Roman plutocrats and invading barbarians: the analogy with Islamism now is uncomfortable! Our plutocrats have been busy plotting with Islamists ever since before the Great Bitter Lake Conspiracy!)

Although some lunatics tried to force an authentic Christian civilization, it became, literally, a Non Sequitur: it’s now called the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”. When one wishes for the Apocalypse as Christians and later Muslims, wished, it should be considered synonymous to the decline and fall of civilization, society, population, reading skills, security, economics, and all and any standards of sophistication.

See Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen… (And yes, Somalia, Sudan, and more specifically Yemen, can be compared to say, Ethiopia, which is doing incomparably better.)

What do I mean by the non-existence of “Christian Civilization”? Consider the tyrannical, self-obsessed, much adulated cretin, Louis XIV of France, the self-described, self-adoring “Sun-King” (a bloody dictator much celebrated in France this year, as he croaked 300 years ago, justly covered by gangrene, from his toes, to the top of his head. Louis’ painful and disgusting three weeks of gangrene is the only indication from his reign, which I can discern, that there may be, after all, a God).

Louis XIV tried to make France into a Catholic society, by revoking the Edict of Nantes of his excellent grandfather, Henri IV. That was more than weird: a century earlier, under Catherine of Medici, queen of France, a similar episode had been launched, the Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy. Not only did that surprise assault in the middle of the night, killed immediately 30,000, and most of France’s intellectual elite (which could only condemn and despise Catholicism), but it launched no less than seven religious wars in 36 years, bleeding France, killing up to more than 20% of the population (so Syria has a way to go! By the way, those who wonder where the French hostility to Abraham’s god comes from, should study this).

I repeat: in less than 40 years, wars among Christians in France, killed more than 4 million people (and terrorized everybody).  Nor was it the first time: more tan a million Cathars, and all their works were annihilated by Christians around 1200 CE. And, in the Fifteenth Century, Protestants were hunted like wild beasts by Catholics (to the point Louis XI had to intervene, reminding all that killing people for religious reasons was against the law, and sending the army!)

How civilized is all that Christianism? When Rome was far removed from Christianism, no such massacre ever happened.

So here was that bloody imbecile, Louis the Blood King, trying the same trick all over again, all by himself (and his fanatical wife). It is still a great disease that such a creep is revered abjectly, by the French elite.

Thus Louis The Pervert threw out and abominably abused millions of Protestants. Many Protestants fled (that’s why there is winemaking in South Africa, and why so many Germans have French names). As protestants tended to be smarter, their flight made France much more idiotic, and thus more hospitable to Louis the Pervert and his vicious entourage of ill disguised monsters. Thus obnoxious critters make an environment hospitable to themselves

There is something in common between that so-called “Sun King” and the unfortunate fiction of Camus, Mr. Meursault, who kills an Arab, just because he can, and got too much sun, and could not care less. Louis XIV was the real life Meursault, and Camus channeling unconsciously that abomination of French history. Louis XIV killed the Protestants, just because he could, could not care less, and had too much sun.

Too bad Meursault and the Sun-King are still revered: it’s a sickness of the mood.

Christian propagandists always insisted that there was such a thing as “Christian Civilization”. But there was not.

The West was NOT A CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION. It looked like one twice: around 400 CE, and around 1400 CE. But, in either case, although an attempt was made, the basic law was NOT Christian, but Roman (or the Salic law of the Franks, which was Roman written).

The attempt around 400 CE, a government of bishops, petered out right away. True Milan’s Saint Jerome, the most prominent “Founding Father of the Church”, had emperor Theodosius begging forgiveness (for some massacre). But then the Roman State, short in cash, put the Franks in charge of defending the North West “Limes” (frontier).

A century later, having established a huge “Imperium” (= Roman military command), the Franks sort of converted to Catholicism, modifying it extensively in the process, and submitting the Popes, for centuries to come.

The Franks re-established Roman (Late) Republican tolerance for ALL religions.

In other words, the empire of the Franks, the “Imperium Francorum” of 600 CE, was much more civilized than today’s Saudi Arabia. Arguably Arabia of 600 CE was more civilized than today’s Arabia, in the sense that Christianism, Judaism and the Cult of the Moon in Mecca, were all practiced without known religious massacre (the first religious holocaust was Muhammad’s personal annihilation of a Jewish tribe, a bit later; Muhammad is on the record as of the opinion that whoever insulted him should die, a tradition Muslims are keen, to this day, to carry forward, in the name of their Rophet; don’t ask me what a Rophet is).

The tolerance was extended to much more than Jews, Pagans (the Franks were de facto Christianized Pagans for centuries), Muslims, etc. By 800 CE, the “Renovated Roman Empire” led by Charlemagne, was at peace and the world’s richest

The “Final Solution” was Nazi (although I have accused many times Christianism to have inspired it). The “Manifest Destiny” was not particularly Christian (Founding Fathers and their preceding generation were very anti-Christian, and for “Nature’s God”). The Crusades were, mostly, a counter-attack (although I am very anti-crusades, that’s what they were in first order).

The annihilation of the Natives did not have to be a consequence from the Christian nature of the invaders. A very good example is the French, who never eradicated a population of Natives (and that’s why they lost America!)

“Secular ideologies” may have been by far the biggest mass killers…. Because they suppress everything else. In primitive societies the kill ratio is more like 50% (or at least 25%), whereas the two World Wars killed rather around 2% to 4% (at most, directly and indirectly, through famines and diseases they contributed to)

The preceding has to be kept in mind when inanities about Islam, and an “Islamist Civilization” are proffered, just because people are conditioned to mouth them, and believe it’s the truth, because everybody says it. It’s not because all the sheep bleat the same, that bleating is the truth.

This being said, because of the insistence of raw Islam to apply Islamist Law, instead of secular law, made “Islamist Civilization” much more of a reality. Islam wants to be everything, leaving no space for anything else. Islam wants to be all of society, and even to occupy visual space. Islam wants to be more than a civilization, it wants to be an obsession.

However, an inspection of history shows that all period of really shining civilization under “Islam” seemed to have involved see through dresses more than niqab, chador, and other attempts to make women into something that should be hidden.he vast body). Contributions by non-Muslims (Jews and Christian) tend to dominate (they were the majority for centuries).

Regimes which interpreted the Qur’an literally were highly successful, especially initially, thanks to ruthless surprise: initial conquest, from Spain to Central Asia, assaults of India, Indonesia, conquest of Anatolia by the just Islamized Turks, and a reconquest of Spanish Caliphate by savage, Fundamentalist Muslims from the desert. It ultimately backfired (except in the case of the Turks, arguably). For example the re-reconquest of Spain, made the “Reconquista” by the Catholics much more savage and thorough…

Many supposed “characteristics” of “Christianism” were established centuries before Christianism was imposed on the Greco-Roman world by emperors from Constantine to Theodosius, in the fateful Fourth Century. For example welfare and scholarship for worthy students was established by 100 CE (under emperor Trajan).

The Roman world kept on going, even, and especially after the Decline and Fall of the Roman imperial state. When Saint Louis, a Christian Fundamentalist and Jihadist (“Crusader”) of the Twelfth Century expressed, in writing his burning desire to “plant a knife in the belly of a Jew or Unbeliever” (“nothing would please me more”) he recognized he could not do it, because, well the (Salic and Roman) Law forbid him to do so.

