Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category

Philosophers Are Offenders

December 7, 2014

Offending All, From French Haters, To Christ Adulators:

So SCNF, the French National Railways, will pay American lawyers 60 million Dollars, because French railways were used to transport people against their will during World War Two. That has got to mean the French living today are culprit of something, and should pay American greedsters (mostly based in New York City, as usual).

In other American news, sheep, condemned for having kept the Nazis warm in World War Two, agreed to compensate Jewish rackets with 60 million sheep skins.

As Wikipedia puts it: Nearly 1,700 SNCF railway workers were killed or deported for resisting Nazi orders.[9][10] 150 Résistance-Fer agents were shot for their acts of resistance, 500 of them were deported. Half of those deported died in concentration camps.[11]German occupying forces in France also requisitioned SNCF to transport nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims to Nazi extermination camps.[12][13] These deportations have been the subject of historical controversy…”

Holocaust Train Loading. Contemplate the Many Armed German Nazis.

Holocaust Train Loading. Contemplate the Many Armed German Nazis.

American Holocaust connoisseurs are a funny sort. They are all indignant about messy details, generally about the French, so that, being so busy in an irrelevant manner, they can forget the big picture.

While the French Republic declared war to Hitler in 1939 (long time coming), the USA, as a society and polity, supported Hitler’s regime. Without that American support the Nazi regime would have collapsed in a matter of weeks (the topmost German generals said). That ambiguous, but crucial, American support is exactly why the Nazis thought they had a chance to win against France and Britain.

How come none of this is of any interest to American Jews? Too hot to handle? But I can assure you that when France declared war to Hitler in 1939, Hitler was much hotter to handle.

Had the USA supported the Jews, few of them would have died. But, because the USA did not support the Jews, the Nazis interpreted this lack of support of the Jews as an expression of support of Nazi policies. Very strong American anti-Judaism, and financing by Jew haters (such as Henry Ford, who gave $50,000 personally to Hitler, each year, a considerable sum at the time, among other things), certainly allowed Nazism to get to power (Browning was sending Nazis weapons using the American owned Hamburg-Amerika Line, Schacht held the German financial system, and was a pawn of JP Morgan, the GM CEO was fanatically pro-Nazi, etc., etc.).

Worse: the USA propaganda machine, and its government suppressed the reality of the Jewish Holocaust. The Polish government in exile announced, as early as fall 1941, that 700,000 Jews had already been assassinated by the Nazis, in Poland alone.

Although the BBC, New York Times and the Boston Globe reported the news (anticipated, and then confirmed by the French government in exile), the government of the USA ignored them. That was deliberate: the breaking of Nazi and SS codes by British Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Studies of the USA revealed, by summer 1941, dozens of mass assassinations of Jews and Communists.

There are two sorts of collaborations: active, and passive. The USA, in 1939, 1940, and 1941 practiced both. (Later, astoundingly, the collaboration was pursued, but under a thick veil of censorship and secrecy, the case of IBM being the most famous. Moreover the indifference to the fate of the Jews stayed official American policy, down to the bitter end, 1945)

So why don’t American Jews sue the American government for, say, 6,000 billion dollars?

It is not that the SNCF had a choice: the French Republic had been defeated on the battlefield in 1940. Hundreds of thousands of French soldiers and civilians had been killed (scaling up to millions relative to the present population of the USA, as France had only 40 million people then, and the USA has 320 million, now).

Wikipedia again: Following the 1940 Armistice and until August 1944, SNCF was requisitioned for the transport of German armed forces and armaments. The invading German troops were responsible for the destruction of nearly 350 French railway bridges and tunnels. According to differing estimates, SNCF surrendered between 125,000-213,000 wagons and 1,000-2,000 locomotives.[4][5]

France’s railway infrastructure and rolling stocks were a target for the French Resistance aimed at disrupting and fighting the German occupying forces.[6][7] This allowed SNCF employees to perform many acts of resistance,[8]

By refusing to see the big picture, American Jews are engaging in the sort of behavior which enabled Nazism: primary French bashing. (As Jews probably did not read Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, this Nazi Bible starts with pages of French bashing; having disposed of this fundamental enemy, only then does Hitler attack Orthodox Jews and their show-off clothing.)


Another strange day of censorships. Thursday the New York Times censored one of my comments, “With Democrats Like that, Who Needs Republicans?”, but allowed another. That is really the truth they don’t want to be known: there has been Republican leadership all along, under the supposedly “Democratic” administration.

Then the administrator of a philosophical site informed me that “I decided not to publish your latest comment (below). It is unduly harsh and offensive, and I say this as an atheist. If you wish to rephrase your historical points more neutrally, I’ll be happy to let through a new version.”

I thus joined the long procession of philosophers condemned for offending god(s). I replied (in part):

“You have indeed quite a few religious enthusiasts among your commenters, so I understand your quandary.

I would gladly remove chunks of reality to let the comment go through, but at this point I really don’t see where to start (that is, which chunks to remove to qualify for atheism light… hmm, publication).

I am also preparing a blunter, more robust, and more detailed version for my own site, and I don’t have infinite amounts of time. I concentrate mostly on the extermination of the Cathars, down to the last “Perfect”, and the last book.