Sharia Christian, or not never ruled the West very long (although, sometimes, it made sparks: see Bruno being burned alive). We are not going to start now.

Patrice Ayme’

Vegans Eat GMOs, Not Banksters

June 15, 2015

We live in the age of increasing intellectual fascism: the herds think all the same, and vigorously charge the same way all the time.

Some of the latest fashions in the USA consuming the progressive consumer, are: off with diet sodas, off with aspartame, off with gluten, off with meat, off with fish, off with eggs, off with cheese, in with vegans, in with LBTGs (Lesbian Bisexual Transexual Gays), in with wine, off with antibiotics, off with the French and their perverse stuffing of geese with food, in and now out with electric cars.

Hunt, Kill, & Eat, Or Plutocrats Will Do It to You

Hunt, Kill, & Eat, Or Plutocrats Will Do It to You

[Man evolved into, and as, a carnivorous ape. Deny thoroughly this most human of all natural traits, paradoxically, puts civilization at risk of falling into the most demonic hands.]

This tendency to ever greater mental fascism, is perversely augmented by the Internet social networks, which practice “curation”. “Curation” means you will see ever more what you “like”, a new form of mental masturbation. It’s very seriously studied by researchers employed by Facebook, and published in the best journals. Facebook says it’s not its fault.

As the USA leads the world’s intellectual fashion into nothingness, one must pay attention. If one pays enough attention to all the preceding, one will pay no attention whatsoever to what the illuminati in charge like Obama, do, for real. That’s actually the main interest of the preceding (as far as the oligarchy is concerned).

Many of the fashions are laudable (out with aspartame, diet sodas), or ridiculous (out with gluten). Fake sugars, it turns out, are pretty bad, and can lead to diabetes (just like the real thing). Gluten is bad for those suffering from celiac disease (although how that starts is probably related to an incidence worldwide going from 1/300 to 1/40). I myself caught a related disease in Africa, and I watched my diet as a hawk. However, in all these cases, the fashion is to replace the offending substance by something worse, namely large quantities of plain old sugar.

Today I will focus on vegans. Vegans abstain from animal products. The reasons they evoke have to do with one’s health and one’s ethics.

The problem with the later is that, when one think highly of oneself in ethical matters, one may be led to two flaws:

1) we live in a highly unethical civilization. The person with high ethics may be prone to suffer so much distress, just looking at that, that it could not possibly be contemplated, and, thus, understood.

2) it’s highly unethical because too many wolves have been left alone, as they came to rule the sheep (banksters, oilmen, etc.). There again, the one distressed by the contemplation of evil may even be unable to visualize the possibility of demonic creatures of human origin.

3) For goodness to triumph, war is necessary. One should envision wisdom as Mars and Apollo, condemned to apply war, in the Sisyphean task of ever more clever progress, thanks to Prometheus’ gifts.

And now, having dealt with ethical health, let’s address physical health.


We Are Not Cows:

It’s well known vegans run out of basic vitamins and minerals. B12, calcium, zinc, are examples. Vegans counter that they can apply crafty vegetable assemblies. They often roll-out soy, as the do-all, be-all vegetable protein.

Unfortunately, soy act like an estrogen: at three quarts a day, soy milk will feminize a full special forces superman, complete with breasts. It has been done in Texas (unwittingly). Scaled down to a child’s weight, the danger is obvious: relatively small quantities of soy will feminize a pre-puberty child intensely.

How do cows digest grass? They eat lots of little beasties; snails, insects, etc., to start with. So they are not really vegetarian (that’s why Thatcher gave them insufficiently cooked cow meat, in “free market” anxiety). Moreover cows have special supplementary stomachs, and their gut is equipped with special bacteria prone to digest tough vegetable fiber.

How, and, by the way, most foods vegans eat are actually Genetically Modified Organisms. Beans were invented by the Franks in the Tenth Century, exploding quality and quantity of the population. Similarly for rice in South-East Asia a century later: that exploded the population there.

So had corn, much earlier, in Mesoamerica, and North America: Native Americans became very numerous, because corn provides lots with lots of calories. However, corn eaters suffered from the vegan disease: Native Americans degenerated physically. They became short and weak, at least those heavily dependent upon corn.

We know how the smart Aztecs resolved their (very bad) protein crisis…

Agriculture is nearly 100% Genetically Modified Organisms. Wild almond ancestors will kill you before they feed you. OK, there are GMOs and GMOs, depending upon which modifications are done. But I am making a philosophical point here: GMOs are not necessarily bad… and the VEGAN DIET is thoroughly ARTIFICIAL. (That makes it thoroughly human, as man is scientific and technological, by evolutionary definition.)


We Are Hunters:

We are the product of ten million years, at least, of carnivorous evolution from fruit eating apes. That is why we do need to eat Vitamin C (our ape ancestors got it from fruits), but also L Carnitin (our ancestors have been getting it from meat for at least five million years; without it, muscles break down).

I have known, for a very long time, climbers who got on a vegan diet. Although younger than me, their bodies literally fell apart. Specialists have been asking them to eat cartilage and bone soup (beyond being put on Glucosamine-Chondroitin treatment). Why? Our ancestors, for millions of years did not just eat meat, but bones, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, etc.

And now we need to hunt banksters and their supports, their lovers and admirers. To make this civilization as human as it needs, just to survive. Human ethology is what it is. Learning to live, is learning to live with it, instead of fastening for ourselves new chains from an imagination running on empty.Obsessing about tiny details such as getting enough B12 vitamin, is an unwelcome distraction. To be fully human, is, first, extending that courtesy, to ourselves.

(It did not escape me that banksters hunting is as dangerous as mammoth hunting; thus much of these obsessions with the most ridiculous fads is a rather successful attempt to distract oneself with innocuous subjects, and to display one’s innocuousness, for all to see. Thus, deep down inside, shallow fads are all about cowardice and laziness.)

Patrice Ayme’

Too Much Aversion To Aversion A Perversion.

April 28, 2015

Too Much Aversion To Aversion Kills Prevention.

Anger Sometimes Not Just Best, But The Only Way:

Many people are conflicted about conflicts. They are told conflicts are intrinsically bad, and they should wrought the conflicts out of themselves. Avert aversion, and conspiracy theories, and the world will be yours. This sweetly insipid medicine is central to the plutocracy of the USA, and is repeated at all levels, from family therapists, to (nearly) all the media, to the presidency. “Black” and variously colored youth seem to increasingly disagree with this treatment. It is getting ever harder to swallow, as more and more youth are starting to understand Obama is more Wall Street than ex-disgruntled youth (whom, actually, he never was. Silver spoon is more like it.)

Anger is actually best, when it is the most appropriate attitude. Obama saved the private banks and the careers of the banksters who managed them, but what did he do for Black youth? If not now, then when, and what? Is breaking the necks and piercing with bullets those who disagree the solution, looking forward?

Look To The Right Of The Burning Police Car: All Obama Cares About Is Trade Deals For His Plutocratic Pets

Look To The Right Of The Burning Police Car: All Obama Cares About Is Trade Deals For His Plutocratic Pets

Obama said it was all the fault of “thugs” who live in Baltimore, not banksters who steal on Wall Street. Don’t bite the hand that feeds…

The problem of the Jews confronting Hitler, is that they did not get angry enough. If they had, maybe the American Jews would have protested the pro-Hitlerian policy of plutocrats and the infeodated government of the USA.