To avoid too much of a shock to Christians, in this next essay of mine, I will NOT expose the deliberate mass cannibalism (on children!) of some of the Crusades. Not this time.

This, by the way, is very well documented by direct eyewitnesses (Joinville, etc.).

If Christians have been horrific, that’s their business. If we cannot expose it, that’s our complicity.

I don’t know if god(s) exist, or not, so I will not bother to define myself as an atheist. But I do know some elements of incontrovertible historical reality. As we explore reality further, it is not surprising that it will be found more harsh and offensive than Sade or Nietzsche have found it. Philosophers are offenders.

Telling me I am harsher and more offensive than Sade, or Nietzsche, simply means that I fulfilled a qualification for my job.

Let me mull over all of this. Maybe I could remove considering that Jesus possibly wanted to rub his buns on the cross?”

Yes, it’s all very obscene. But what is more obscene than Jesus’ cross?

Saint Dominic and Calvin burning alive non-believers, close and personal?

New wisdom, if really new, will always roll-over old wisdom: Literally, physically, brains have to be re-arranged. That’s a lot of work, and even pain. A crucifixion of the soul, or, at least, of neuronal networks. It’s easier to censor to re-hash the old philosophies, shun the new ones, and identify new wisdom to the incredible hulk, unlikely and repulsive. Easier, but not wiser.

And what of the silly payments to so-called “survivors”? My family saved more than 100 Jews, to great fright, stress and effort, then barely survived an enraged Gestapo’s wrath, and pursuit. My family did not get a dime. Not to say that I am complaining about the trials, and lawsuits in the name of “Holocaust Survivors”: they force people to look at the past in a more critical way, and one step that way, is better than none at all. Besides, my family qualifies as “Holocaust Survivor” (saving more than 100 Jews definitively qualified a family for the death chambers).

But the SNCF culprit of operating trains with a gun pointing at its head? Give me a break! Primitive anti-French racism. The proof? The French haters forgot to sue the Deutsche Bundesbahn (the new name of the Nazi Deutsche Reichsbahn, which deported tens of millions of People). The U.S. Congress sues the French for Nazism, not the Nazis!

The Holocaust Rail Justice Act mentions by name the French, but not the Germans: to create the mood that Nazism was a French invention? If you ask the average American endowed with a bit of education, she will tell you Nazism was caused by “Versailles“, a French city. Nazism is all about France: did not Keynes say so?

In a supreme effrontery, the legislation of the USA even accused the SNCF to have deported French resistance fighters. Never mind that some of the French train conductors accused by the USA were certainly themselves in the Resistance.

“Only” 77,000 Jews were deported from France and assassinated by the Nazis, most of those were stateless refugees (stuck in France, because the USA refused to admit them!) So most French Jews escaped assassination, thanks to a lot of heroic resistance acts; by comparison, nearly all Dutch Jews were assassinated.

The Nazis also deported and assassinated hundreds of thousands of French citizens, and now American politicians have drafted legislation to punish the French for letting the Nazis kill…the French.

What for? Maybe to find a scapegoat for the Nazi temporary victory of 1940. After all, Hitler’s prime collaborator was the USA itself (even more than Stalin). Hence the vital interest of the powers that be, to divert attention, by accusing an innocent third party, and victim, France.

Time for a Holocaust Truth Act.

Patrice Ayme’

Show Strength To Negotiate With Iraq, Putin

August 13, 2014

Putin is doing what the Kaiser did, a century ago, and for roughly the same reasons: trying one’s luck with war is better than suffering destitution. Like the Kaiser, a century ago, Putin hopes to win, because the democracies are weak, in weapons and resolve. What could go wrong?

Ah, yes, this is less haughty a subject than the first female mathematician, to be given a Fields Medal. Moreover, she is Iranian. She studies practical things, like counting “simple” geodesics on hyperbolic surfaces, depending upon their length. (I am not joking when I say this sort of research is practical: another of the 2014 Field medalist research has already been applied, to… surveillance; Fields Medals were attributed this year to understandable mathematics… Instead of the sort of crazy math I view with a jaundiced eye, as it depends upon infinity all too much.)

Mathematician Mirzakhani In Isfahan

Mathematician Mirzakhani In Isfahan

… In Isfahan with her parents. Isfahan is one of the world’s most beautiful cities. The artful architecture above is typical. Visiting such places, one can only be awed by the splendor of the human spirit, and feel compelled to contribute.

Now back to the dismal subject of the Twenty-first Century, out of control Czar. This is a serious problem.

Yet, here we talk about what makes all these fun and game possible, namely the pursuit of civilization. It depends upon crazy people and insane ideas, been kept in check.

The Kaiser was afraid of the Socialists inside the Parliament (Reichstag) that Bismarck had set-up. The Parliament’s power was fictitious. The Socialists wanted to make it real. Such was the inside pressure.

The outside pressure was an admission, by the heads of the military, the Kaiser himself, and his chancellor, top deputies, advisers: democracies were superior to the authoritarian, exploitative regime they profited from. Those German oligarchs recognized that the economic, political, and financial alliance between France, a democracy, and democratizing Russia, was increasing in economic, and thus military power, in a way that the German plutocracy could not match.