Now we have Nepalis left to themselves, dying without rescue, while helicopters are used to ferry in style 1,000 gold plated “climbers” on Everest (who otherwise would have to well, climb down!). Hey, Nepalis are made to die in the service of the gold-plated ones, whereas the gold plated ones ought not to be expected to walk! In case like that, contempt is minimum service. Anger is more appropriate. And, appropriately enough, Nepalis are getting angry.

Europe, in the past was crumbling under plutocrats and religious fanatics (including Great Britain). So was, say, China. Flowers and smiles did not work. Violence is how one got rid of these predators.

But let’s give a the party of apathy a chance to open its mouth for a minute, or so:


Anthony Biglan, “senior scientist” at the Oregon Research Institute, a “leading figure in the development of prevention science” has helped over the past thirty years “to identify effective family, school, and community interventions to prevent the most common and costly problems of childhood and adolescence”. He uses “prevention science to build more nurturing families, schools, and communities throughout the world.”

Says Mr. Biglan: “The world has struggled with how to deal with others’ aversive behavior for millennia. The fundamental problem is to get people to not respond to others’ aversive behavior with their own aversive behavior because, more likely than not, doing so will simply perpetuate coercion and conflict.”

The way the author has it, aversion causes aversion, which causes aversion… So what caused aversion in the first place? Aversion? It sounds like the chicken and egg problem: the egg gave the chicken, who made the egg… It’s the chicken and egg problem, without the chicken.

The author blames responding to aversion by aversion. He advocates turning the other cheek, quoting Jesus, Gandhi.

But he does not roll out the violent quotes of Jesus, of which there are several:

Matthew 10:34. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Or Luke 19: 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

Or Jesus’ last message to his disciples: He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” [Luke 22:36.]

And don’t tell me I deform Jesus’ message! Jesus threw the merchants out of the Temple. Proof that not only he was physically violent, but that he was some sort of Kung-Fu master, or the like. Yes the best known version of Kung-Fu was invented by the Shaolin Monastery for defense against from bandits around 610 CE (and at the crucial battle to establish the Tang Dynasty in 621 CE).

Jesus knew that turning the other cheek was not the only valuable strategy to bring the reign of goodness. All too often, aversion to aversion brings forth only toleration of abomination.

The Nazis eliminated hundreds of thousands of Germans viewed as mentally or physically defective. (The Nazis had justified this by claiming that Germany’s population had augmented by 50% in 70 years, whereas the mental retards and degenerated specimens’ population had augmented by 450% in those same 70 years; so soon, the Nazis ominously concluded, one German out of four would be degenerate; thus the need to act now; simultaneously the children of Franco-German unions who were not pure white, were sterilized; there were several thousands.)

The Nazis’ plan was to see how little aversion to extermination the population could be trained to develop. After this, they exterminated Poles, and then Jews (many Germans had Jewish, or somewhat Jewish, friends or relatives, so the case of the Jews was most delicate).

But let’s go back to the aversion of aversion.

The author of the quote above, Mr. Biglan, the self-defined specialist of aversion, also quotes Gandhi.

To see his full essay, consult Scientia Salon: Nurture Effect On Caring Relationships.)

However Gandhi, by posing in Hindu clothes, forever, and with Hindu symbols, such as the Wheel, helped to antagonize the Muslims. This boiled over in 1939. As the Indian Congress voted to declare war against the Nazis, Gandhi, who called Hitler “my friend”, and had corresponded with the mass-murdering, war criminal dictator, did all he could, in vain, for India not to go to war against the racist in chief.

In the end, Gandhi had to turn against the Hindus, and for the Muslims. Gandhi recognized Muslims should get their part of the national treasury. He was rewarded for this perceived “aversion” towards Hindus by being assassinated by Hindu nationalists.

Mr. Biglan also evokes Martin Luther King. However, the entourage of MLK was armed to the teeth, with loaded guns: they were not born yesterday.

So the real fundamental problem of “aversion” is how does “aversion” arises in the first place. In general it does because human beings find themselves in adverse circumstances, or because evil tendencies by a few were not opposed early enough.

So it is the lack of aversion to various adversities, as they are gathering momentum, which leads to large scale aversion appearing in the first place.

An example is the Greenhouse Gas Crisis (“AGW”). If not opposed in a timely manner (and that will require some “aversion”), it will lead to large scale misery and war. Also North Korea, soon to have 40 nuclear weapons according to Chinese specialists, ought to looked at with appropriate aversion.

Prevention of the causes of aversion is how to prevent aversion. And the best way to do this is to have terminal aversion to abomination.

Time to value anger, people!

Appropriate anger, that is.

Appropriate emotions are appropriate. There is no emotion which is not appropriate to all and any situation. Full aversion to aversion is perversion.

Patrice Ayme’

Who IS, What IS, EVIL?

March 28, 2015


There is no more important question than the nature of Evil. What it consists in. Let alone where it hides. Upon the definition of Evil given by civilization, depends the survival of advanced intelligence on this planet.

We have ever more power. We need ever more intelligence to manage it. We need an ever stricter morality, to motivate said intelligence.

As we will see by the end of this essay, enormous evil (starving all of humanity to increase the evil gains of those who lead us) is already in place. It’s not just my (long held) opinion. Science magazine even agrees.

To motivate ever stricter mentality, we learn to become ferocious. This is a long held truth, not just of Islam and Christianity, but also Buddhism:

Exterminator Of Evil, Tenkeisei. Obviously Such Hard Work, It Requires A Demon

Exterminator Of Evil, Tenkeisei. Obviously Such Hard Work, It Requires A Demon

I scoff when I see German TV making fuzzy the face of the mass criminal who just killed 149 people. What? To protect his privacy? The privacy of evil? Oh, some will say, to protect those who were close to him. Well, are they not co-culprit? From the village where the co-pilot was, he was well known to nuts. People knowing that ought to have contacted Lufthansa, or the authorities.

Evil is all too private.

Let’s make it public.

Some have said, the mass murder by a (implicitly well educated, disciplined) German was unlikely. But Nazi was, mostly, an enormous mass murder-suicide. It differed only in scale.

Fifty years ago, intellectuals worried about nuclear war. On the face of it, it was a strange worry: the USSR and the USA were fighting for world supremacy. Their elites wanted to control the planet, they were overstretched in all ways.

The USSR crashed and burned, Putin is trying to revive the ambers.

Now people have forgotten about nuclear weapons. But they are here, more than ever. Why did they forget? Because the world has become morally asleep. And why that? Because much greater danger are not just looming, but exerting their grip. Reality has become an inconvenient distraction on the way to lucidity.



The situation is worse now: it is easier than ever to make nuclear weapons. It is not just a question of ever more efficient ultracentrifuges in underground fortresses. There are now even more advanced methods, using lasers, to separate Uranium isotopes. The USA itself is starting to use lasers to separate the highly explosive U235.

France and the USA are the two countries in the West which make thermonuclear weapons (Britain just buys them from the USA, and Israel got the technology from France). France and the USA have not made a technological breakthrough that would allow to neutralize nukes.

Say death rays of some sort; although France and the USA dominate in high power, military grade laser technology, said laser tech has not got to the point it could shoot down 99.99% of incoming missiles; actually it could not shoot down one.)

So, at this point, from lack of technological progress, nuclear weapons are still the ultimate weapon. And they are getting ever easier to make.

What does that mean for the talks with Iran? Well, that it is the occasion to refine an intrusive regime of nuclear inspections, to be used as a paradigm with other nations.

And what of Obama’s naive will, initially, to do away with nuclear weapons (thus affording a pretext to give him a Nobel)?

Well, as the world is, the safest way to prevent nuclear war is to augment the military research budgets of the West (only Israel has been doing well that way, devising plenty of anti-ballistic missile systems, with USA help…) Yes, I know, it’s cynical. But flowers won’t work.



Usually I roll out the usual suspect, Abrahamic entities. Here now, we have a 27 pilot. He wants to become captain. But he knows his sick mind will not allow it. So he let go with the very depth of the human Dark Side: he brings another 149 innocent people, including babies with himself. The Will To Extermination.

Hitler was just the same.

When the war was clearly lost, the Nazis kept on fighting. At this point many average Germans who previously supported Nazism turned against it: why could not the Nazis give up, as even the Kaiser had, in World War One? Because of the Will to Extermination. The extermination of whom they wanted to exterminate was the Nazis’ main industry in their last few months. If they did not know it before, now the Germans could clearly see that the Will to Extermination was the Nazis’ main motivation. That maybe why the day it surrendered, Germans never supported Nazism again (in most ways; and differently from Japan, where the population never saw their imperial forces in full extermination mode: that happened on the national territory, only in Okinawa, a smallish, distant island).



The Greeks knew that Pluto could make itself invisible. The evil co-pilot hid his madness from his employer, just as he hid from his employer that he was under doctor’s order to stop working.

Pilots ought to be required to make their health physical and mental PUBLIC property. That ought to be true even for those piloting a car for Uber. If they don’t like it, they can do something else.

To be able to kill people en masse ought to be viewed as a privilege given by the masses to a few, in counterpart of what, they keep an eye on these few, at all and any moment.

Hitler claimed he was out to help oppressed minorities, oppressed workers, and make Germany proud, great. He claimed to be against “plutocrats” (his word!) In truth his real aims were not this, and he knew all too well that he brandished the red of revolution (Soviet style), when actually he was sponsored by plutocrats. And, while he claimed to be a nationalist, he was blatantly and gigantically supported by American plutocrats such as Henry Ford.

Nowadays, Pluto is hiding better than ever.

The world’s richest man, and arguably greatest monopolist, instead of being in jail, has self-defined as the greatest philanthropist, and now directs health research worldwide in the coffers of what he, his family and associates have invested in. All of this tax free, of course.

You want another example of spectacular evil? What about starving people to make corporations and their plutocrats even richer?



A study published yesterday, March 27, 2015, in the journal Science found that government biofuel policies rely on reductions in food consumption to generate greenhouse gas savings.

How much more evil can one get?

Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

(Indeed, it’s know that “biofuels” are very inefficient. Making ethanol from corn or wheat requires energy that is mostly derived from traditional greenhouse gas-emitting sources, such as coal, natural gas. But then it benefits companies such as Monsanto, which make the Genetically Engineered corn in which Bill Gates is invested!)

Without reduced food consumption, each of the models would estimate that biofuels generate more emissions than gasoline,” said Timothy Searchinger, first author on the paper and a research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy.

Searchinger’s co-authors were Robert Edwards and Declan Mulligan of the Joint Research Center at the European Commission; Ralph Heimlich of the consulting practice Agricultural Conservation Economics; and Richard Plevin of the University of California-Davis.

The study looked at three models used by U.S. and European agencies, and found that all three estimate that some of the crops diverted from food to biofuels are not replaced by planting crops elsewhere. About 20 percent to 50 percent of the net calories diverted to make ethanol are not replaced through the planting of additional crops, the study found.

The result is that less food is available, and, according to the study, these missing calories are not simply extras enjoyed in resource-rich countries. Instead, when less food is available, prices go up.

“The impacts on food consumption result not from a tailored tax on excess consumption but from broad global price increases that will disproportionately affect some of the world’s poor,” Searchinger said.

The models used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board indicate that ethanol made from corn and wheat generates modestly fewer emissions than gasoline. The fact that these lowered emissions come from reductions in food production is buried in the methodology and not explicitly stated, the study found.

The European Commission’s model found an even greater reduction in emissions. It includes reductions in both quantity and overall food quality due to the replacement of oils and vegetables by corn and wheat, which are of lesser nutritional value.

“Without these reductions in food quantity and quality, the [European] model would estimate that wheat ethanol generates 46% higher emissions than gasoline and corn ethanol 68% higher emissions,” Searching said.

The Science paper recommends that modelers show their work more transparently so that policymakers can decide if they wish to seek greenhouse gas reductions from food reductions.

Actually “policymakers” is the concept that hide the truth. It is to We the People to decide whether we should starve so that plutocrats can jet around the world in their private jets, while plotting our fate, and future ill-gotten gains, and powers they attribute themselves ever more generously, while we are invited to partake in ever more austerity.

Plutocracy is not just an inconvenience. As its name indicates, it is the ultimate evil. And it hides. We have to make sure it does not become a fate. And that means, first, to roll it out of its hiding places, from the minds of co-pilots to haughty policies which are anything but.

We are not led by great leaders, intelligence and goodness. We have been led, astray, by viciousness and the basest instincts, all too much. Time to withdraw the respect, and change course. As Dominique Deux half-joked in a comment on this site, time to make an app where passengers will vote: “… automatic implementation of the majority vote.
They’ll never ever vote for doom.
Democracy wins again, and smartphones become useful.”

We are all passengers on this Earth. And any baby has more right to be, than Bill Gates. Or any of our other great leaders. And those who have already abused power massively (see the food for fuel policy above), ought to have less right to be in power than anybody else.

Patrice Ayme’

Searchinger, R. Edwards, D. Mulligan, R. Heimlich, and R. Plevin. Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science 27 March 2015: 1420-1422. DOI: 10.1126/science.1261221.


Why God Is Evil

March 24, 2015

The Victorian philosopher and mathematician W. K. Clifford’s following admonition is at the core of the moral call of the “New Atheists”, a few mini philosophers who make the Anglo-American divine plutocratic order tremble: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

An academic philosopher appropriately called “Ruse” concludes his article “Why God Is A Moral Issue” with: “[Clifford’s] universal claim may be too strong. But too often religious believers seem oblivious to Clifford’s admonition and accept things with way too little evidence. That I much suspect is what motivates the New Atheists and in fact expresses the deepest and most powerful moral objection to theism.”

Difference Between Us & Grizzlies? Not Much Greater Love, But Much Greater Smarts.

Difference Between Us & Grizzlies? Not Much Greater Love, But Much Greater Smarts.

[Smarts is what religions kill, and humanity with it, as I will pound below.]

Clifford was a great mathematician. He pushed further the idea of Riemann that force and curvature are roughly the same (this is the core intuition in the Theory of Gravitation commonly attributed to Einstein).

I agree with Clifford, sort of, but I am going to go much further.

Is it wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence?