It would have been too much against their mentalities to do the right thing, and try to do what the Romanov Czar was doing in Russia: democratizing. Instead they decided to “work on the press”, and prepare the Germans for the world war they had decided to gamble everything on. That was December 11, 1912. (For a 2004 perspective of mine on that, see “To Make War, All You Need Is Love.”)

On June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the adviser of President Wilson of the USA, saw the Kaiser, and proposed him an alliance, against the “racially inferior” French. In exchange, the Kaiser would limit his battle fleet built-up (which upset the unable-to-keep-up British).

Of these little facts, these devils that truly propel history, conventional historians never speak: that is how they earn their keep. Well esteemed professors, their fate is little better than that of mice, scurrying for crumbs below the masters’ tables.

Putin is losing in Eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian military has regained much territory, and cut off Donetsk, a city of more than a million, from the Russian military. Defeat is not what Putin wants, he wants an unending war, but one which he wins. Putin is proposing to his captive Russian public opinion, to send a “humanitarian mission” inside Ukraine. In other words, he is preparing a naked invasion.

What can the West do?

Go back to basics. Putin decided to attack Ukraine, after he saw that Western plutocrats, his natural allies, had enough control of the West to prevent a justified strike against that major satanic creature, Assad, son of Assad. That was shown by the defection of the British first. The Assad family has major plutocratic connections in London. Then, while French pilots were already strapped in their seats, Obama called off the attack.

If Assad, a dictatorial monster who started a huge civil war against pacific civilians who just wanted him to go, could get away with a poison gas attack inside Damascus that killed more than 1,500 civilians, obviously, Putin could get away with anything.

Putin wanted the Black Sea oil. That it belonged to Ukraine was a detail, now that Obama and the UK had demonstrated that Western civilization was in recess, and plutocracy reigned. Putin could do what he does best: grabbing what he needs. Like the Kaiser, he could see that gas and oil is all what held his empire together (most of the ex-Soviet “republics” have shown signs of exaggerated affection towards the European Union).

If the Kaiser and his generals had been persuaded that they would lose the war, they would have not started it: after the French nearly annihilated the German army at the Battle of the Marne, Von Molkte, who had done more to start that war than anyone else, was so deeply depressed, that he could not do anything anymore (he was secretly replaced). His mood had completely changed from the one six weeks earlier, when he mobilized the entire German army, catching the world by surprise.

So, if we want peace, we have to persuade Putin he will lose, should he pursue his policy of invasion and annexation. The best way to do this is to intervene in the situation of the Yazidi, an ancient, non-Muslim group hard pressed by the ISIS in Iraq.

This may seem a surprising position for someone who was vociferously against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

However this is now. The ISIS, outwardly Islamist, and full of Jihadists, is getting lots of its backbone from the old army of Saddam Hussein. A demonstration of military power to help the Yazidi could, and ought, to be turned into a negotiation with some of the officers of that old army, and those who regret aspects of the Iraqi state that worked better under Saddam.

In other words: strike, but then negotiate.

There was never any serious negotiation with the secular Iraqi state, in the nearly quarter of century the USA has made war to it (in the hope of some USA plutocrats to grab its oil). Even the Neocons will have to admit that this time has come.

Of course, this is all very dirty, it’s how the sausage of civilization is made. But, if good people do not make it, to the best of their abilities, evil will be in charge.

And then, in the worst possible case, all intellectual pursuits will collapse, as happened after the Roman state streaked out of control, burned and crashed. Next time would be worse.

Patrice Ayme’

Why Are Americans So Primitive?

July 1, 2014

Paul Handover, from Learning From Dogs, a commentator of this site asks: “Your essay, Patrice, clearly depicts your views towards Western religions but here’s a question: why do so many Americans embrace Christianity in what one might describe as almost a fundamentalist manner? For such a forward-looking nation in so many ways, this aspect has puzzled me for some time.”

Both aspects are related, the religious primitivism, and the charge forward. Metaphysics, like other things meta, is primarily to address down to Earth questions. Literally:

God Given! Let the USA Bless God. Alleluia.

God Given! Let the USA Bless God. Alleluia.

[Don’t You Ask How We Got All This.]

The USA is like a horse with blinds: it is forced by its masters to pull a heavy load, and devices around its head do not allow it to look sideways. Not looking around and questioning is fundamental. Sitting in a café’, and chewing the world for hours, is best done somewhere in Europe. Americans do not like to discuss the big issues as much: they are too close to “conspiracy theories”.

An all-encompassing philosophical attitude looks around too much, away from the task at hand. It would ask too many questions about the reigning plutocracy. The plutocrats do their best this not to happen. The USA functions like an empire driven by masters, and common people think accordingly.

The coming back of the Christian God in the USA, since the 1940s, corresponded to an enormous influx of cheap labor from (then) primitive areas of the world (say Mexico). The Latinos provided with cheap labor, but they have a strong family structure. Primitive Christianism is a proven recipe to keep them down (just ask the Conquistadores).