Sure. However, it is unavoidable. And this is not really the problem with “isms” such as Christianism and Islamism.

The distinction between guessing and believing is, in general, not too clear, and insufficient evidence is more frequent that certainty (that’s called science).

But clearly believing something important with insufficient evidence can be a maximum moral wrong, when it is about life and death of entire populations.

What Superstition Based Religions Kill.

Some religions have actually orders, in their sacred texts, not just to tax, or punish, but even to kill various “unbelievers” if they are “culprit” of some behaviors. This is all over the Qur’an, as I generously documented in “Violence In The Holy Qur’an“. Yet the Qur’an was following the Old Testament by  11 centuries, and the new one (where Christ also recommends to kill unbelievers) by 6 centuries or so.

The nature and consequences of the evidence supporting a “belief” is of the utmost importance. If one believes that jumping from the fourth floor will have adverse consequences, it’s good, especially for passerby.

Yet, precisely, some religions have been organized so as to make one believe completely incredible feats (one son of god walked on water, came back from the dead, another “messenger” flew on the back of a winged horse from Mecca to Jerusalem, etc.).

These unbelievable details are not there by accident. They are there to dull the sense of critique people learn to exert in early childhood.

Learning to believe in unbelievable, absurd details is a preparation for the ultimate sin:

“It is the highest criminality always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything potentially capable of oppressing, exploiting, stealing, abusing, invading, threatening, torturing and killing millions for insufficient or flimsy reasons.”

Seven Jewish children just died in New York. It was Shabbat, a sort of Jewish sorcery day. The order then, from the god of the Jews, is that no work ought to be done. Including turning off the hot plate. So the hot plate, or god, whatever, set the house on fire. God is great! Alleluia!

(This sort, of we-shall-do-nothing, Inch Allah (god wills it), dieu-le-veut, led to millions killed, the latest major example in sight being the holocaust of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis: Jews did not resist as much as they could have, but, instead, the “Judenraten” collaborated with Hitler. The simplest way to stop Hitler was just to tell all Germans what the Nazis were truly doing, assassinating the Jews, and add that they were all responsible, and would be punished accordingly. That could have been done with little pieces of paper dropped from planes at the same time as the bombs.)

Both Islam and Christianity have in their sacred texts, “verses of the sword” where holly script recommend to “kill unbelievers”. (Yes, as already said many times, Christ too; one good enough reason for crucifixion!)

Once one has become so morally inferior as to be ready to do such terrible things to millions, for so little cause, one is ready for even much worse.

Religions based on knowing god, and giving their followers deadly recommendations on how to deal with “unbelievers” incite human beings to the ultimate inhumanity.

Not just because of the potential, theoretical, experimental, and historical mayhem they are prone to.

How could one do something worse than being willing to kill millions for little cause?

Not simply by transforming human beings into vicious human beings. But into even worse creatures.

How could that be?

It is as monstrous as it gets. What is the definition of the human species? Intelligence.

What does dulling human beings’ sense of critique to the point that one would kill for a drawing, or for looking at ancient art, or listening to music?

It is very simple: religions that extreme in light of the lethal consequences their beliefs may bring, makes human beings into stupid beasts.

In case you don’t believe me, look at Abraham tying up his son, so he can stab him.

See my “Follies That Bind.” Where you can see the great Judeo-Christiano-Muslim hero stabbing a child. (Hey, His boSS told him to! You know, you should always obey the boss, both the Qur’an, S 4, v 59, and its parrot, Hitler, said so.)

So Abraham stabs children, and Christians lick his toes. Precisely because he stabs children. Then Catholics and other mentality untalented sinkers, claim to be surprised that priests rape children and the like. Well, but, of course! Those good Judeo-Christo-Islamists are following Abraham, the most cruel, and thus adored beast in the known universe!

And that, willful beastly stupidity of the most criminal type, is the ultimate sin, because it is the ultimate denial of morality.

This is no coincidence: both Christianism and Islamism have been imposed by war chiefs (Constantine, Jovian, Theodosius and other emperors for Christianism; Muhammad and the four initial Caliphs). They had a vested interest to make the people they ruled over credulous, immoral, subdued, and not smart.

They were highly successful.

And this is why American plutocracy reintroduced god massively to the USA in the 1930s (as even the New York Times recently explained), and why then it made a pact with Ibn Saud to push the ideology of Islamism in the Middle East, in 1945 (See the “Great Bitter Lake Conspiracy“).

Not that this was an accident: the USA made deals with Egypt “Muslim Brotherhood” in the late 1940s, and Khomeini’s Shiites in Iran in 1953, to organize a coup against Parliamentary Democracy (and then proceeded to back stab both of them, of course). Same in Pakistan.

You reap what you sowed. Plutocracy sowed superstitious religion and stupidity, it is reaping the best plutocracy in a century. What could go wrong, when wrong has been defined as good, and, even, divine?

If it is good to kill your son, as Abraham and his robotic followers claim, how could things ever get worse? How dumber can one get?

Patrice Ayme’

God Here, Dog There

March 12, 2015

A big difference between the USA and Western Europe, is that the USA is obsessed by god. Just like Europe used to be, at least, officially speaking. (According to Rabelais, it was all a lie; peasants did not believe in the official obsession with god. That’s why his books on Gargantua and company ignored Christianism.)

A researcher applied Bayesian analysis to what we know of the writings on Jesus, and various alleged witnesses at the time. The probability that Jesus was a real person was found to be as low as .08%. Oops.

Jesus Killed Philosophers, Now Philosophers Kill Jesus. Any Question?

Jesus Killed Philosophers, Now Philosophers Kill Jesus. Any Question?

[Statue of philosopher Etienne Dolet, place Maubert, where he was tortured, strangled, and burned. The monument was torn down by Hitlerian fascists during the Nazi occupation of World War Two: Nazis hated the enemies of Jesus’ god. Wake up, people: when do we replace Dolet’s memorial?]

Bayes’ and Laplace style “inverse probability” does not replace what I would call “inverse axiomatics”. If the probability of the existence of the goulougoulou is just .08%, it may as well be zero. And the axioms ought to be changed: believing in Jesus, son of god (not dog, let me point out), is as likely as believing in the Hummingbird God of the Aztecs.

All right, more people got killed in the name of Jesus than were devoured in the name of the Humming Bird God, so Jesus is a more serious problem, all the more as Abraham crazies are still around, whereas the Humming Bird crazies are so finished, they don’t even have a website.



That Jesus did not exist is completely obvious to anyone who, as I did, read all the Roman literature (that was the reward for learning Latin). The Roman texts are clear: the first Christian, historically speaking, Saint Paul, wrote around 66 CE, that “Jesus was all and only in my head.” [Paraphrasing.] And so on.

Prominent Jews who did not agree with Roman rule, to the point of deadly strife, were prominently tried and executed. All, but for Jesus… And Saint Paul!

(The case of Saint Paul was that the Jews wanted him executed, as blasphemer, and the Romans were trying to save him, as a prosecutor, and Roman citizen. Brought back to Rome, from Jerusalem, he wrote there, from prison, about Jesus in his head; then, he was made to disappear, probably to save him from the nasty rabis.)

In Europe, nearly nobody believes in the Jesus-Abraham stuff. Not anymore. Even out of the six million Muslims of relatively recent immigration in France, a small fraction of the two million who are somewhat superficially Muslim, really believe in the Abrahamist mythology.

Jesus himself, Jesus the myth, that is, was a first class terrorist: he made clear all the Old Testament was true, as far as he was concerned. And the only positive thing one can clearly say about Bible god, is that his terror was strong. (On the love side, god-the-dad was rather weak. God the dad was not just about whips and chains, but outright extermination in the flames… As reminded to us in the Qur’an and Hadith…)



Why no more belief in Europe? Well, take the central case of France and consider the history of religious strife there: first one million Cathars got exterminated, and the south of France taken over by the north (under Philippe-Auguste, and a crazed Pope). In a single crusade.

That was just a warm-up.

Then the Jews got kicked out. And again, under Saint Louis, and again, under whomever tyrant was in need of cash again.

By the fifteenth century, the Protestants were hunted in the Alps, by mentally deranged Jesus lovers, and Louis XI had to send the military to remind fanatical Catholics that French Protestants were free to exert their cult.

Louis XI was rather a Catholic fanatic, he banned Buridan’s works (this is why people believe Copernic, yet to be born, invented the heliocentric system!). But, as king, Louis XI had to respect the law, and the law of France was fundamentally secular (coming, as it did, from the Salian Law, and the secular part of Roman law).

In the sixteenth century, Francois I, advanced in many ways, under the influence of the fanatically Catholic Sorbonne, burned, alive, three philosophers, for insulting Jesus (or something like that).

The sixteenth century ends with seven religious wars in quick succession, secret intervention of Spanish Catholic fascism in France affairs an episode that was part of the Gran Armada attack on England, and the war in the Netherlands). The emperor of Spain and the Holly Roman German Empire, sent an armada to kill down to the last baby of those French colonists in the Carolinas: all too many were Protestants, so they had to be eradicated.

The horrors of the religions wars which wrecked Europe for more than 5 centuries, and then merged into “nationalist” struggles are indescribable. They were similar, but went beyond what is now done in Syria (where ten year old children were recently made to execute prisoners).

In the following century, Louis XIV threw the Protestants out of France, weakening France and creating the germs of war, for centuries to come.

The revolution of 1789 reinstated Jews and Protestants, and cracked down on the Catholic church. So the French intellectual tradition, say, at 90% has become very anti-Christian in general, and especially anti-Catholic.

Thus French philosophers have looked without mercy at what Christianism brought. The verdict? Not much.



In the USA, it’s different: Christianism, and its Bible was the backbone which justified the holocaust of the Natives. The Bible is indeed full of notions such as “elected people”, “promised land”, “heathens”, and entire population to massacre, just because God said so (and if you don’t obey god, god will torture your son, as god did to the disobedient King David).

The Bible was also the fundamental cement of American ideology. Thus the American establishment views any attack against the religions of Abraham as attacks against its very foundations.

If the Bible goes, and Baseball, and American football, there would be nothing left. What would happen then? Would Americans start to think and debate like the French, and be prone to revolutions?



Étienne Dolet was a personal friend of Rabelais. As Rabelais was giving a lecture in anatomy (he was a medical science professor), Dolet intervened during a questions and answers session, with some smart remarks, that’s how they met.

Dolet was burned, alive, at the age of 37.

But his story does not stop there.

From 1660 to 1750, no less than eight hundred sixty-nine (869) authors, printers, librarians, and merchants of pictures were thrown to the Bastille, hanged, or, and, burned, because they published works contradicting good behavior, religion, or the King. (Never mind that King Louis XIV was a certified thief, tyrant, mass murderer, criminal against humanity, and religious persecutor.)

As recently as 30 September 1865, the canton d’Uri’s Criminal Tribunal condemned “J.-J. Ryniker, typographe,” for having published a booklet offensive to god and Christian teaching, and the Catholic church and its chief, and against Holy Script (“brochure offensante envers Dieu et l’enseignement chrétien en général, ainsi qu’envers l’Eglise catholique et son chef, et envers l’Ecriture sainte), to be lashed twenty times by the cat with nine tails (“vingt coups de verges”), jail with water and bread on lternate days, perpetual banishment from the canton, and various other punishments.

In World War Two the unconstitutional regime of Marshall Petain, operating in collaboration with Adolf Hitler, demolished the statue of Dolet which throned over place Maubert in Paris, where he was martyrized.


Because Petain’s regime rested on fascism, and there is no better justification in the West for fascism, than the Christian god. This is what Constantine found out, and why he replaced the cult of Sol Invictus by Jesus.

Another factor in god’s ignominy was Nazism. First, the churches did nothing, but really absolutely nothing to stop the Nazis. Not only that, but the Vatican helped dozens of thousands of Nazis to escape to the Americas.

Worse: philosopher Hannah Arendt (Prussian, Jewish, Higher Class, German, and Heidegger’s lover), correctly accused the Jewish Councils (“Judenraten”) to have collaborated with Hitler, making a bad situation worse. She was right. But the crimes of god, of Abraham’s god, do not stop here.

Most Jews submitted to god’s will or Amor Fati (Abrahamism without god), instead of revolting against Adolf’s will.

God’s aura came out so diminished from his lack of guts when confronted to the total evil of Nazism, that some learned Jews in an extermination camp conducted a “trial of god”.

And thus Israel got founded on the secular socialism of the Kibbutz, not around the Torah.

So out with god, better get a dog.

Patrice Ayme’

Commonly Accepted DELUSIONS: FOLLIES That BIND

February 20, 2015

It is common to condemn the madness of the crowds, and to wonder about all sorts of follies, conflicts, moods and ideas favorable to mayhem.

Why so little wisdom in so many moods and thoughts systems?

Because there is a higher sort of wisdom therein.

For millions of years, the greatest enemy of man has been man, the man of the distant tribe. Proper ecology required to find them repulsive.

Atrocious Delusion Binds Judaism, Christianism, & Islamism

Atrocious Delusion Binds Judaism, Christianism, & Islamism

[Crime binding innocence to extinguish it. Should we call Abrahamism, the “Would-be Child Killer religion“? That would distinguish it from Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.]


How does one recognize friend from foe? By a signal. It could be the color of a skin, the color of a badge, a flag, and other visual or auditory signal (an accent, say). However, the ultimate structure is a brain structure. They fall in two classes: ideas, and moods.

So, to recognize the friend, the one who has the signal, and the foe, the one who does not, it’s best to entertain a particularly strong signal.

One not seen in nature. That will be best, because no doubt very special.

But are not the most clever, and wisest ideas and moods, faithful reproductions of nature?


So the best way to identify a friend, and thus foe, are most stupid and most unwise ideas, and moods.

This is why Judaism, Christianism and Islamism celebrate the would-be child killer, Abraham his name, as their founder. The idea of killing one’s child is assuredly unnatural, unwise, most cruel, and grotesquely inhuman. It’s the ultimate dumb atrocity: destroying the species, starting with one’s flesh and blood.

It’s abominable. Thus it’s best to identify friend (the one who expresses intense admiration for the same despicable madness) and foe (the one who has kept common decency, readily distinguishable as alien, therefore).

What do we see here?

The madness, the insanity which binds.

Thus many delusions are the cement that does not just unite the group, but even defines it.