In 1954, “IN GOD WE TRUST” was made the motto of the USA, and enforced in public schools in many states (not Hawai’i).  So now we have a president who asks God to bless the USA, as if he were the Pope, urbi et orbi.

I have written numerous essays on the connection between the Bible, where God Himself conducts holocausts, and the barbarity of the first three centuries of occupation of North American by English speaking Europeans. Whereas in Spain, Charles Quint, as early as 1550 CE, ordered to stop holocausts in the Americas, such an order to stop the massacre, was never given in the territory that was going to become the USA.

The result can be contemplated in the Brazil football world cup: whereas the Central American football teams (Costa Rica, Mexico, Honduras) are genetically mixed with Indian genetic stock, there is not one speck of Indian facial trait in Team USA.

A successful holocaust is not conducive to introspection. Especially when one enjoys its fruits every day.

But let’s look at it from a different angle. Obama named a commission to look into the disappearance of the bees. Well, there is no need to do this: the factors are well known, including nicotinoid insecticides.

So the leadership of the USA is playing stupid, to gain time for those who make and use such nicotinoids: playing dumb has its uses to gain time. After slavery was officially outlawed at the end of the Secession War, in December 1865, racism kept on going strong in the USA. Obsessing about the Christian God, allowed not to notice that: how could people obsessed by becoming good, be bad?

After all, the Bible is racist enough to endorse any tribal excess: it’s all about the Chosen People (whom Hitler chose for a perversely inverted special treatment).  The myths of the Bible, such as the “city on a hill”, and, of course, the chosen people, in this case, the Pale Faces, was to rule what was obviously the Promised Land.

Naivety can be brutally effective. And it’s not always wrong.

Minds in the USA are concentrated on achieving practical tasks. Instead of remaking the world in their head, the world is God-given.

So citizens of the USA work, and work, and never, ever, contest the established order seriously.

That’s why you will never see Paul Krugman contest deeply the banking system. Quite the opposite: he wants central banks to send it ever more money.

Paul is practical: he camps on popular positions. That makes him the most popular blogger for progressives on BOTH sides of the Atlantic (so Americanization is progressing, even among self-proclaimed progressives!)

Popular now, sure, but a future dwarf, not to say flea, in the history of thought.

All and any Americans are deeply uncomfortable when one makes deep critiques against “their” system. I had a rich, highly successful architect with plenty of skyscraper under construction, become red in the face, when he accused me of wanting to change the Constitution of the USA, and that never, ever, any reasonable American would take me seriously. Never mind that dozens of European countries change their Constitutions continually. In the USA, it’s the proverbial “third rail”, where all the electricity goes through. He never invited me again, an experience I had too many times to bother counting them.

Challenging the system, in a country such as France, for at least three centuries (after Louis XIV croaked), has been seen as the most interesting exercise (except for when the humor-less Robespierre and Napoleon ruled). In the USA, it’s viewed as a personal threat (by all too many).

Americans come from all over the world. Only very strict simplifying principles keep their minds compatible with each other. At least, so all too many of them feel.

Yesterday I was swimming in a lake in California. It has a small official “Swim Area”, watched over by no less than four official would-be rescuers armed with loud speakers. Going outside is “Against The Law”, although deprived of danger.  Other arcane laws apply: a five year old child, going out of such and such a particular limit, within the “Swim Area”, exposes the accompanying parent(s) to a $300 fine.

Being “Against the Law” is even more important than God, in the USA. Some laws seem set-up, just to test whether one will respect the “Against The Law” Principle. Those who do not respect that Principle are “outlaws”, and definitively not felt to be socially acceptable.

As this happened in Berkeley, a supposedly rebellious, flower power town, if there ever was one in the USA, some swimmers braved the interdiction, and were soon yelled at through the loudspeakers by adolescents a third their age, threatening them with the long arm of the law.

(Unsurprisingly, old foggies from the 1960s tend to be more rebellious than the youth whose parents were raised by Reagan; so, all too often, the enforcers are young, the old disobedient.)

As in all good American movies, the cavalry was called to the rescue against the terrorists. Black uniformed police officers swarmed the edges of the lake. A police helicopter flew low overhead, barking out orders. Never mind the budget crisis. Never mind this is a narrow 300 meters deep valley adorned with giant eucalyptuses and towering redwoods.

What is important, is to demonstrate how important law and order is in the USA. “Shock and Awe” will be applied. If the helicopter crashes, the rogue swimmers will be no doubt charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

Order starts with God. The God that gave the “Promised Land” to the “Chosen People” is best. He has proven his worth by killing millions, emptying continents, and torturing David’s son to death, because his father had not respected the law of God. The law of God is now applied to European banks and Argentina, bankrupting them all, empowering and enriching Americans some more, proving how this metaphysics of brutal  primitivism is all worthwhile.

Let Obama conclude: “God bless the United States of America!” OK, children! Now that we are done with philosophy, back to work!

Patrice Aymé

Demonic Empire & Bliss

June 27, 2014

Traditionally, there are those who are for empire, and those who are against it. Also there are those who distinguish good empires (the Athenian empire, the French “mission civilisatrice”; English Commonwealth) from the disgusting ones (say UK’s anti-Boer South Africa), to the very bad ones (plutocrat Leopold II’s Heart of Darkness Congo), or the outright demonic ones (the Kaiser’s holocaustic Namibia).