No doubt delusions will also help to unite those scatterbrains (schizophrenic) minds some of us suffer from.

Delusion can be the crucible of the many, and the cement of the one.

Madness in crowds and madness of the one, thus spring from a common logic of human ethology.

Are all groups defined by delusions? No, the Directly Democratic Republic can define itself without a common madness (this is why Switzerland holds together, in spite of its four official languages and several religions). By insisting on the basic ideas and moods of our common humanity.

This is why the Republic can be enough of a religion, the one that works, without delusion.

Human nature is made to make one out of many (mental fascism). That’s how lions and hyenas were fought (just as baboons still do it: by making the troop into one giant superorganism). Making one of many was also what was necessary to stay competitive on the (human meat) market: if one did not want to become dinner for the other guys, one had to stay united.

Thus humans sharing a group have a strong instinct to think all the same. In two ways: to define the group, even if it means through a delusion, and to make the group fight as one.

(The more crowded the human population, the more delusions will have to define groups; this is why nationalism grows with the crowding… the latter being relative: considering its technology then, in 1900, Germany was relatively more crowded than now; hence the rise of German fascism, which went in parallel with the explosion of the German population, 1850-1914…)

Yet, human beings are truth machines. That’s an instinct going the other way. Because herd animals think all the same, they cannot think anew. Except to stampede, somewhere., or search for the simplest things: new grass, water.

Those who search for truth will avoid the group (all the more as it is all too often defined by a delusion).

Searching for truth is more human, and a way to reach for greater survivability.

Hence the one, the philosopher, will, by necessity, fight the group. Between the delusion which define the groups and the truths, which define the philosopher, it’s a fight to death. The spirit of philosophers always won over the madness of the crowds.

Yes, delusionists, and illusionists are fit for attack, especially when they engage in mass delusion. It’s a matter of collective safety, for the world community. The reason for this is that delusions feed aggression. Delusion is entertained to create the group, the troop, with aggressive purpose in mind.

In particular, theists. Especially of the would-be child sacrifice type (Abraham his name).

As I explained, the main reason for collective delusion, just as for individual delusion is to create a system of mind (moods plus thoughts) that binds.

Thus, the fundamental reason for the collective to bind through delusion is aggression. Either real, or potential. Exclusion and alienation are aggressions. Mass delusions enable them.

Mass delusions such as various sects of Abraham (the word ‘sect’ comes from cutting: chopping heads is what sects do best).

Mass delusions are obsessive about aggression. Be it supposedly for resisting aggression (real or imagined), or committing it, in any case, making it as the big thing in life, worth deluding one’s mind, just to identify as a group, and enjoy the pleasures thereof.

Delusion such as: ’I am the Elected People, not that’s me; I prove it, by exterminating you, etc.’

When a religious group goes around, exhibiting its religious appurtenance, it exhibits its delusion. Thus, implicitly, its aggression.

And size matters. Because the size of a threat matters: when groups of predators fight each other, say lions versus hyenas, generally the side with the greatest total mass wins.

This is why French public schools forbid religious symbols of more than such and such a size, or why schools in Britain impose uniforms (and that’s even better).


Believers know they are deluded, deep down inside. That’s why they are so aggressive, when confronted to their incoherence.

In Copenhagen last week, an Islamist assassin shot at a Freedom of Expression meeting, killing and wounding, and then repeated the performance at a Synagogue, killing and wounding. In a freezing rain, 500 deluded fanatics came to the killer’s burial. Let’s hope the police and secret services took a lot of pictures.

Experience shows fanaticism makes a universe most pleasant to those who dominate it.

Experience is what gives us a ground for all our propositions. This is important, because it means, whether they know it, or not, all human beings are scientists.

This is why the notion of “believer” has been introduced. It, all by itself, is a delusion. A deliberate, collective delusion, to create the group (and then proceed with some crusade, jihad, ghetto).

“Believers” are precisely those who believe in NOT applying science, for the most important metaprinciples.

However, what they have to apply every day to function as animals, and full human beings, is based on what is called “the scientific method”, but which is simply common sense, systematized industrially.

Thus “believers” fundamentally, do not believe!

Patrice Ayme’



February 16, 2015


Misreading the history of what happened centuries, or even millennia ago, can have drastic consequences today. As the European Union is been constructed, it is important that the enormous lies of the past get exposed, for the lies they were.

(Just as it is important to expose the all-powerful Christianism of the Middle-Ages, and especially of the Late Roman Empire for the civilization devouring monster it was: then we can turn to it scion, all-powerful Islam, and condemn it, just as vigorously, instead of licking its toes, respectfully, as Obama did.)

Greece owes around 65 billion Euros to Germany, from the Greek “rescue” plan, a neat trick to have the Greek People pay for (mostly foreign) banks. Syriza, the new government in Greece (in coalition with a nationalist party) is asking for more than 160 billion Euros in reparations for the assault, invasion of Greece by Germany in 1941… Which may have brought the death of more than 800,000 Greeks.

Do Those Who Hate The Versailles Treaty Also Believe the Nazis’ "Work Makes Free"?

Do Those Who Hate The Versailles Treaty Also Believe the Nazis’ “Work Makes Free”?

[As we have seen before, and will see again below, the tradition in American circles, is to accuse the French to have invented Nazism… And that’s exactly what the Nazis said. It’s also a giant lie. A racist, holocaust force lie.]

The Nazis’ exactions in Greece were so extensive, that it is difficult to know how many died; a typical assassination by the Nazis was not an orderly extermination in an extermination camp involving processing by IBM computer (!), but shooting of an entire family in some thicket, as the Nazis wanted to leave no trace of their activities.

Paul Krugman is getting bolder Weimar on the Aegean:”Try to talk about the policies we need in a depressed world economy, and someone is sure to counter with the specter of Weimar Germany, supposedly an object lesson in the dangers of budget deficits and monetary expansion. But the history of Germany after World War I is almost always cited in a curiously selective way. We hear endlessly about the hyperinflation of 1923, when people carted around wheelbarrows full of cash, but we never hear about the much more relevant deflation of the early 1930s, as the government of Chancellor Brüning — having learned the wrong lessons — tried to defend Germany’s peg to gold with tight money and harsh austerity.

And what about what happened before the hyperinflation, when the victorious Allies tried to force Germany to pay huge reparations? That’s also a tale with a lot of modern relevance, because it has a direct bearing on the crisis now brewing over Greece.”

Krugman argues that the policy imposed on Greece now is what sank the so-called Weimar republic. Nice on the surface, false when one looks at the details. (Weimar was NOT a republic, to star with.)

But here I am going to set Krugman right about history:



In 1953, the victorious Allies decided Germany ought nothing for Nazism (this is what Syriza is nowcontesting).

The history of Germany in the period 1912-1953 is relevant to the present Greek tragedy.

On December 11, 1912, it was a Sunday, the Kaiser brought his six top military men in a conference. It was decided that the ascent of the ever more prosperous French Republic and her vast empire, combined with the democratization of Russia, left the German plutocracy behind, and that only attacking them militarily would solve the problems.

The two admirals objected that they would never be ready to fight a world war within 18 months. The Kaiser insisted that they had to work more on the press to get the German population ready for war.

On June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the right hand man of USA president Wilson, secretly proposed to the Kaiser an alliance, with Britain, against France, if the Kaiser would stop his naval force built-up.