However, Manicheism goes only that far. I am going to suggest a completely different form of analysis, and approach, to the concept of empire.

An empire has subjects, just as a predator has preys. This is the conventional view. And, yet, it contains its own overcoming. Indeed, just as there is a mathematical entanglement between predator and prey, there is a philosophical entanglement between an empire and its subjects.

Good Empires Rest On Holy Wisdom; Ἁγία Σοφία, Constantinopolis

Good Empires Rest On Holy Wisdom; Ἁγία Σοφία, Constantinopolis

“Imperium” depicted initially the absolute, life-and-death ordering capability from top Roman generals. (Roman “emperors” inherited that capability, as they were always the commanders in chief, at least on paper.)

To this day, an empire is supposed to be all about a few ordering the many (thus, intrinsically “fascist”). Yet, even this Roman military root is endowed with subtlety: imperium does not reduce to fascism.

Why? The semiotics of fascism is, fundamentally, not just about the many being strong by tying up together. It’s about the law, and the law is absolute: Dura Lex, Sed Lex (Law Hard, But Law).  So the many are tied by an absolute.

Roman generals were obeyed absolutely, only when they inspired an aura of absolutism, that only vertiginous respect could confer them.

A professional special force killer was sent to assassinate Marius (seven times Consul, who triumphed in Africa over Jugurtha, and Gaul, Piedmont over invading Germans). He found the elder Marius in a room. Marius, unafraid, addressed the would be-assassin with his stentorian voice: ”Soldier, are you going to kill your general?”. Trembling, excusing himself, the assassin fled, and Marius’ enemies gave up on the notion of killing their all too respected foe.

In other words, imperium worked best when the soldiers loved their generals. After all, soldiers were armed to the teeth, trained to kill, and not to fear death. Generals need to be loved, the law does not. So imperium is an intrinsically milder notion than fascism.

Thus it’s not enough to say there are good empires, and bad ones. More generally, there are good empire-subject entanglements, and bad, unjust ones. It’s not all about just about the empire, it’s also about the subjects, and it’s also about the interactions of the one, with the others. Moreover those entanglements can be asymmetric.

Let me give an example. The Roman empire was the ultimate empire. Arguably, it’s going on, stronger than ever, 27 centuries after its founding (long story). For at least a millennium, the Romans interacted with the Celts, Jews, Egyptians, Greeks and Mesopotamians.

It was the same Roman empire, however, the outcomes were very different, and drastic differences are reflected to this day: the West became Rome, and Mesopotamia is still wrecked by war without end. By far the most complex interaction was with the Celto-Germans. It was pretty much antipodal to what happened with the Jews and the Mesopotamians, and, one can even claim, with the Greeks.

In Mesopotamia, and against the Iranians, Rome and its successor regime (“Constantinople”) struggled in vain for seven centuries. Nothing came out of it, except so much morbidity that, in the end, the Arabs overwhelmed both Persia and most of Rome.

The Jews, or rather, domineering Jewish fanatics, who made no sense whatsoever, in two formidably suicidal wars, rejected Rome. The first of these killed a million Jews, much of the population of Israel, then. It started by the cold blooded killing, inside Jerusalem, of 600 legionnaires of the Roman garrison. The strategic objective was unclear, and soon at least three Jewish factions were fighting each other, to death besides engaging the Romans.

The Romans had a sense of humor, and catapulted thousands of pig heads inside Jerusalem (I presume that they let them rot carefully first). On the less amusing side, the legions devastated forests throughout the region to build gigantic works for the siege of the holy city.

Egypt did not care about Rome one way or another. That mood of pragmatic indifference was contagious: while the titanic struggle of the Judaic War unfolded, just over the horizon, the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Alexandria did not raise the smallest protest.

Greece had been severely mistreated by the plutocratic Roman Senate, by 146 CE: Corinth was destroyed as a warning that republican independence of Greek City-States will not be tolerated. That was mass terrorism, and it marked Greece for centuries to come, as intended. Greek democracy did not recover, until the EU chased out the pro-Washington dictatorship, 21 centuries later.

And then there were the Celts and the Germans.  Those were not united, they relished their complicated world. They had adopted many traits of Greek civilization, even before the Romans showed up. Their metallurgy was second to none, and a major export to Rome. Ultimately, after 16 centuries of tragi-comedy, and all sorts of happenstance, the Celto-Germans became Rome (officially, in 800 CE).

It’s actually a curious thing: after a terrible war when Caesar intervened (Caesar was accused by some in the Senate and some historians, to have caused much of the problem), nothing anti-Roman ever happened again in Gallia. Even when the so called Gallic Empire ruled, later, it was not to reject Rome, but to improve it.

Differently from what had happened in Greece, the Romans did not rule Gaul through terror (although the war with Caesar had killed and enslaved millions, it had been a very complicated, messy affair, nothing like the cold blooded holocaust at Corinth) . Far from it. Even Latin was not imposed. In the Fifth Century the bishop of Lugdunum (= Lyon) preached in Celtic. Latin replaced Celtic completely, well after the legions were gone (that happened in 400 CE, a decision of Rome, taken when, for budgetary reasons, Rome put the Franks in charge of defending the two Germania and Gallia). Phasing out the three Celtic languages happened when the Franks, who came to rule Gaul completely in the early Sixth Century, completely gave up their own Low Countries German for Latin.

The Celto-Germano-Greco-Roman civilization became a symbiosis ruled by the Franks. Why a community of minds there, and not with Israel, or Mesopotamia? It’s obviously an explanation that involves many factors. The Celto-Germans and the Greco-Romans had a very long story, with fair intellectual trade, in both directions: by the time Caesar showed up, that intense trade was at least a millennium old. The Roman army was equipped with Celtic metal works for centuries.

Celts and Romans had important principles in common, like a quasi-religious dislike for kings, and, certainly, hatred of tyranny. This dislike was so strong that Armanius (Hermann) a once-Roman officer who treacherously annihilated Roman general Varus and his three legions (plus supporting troops, and fellow travellers), was later killed by fellow rebels for behaving, it was alleged, like a king.

Yet, as Rome became a fascist dictatorship, the Germans became more sympathetic to fascism, and kingship. Clovis, elected king of the Franks, his father, Roman imperator Childeric I, and his grandfather Merovius. Thus, Western Europe (or, at least, the elements if Western Europe which came to re-establish an empire) was pretty much evolving as one mental unit.

Such bliss of a common spirituality was not shared in the Middle East. The Jewish God symbolized tyranny made divine. Persians and Mesopotamians needed to kneel abjectly to all the plutocrats they could find. Lack of water had led the civilization of the Middle East to dictatorship. The hydraulic dictatorship (Fernand Braudel) implied “Oriental Despotism” (Karl Marx).  Fascism, cruel and demented, the “Right of Sword”.

Darius, who fought from Ethiopia to Ukraine, exhibited a clear case of the “Right of the Sword”. That existing mood was embraced 11 centuries later in the Qur’an. Unbelievably, the Sword is still festering today: arguing for the Right Of The Sword, Arab plutocrats are agitating, in 2014, to have Justinian’s Cathedral, Ἁγία Σοφία, “Holy Wisdom“,now a museum, been converted again to a mosque, so that the depiction of the real world represented therein be covered up again, as reality offends Islam.

This is an example of the persistence of moods and systems of ideas. Cynics will also point out that their genesis, namely the desert, only got worse.

Well, whatever: if we understand the situation, we can probably fix it. No empire, no law. Thus it remains to make the empire good.

Today the European Empire’s 28 heads of state approved Jean-Claude Junkers as head of the European Commission (the EU’s executive branch). The European Parliament is widely expected to elect Junkers next week. The 28 elected chiefs used the occasion to sign on the Free Trade and Association Treaty with Ukraine and Moldavia. Justly unsatisfied by this slap to Putin, they also sent Vlad the Impaler, back in Moscow, an ultimatum. Yes, an ultimatum. Electing the head of the EC is a furthering of democracy in the European empire. But democracy is naught, if it can’t bite.

The 28 EU leaders demanded that separatists return border checkpoints, release hostages and start talks to implement a peace plan drawn up by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko by June 30. Failure to do so will result in “further significant restrictive measures” against Russia.

Vlad The Invader has three days to obey. It may be time for him to remember what happened when his preceding supporter of minorities through annexations, Adolf Hitler, refused to obey. Unbelievably, France persuaded Britain to declare war.

Wisdom without doom is only gloom.

Patrice Aymé

Separated Minds

May 5, 2014

Listening, watching, the pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine: so much anger. About what exactly? They speak of the “fascists”, the “Nazis” in Kiev, who made a “coup”. They cry. They are very emotional, sometimes hysterical.

They wear orange strips striated with black, the same that were worn by the Soviet army in the war against the Nazis in WWII. The same exact decorations are worn all over Russia. The idea? The war against the Nazis, what Russians call the great patriotic war, has started again. What’s going on? Putin has made them red-hot, in the old fashion way baboons understand so well.

Putin's Violent Violating Finger Pointing Straight Up In The Middle Of The European Union

Putin’s Violent Violating Finger Pointing Straight Up In The Middle Of The European Union

It’s all very simple. The ancestors of these Russians were sent by the Czars to settle “New Russia”… As Russian, newly Russianizing… Ukraine. Some, or their parents, were sent by Stalin. That’s why in East and South Ukraine, Ukrainian is spoken in the countryside, and less in the cities.

Ukraine was long the most productive part of the USSR, industrially, or agriculturally. But as Stalin and his henchmen “collectivized” the farms, peasants tried to resist. Stalin and his henchmen killed them with wild abandon. When the Red Army started to have had enough, Stalin and his henchmen killed that too.

Meanwhile, in the West, millions of “Communists”, rendered insane by their hatred of Western plutocracy, bleated their approval of Stalin’s fascism. A curious case of collective hysteria, jumping from the fire, into the lava. (Some, such as Camus, saw their mistake; others, like Sartre, not so much…)

Those pro-Russians in Ukraine we can see full of rage and distress on TV, got all their information, in Russian, from Putin controlled Russian TV. Many honestly believe the lies they have been told. How could they not? They know nothing else.