Germany attacked in August, and nearly lost its entire army in a French counter-attack next to Paris, in September (in the First Battle of the Marne).

However, corporations of the USA, for years, fed the otherwise landlocked Kaiser kingdom with war supplies, for years, through the Netherlands.

France and Britain complained to Washington, but they were not going to declare war to the USA.

After Wilson re-election in 1917, the USA declared war to Germany, just as the Soviets made peace with Germany, conceding a gigantic territory Russia occupied in Eastern Europe.

In 1918, Germany lost the war it had started deliberately, surprising everybody.

A last, all-out attack by the German army on Paris, the second Battle of the Marne, was decimated by a deluge of French artillery fire, and was finished with a pincer counterattack by 50 Allied divisions (including 2 American and 45 French).

The retreating German army, under orders, scorched north-eastern France, flooding the mines, dynamiting all production centers, and even Middle-Ages castles, burning all telephone poles.



The Kaiser fled. However, the Prussian-German plutocracy he left behind still controlled most of the press, and the legend took hold in Germany that the German army had not been defeated.

Instead, Germans were indoctrinated: their army had not been defeated, it had been stabbed in the back. Germans were told that traitors inside Germany made the revolution that caused the defeat (the other way around from the real reality).

Those traitors were the Communists, and the Jews, they had to be killed. A civil war started, and units of the German army were employed to do just that.

As Germany was not occupied by the Allies, the Allies basically did not prevent those satanic ideas to take hold of Germany.

The Allies had not cut-off the head of the snake (as would be done after May 1945). Clemenceau predicted in 1919 that Germany, would attack 20 years later, again (as it did).

Except, next time, Germany was out to kill all the Communists and Jews.

The Paris peace conference of 1919 forced Germany to give independence to the countries it had long occupied, such as Czechoslovakia, and Poland.

It is shocking to see Paul Krugman repeat what would become one the mantra of the Nazis. Krugman: “First, Germany’s economy had already been devastated by the war.” It’s France, Belgium and Eastern Europe who had been devastated. Not one square meter of Germany had been occupied and thus “devastated”.

“Second, says Krugman, the true burden on that shrunken economy would — as John Maynard Keynes explained in his angry, powerful book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” — be far greater than the direct payments to the vengeful Allies.”

Yes Keynes may have said this, but this was not his most important message. Lord Keynes explains in his book that amputating the German empire from all the nations it occupied (“the economic consequence of the peace”) would indeed devastate the German empire.

And that it sure would, because the entire idea of many nations in 1919, including the French, was to dismantle the plutocratic empire Germany had set for itself in the middle of Europe. Lord Keynes showed his true intent, when he wrote in his racist book, that the Poles were an inferior race, and that they cannot manage an economy.

Such things are never said, so nobody knows them.

Thus our friend Krugman intones what became the German credo: “In the end, and inevitably, the actual sums collected from Germany fell far short of Allied demands. But the attempt to levy tribute on a ruined nation — incredibly, France actually invaded and occupied the Ruhr, Germany’s industrial heartland, in an effort to extract payment — crippled German democracy and poisoned relations with its neighbors.”

What is truly incredible is how ignorant of true history Krugman is.

My opinion, shared by Belgium and France in 1923, is quite the opposite. Even Paris itself had been bombed by the attacking Germans, and under long range artillery fire. That’s devastation. Germany was intact, differently from devastated Belgium and France.

The legend that Germany was devastated was most profitable to the Nazis and their plutocratic collaborators, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Repeating The Biggest Lies of the Nazis Is Still Common Wisdom

Repeating The Biggest Lies of the Nazis Is Still Common Wisdom

“The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister).

The biggest Nazi lie of all was that the Versailles Treaty devastated Germany. And this is what many an American university parrot has said ever since (as it allowed to punish France, that was USA profitable!). For more on the Big Lie Technique, see: “Mediating Pluto“.



Germany was intact, but Germany did not want to pay. That would have been to recognize what happened in 1914, namely that Germany attacked France and Russia deliberately, knowing full well it would cause a world war (that its racist plutocracy hoped to win, with the a little help from the USA).

Why was history not learned in 1919? Some of the worst men who had caused World War One were in power in Germany, after the war.

An example is Dr. Schacht, a protégé of JP Morgan (yes, the American banker). Schacht was such a crook, his commanding Prussian general fired him for exploiting occupied Belgium. However, in 1923, he commanded the German Central Bank. To foil the French, Dr. Schacht decided to make German money worthless, by hyper inflating the money supply.

Paul Krugman wrote in his blog: “We know that part of the reason large postwar reparations were such an unreasonable and irresponsible demand was the dire, shrunken state of the German economy after World War I.”

Large, unreasonable, irresponsible postwar reparations” were a German Nazi legend.

Why did the Germans think of this legend? Because they had tried that trick, just prior.

Indeed, Chancellor Bismarck, after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, imposed on the French Republic exactly that sort of “large, unreasonable, irresponsible postwar reparations”.

Bismarck’s hope was that France would not be able to pay, and so war could be started again. In any case, his plan was to hinder the French economy indefinitely.(He got disappointed, as France paid, unexpectedly, in five years!)

So Germany was expert at the idea of mutilating reparations: after all, it invented the idea. (That’s why it should pay Greece now!)

The German economy shrunk by 25% in GDP, most of it during 1914, the year Germany attacked the world. Pushing a two million man army through Belgium will make your economy shrink.

What are those “large postwar reparations”? Intact Germany disingenuously argued that it could not pay, except in worthless paper.

The French Republic insisted that Germany had enormous forests, and could easily replace the tens of thousands of French telephone poles it had just destroyed. Was replacing the telephone poles the German army had deliberately destroyed in 1918 throughout a large part of France “large, unreasonable, and irresponsible?”

It was the refusal by Germany to replace these telephone poles that precipitated the crisis of 1923.

The French Republic, reasonably enough, decided that the German refusal to replace the telephone poles it just destroyed was indicative of a total lack of cooperation. So France, accompanied by Belgium, invaded the Ruhr.

What went really wrong is that it did not stay until reason had prevailed in Germany. Suppose that the French army had occupied Germany, until the Germans calm down, and wiser heads told the Germans what had really happened in World War One? How bad would have that been?

No Auschwitz?



In 1945, the French military fought inside Germany, and would stay there for the next 54 years, until the creation of the Franco-German brigade in 1999.

Properly digesting history is what enables civilization to survive and progress. History cannot turn into civilization unless it has been thoroughly examined.

Krugman is a Jew. He had said so himself, while recognizing he was very much cut off his roots. For Jews (!) to repeat like deranged parrots the very legends that gave rise to Nazism is beyond the pale, it’s falling into the abyss.


Because sometimes in the future, people in the West will ask: ‘Why was Israel created, if what the Nazis said was true?’ If it is true, as the Nazis claimed, that the French were the ones who launched Nazism with their exploitation of Germany, treacherously using the German Jews to stab the glorious German military from behind, did not the Jews deserve to be punish?

Well, the answer is the Nazis lied, and having Jews like Paul Krugman telling us that they did not, cannot change the reality of what happened.

Human minds cannot distort reality all they want. Nature, even human nature, is out there to correct outrageous errors. The hard way.

Patrice Ayme’