So is disinformation, dissembling, and outright lying a crime? Well, it is, when they go too far, and are what lead from peace to war.

Humanity progresses by becoming ever more sensitive and smart about the causes and subtleties of optimal morality.

Progress involves not just a refinement of introspection and culture. But also a refinement of the law. Including International Law. That is why wars of aggression and annexations of territory are, and ought to be, subject to the greatest penalties.

Be it only by instigating hatred and lethal fear through their deliberate lies, Putin and his henchmen are engaged in a criminal enterprise.

When Putin claims that the West wants to dismantle Russia, all of it, and, without missing a beat, that Ukraine is Russia (apparently separated from the rest by the West, he implies), he is activating a terror so great that one can only expect all Russians to line up behind him, with just one mind, the mind of war, and then go to war.

This is the essence of the fascist reflex.

And what of these orange strips striated with black. Russian say it has to do with “the Great Patriotic War”. Do they even know how it started? How Russia got involved?

Well, first, Stalin was, de facto, allied with German fascists, for more than two decades (top Soviet fascists were allied to German fascists since 1917, at least). German generals and their tanks trained in the USSR (this explains why they believed they could destroy the USSR, and they may have had, but for the preliminary invasion of Greece and Crete).

Then Russia made its alliance with the Nazis official.

Thus comforted, Russia, still allied with the Nazis, invaded Poland. Then Russia, more allied with the Nazis than ever, send Hitler and his gang of criminals all they needed, including precious oil. Oil that was used to invade Western Europe.

Then Russia attacked, and invaded… Finland. Unfortunately the Finns did not understand well that Finland was Russia. With astounding efficiency, Finns killed many thousands Russians. Officially, the Soviet Union suffered 323,000 casualties. In the end, Stalin, Putin style, annexed some Finnish territory, augmenting once again Russian “hugeness” (Putin), as all good Czars do.

So the orange strip striated with black is ambiguous: does it mean Russia is allied with Nazism again?

Do not expect most Russians to understand the preceding, except as “hatred”. When young Russians are asked about Kalingrad Oblast, all they know is that, during the “Great Patriotic War”, it was “liberated” from the Nazis. They actually thus deduce it was always Russian.

They don’t know it was never Russian. And always Prussian. And sometimes (for three centuries), Polish. All, but never Russian.

And who was Kalinin? One of Stalin’s henchmen, dripping with blood.

And what did Putin put in Kaliningrad? Nuclear missiles, a few minutes flying from Warsaw, Prague, Vienna, Berlin, Hamburg.

In his usual lying ways, Putin said he would put these extremely dangerous Iskander missiles IF the West put a few anti-missile missiles in the West (meant, and only capable of, intercepting a couple of missiles from Iran). The West then abjectly excused itself for ever entertaining such a notion, and said they would never consider it again. Then Putin, satisfied, having got something for nothing, as usual, deployed his nuclear missiles.

The Iskander missiles deployed by Russia are a violated of International Treaties, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Treaty signed by Gorbatchev and Reagan, in 1987. The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, defined as between 500-5,500 km. Reason? Those weapons can strike in a few minutes, their command and control is prone to accident, so are intrinsically destabilizing.

The obsolete predecessors of the Iskanders were ceremoniously destroyed. Iskanders are mobile (impossible to find), they fly low (50 kilometers) at hypersonic speeds (2,100 meters per second), and execute anti-anti-ballistic missiles missiles maneuvers at up to 30 gs (thirty times Earth’s gravity).

In other words, the Iskanders are a monster weapon, in violation of all treaties, and Obama has been watching all this with the distinguished awareness and elegance of a cow watching a train.

One feels Obama should lay on a beach in Hawai’i watching surfs surf. At least we would know where he is at.

No wonder Putin has decided he is a tiger, Obama a cow, and Europe a hunting ground.

The pro-Russian “separatists” in Ukraine shouting:”Russia, Russia, Russia…” are about as intelligent as would have been people in Algeria singing: “France, France, France…”. Actually then, they didn’t. Even the most idiotic fascist colonialist right wing extremists of the French persuasion were shouting:”French Algeria” (Algerie Francaise).

The Ukrainian separatists thus deny the very concept of Ukraine. Why? Because Putin, their master thinker, denies it. So they repeat, like parrots, because their master does not lie, they believe. Putin insists, incessantly, that there is no such a thing as “Ukraine”. It’s all Russia. Apparently all the way to Kaliningrad and beyond. “As one of our Czars said, they are afraid of our hugeness”, he chuckles…

Meanwhile, emboldened by the sort of violation of International Law not even Stalin dared to indulge in, Putin sends his “very professional” fifth columnists, all over Ukraine.

Patrice Aymé

Obamacrap, Trade Plutocrap

November 15, 2013

Abstract: If you thought Obamacare, drawn in secrecy, with deliberate lying, was bad, hold on tight!

Obamacrap, the gift that keeps on giving:

[As a reminder, lest my mood be misconstrued, I am 100% for single payer public universal health care. One could get there safely, and rather quickly using Medicare and executive orders.]

Obama about Obamacare today November 14, 2013: “I get accused of a lot of things but I don’t think I am stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work. Clearly we and I did not have enough awareness…”

We and I“? Stand reassured, Mr. Resident: you are more aware and less stupid than you look. Or are just words falling out of your mouth? (As someone who knew Obama 40 years ago, suggested to me, the haphazard falling of the words, used to be, even then, a characteristic of Obama.)

How did he get to become president of the USA? Someone asked me, today. Bear with me, it gets clearer, further down.

Obamacare is PHILOSOPHICALLY erroneous. You can’t force the PUBLIC to pay private profiteers. All the deliberate lying by the Liar In Chief and his corporate shills cannot change this.

An army of liars led by a Liar In Chief do not one truth make, if they can help it.

Why does not the website work? Greed. Because it’s all corrupted by the search for profits, like the rest of the Obamacare monstrosity. 600 million dollars, just for the (non functionning) site. And counting, now that Google and Oracle have put their greedy fingers all over the deal.


Is Trade An Absolute Good?

Well, yes, if and only if, it is fair. Brazil produces chicken at rock bottom prices, thanks to mass cultivation of corn and soy, while paying workers 350 euros a month. Then the chickens are sent worldwide. Right now that’s undercutting the chicken industry in Europe.

And it is not fair. When the European chicken industry is dead, the plutocrats at the other end will be free to jack up prices.

How To Impose Free Trade?

Very simple. Three remarks:

1) Cutting the rain forest for corn and soy: unfair advantage, ecological damage with worldwide consequences (undercutting world oxygen production; diminishing bio-diversity). To be punished with sanctions. Financial sanctions, call them A.

2) Workers paid minimum wage. Equate what it means relative to reasonable, European like social and health protection, in Brazilian prices. If found wanting, financial sanctions, call them B.

3) Cost of transportation evaluated in CO2 poisoning equivalence (extremely cheap poisonous and polluting bunker oil is used, for transportation by ships). Call that that financial sanction C.

Then take the price of chicken arriving in Europe, and slap on top of it a tax equal to (A + B + C).


Why is the TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership’s elaboration secret? Because Plutos can’t thrive without it.

The TPP is NAFTA on steroids. It involves 12 Pacific Rim countries, minus China. The negotiations have been kept secret but WikiLeaks, and others, have leaked draft copies revealing the true intent.

Although the TPP is called a trade agreement it is more of a corporate rights agreement.

Only two of the 26 chapters under negotiation have to do with trade. The other 24 include how a government regulates corporate activity, what for profit corporations can and cannot do, how long pharmaceutical patents or copyright terms should be, how the Internet is governed, the sharing of personal information across borders, banking and tax rules, plus how plutocrats should be compensated when environmental or health policies interfere with their profits.

Only three government individuals in each TPP nation have access to the full text of the agreement, while 600 ’trade advisers’ – lobbyists guarding the interests of large US corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto and Walmart – are granted exclusive access to crucial sections of the treaty text.

Three on the government side, six hundreds  on the plutocratic side. Call that pure plutocracy, full anti-democracy. without transparency, you can’t have democracy. Pericles and his philosophical advisers pointed that out, nearly 24 centuries ago.

Obama, and other leaders, want to sign and ratify the TPP before the end of 2013.

Besieged WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange stated: “The US administration is aggressively pushing the TPP through the US legislative process on the sly.” The advanced draft of the 95-page, 30,000-word Intellectual Property Rights Chapter institutes a transnational legal and enforcement regime, replacing existing laws.

The longest section of the Chapter – ’Enforcement’ – is devoted to detailing new policing measures, with implications for individual rights, civil liberties, publishers, internet service providers and internet privacy, as well as for the creative, intellectual, biological and environmental commons. Measures proposed include supranational litigation tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but without human rights safeguards. It is stated that these courts will conduct hearings with secret evidence. The IP Chapter also replicates many of the surveillance and enforcement provisions withdrawn in the past under protests.

Thus probably the attraction of trying secrecy, and a sly maneuver.

We saw how well that worked with Obamacare.

Assange: “If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”

How come Assange did not die yet?

Believing the plutocrats increasingly looks like the road to a world war, said Mario Soares, the 90 years old ex-Prime Minister and President of Portugal, post-dictatorship. Soares feels and thinks that the situation now is more terrible than under the 60 year-long Salazar fascist dictatorship.


What minds infuriated by fascism do in war:

The 20, 21 to 22 August 40,000 French soldiers died in Belgium, north-east of Sedan. In just one commune, in just one battle, in just one day, the 22 August, 27,000 attacking French soldiers died, killed by artillery.

Infuriated German troops burned Belgian houses. If you want to infuriate fascists, just resist them. That reminds them they are very bad people, they get even more angry.

In just one village, 94 civilians were shot, two were burned alive, for good measure. Within a front of 25 kilometers, another 500 civilians were lined up and shot. Jeanne Jacob, 2 years old, was killed with her dad, as they were hiding by the river.

Why all these incredible horrors? Just because the Kaiser had ordered to wipe out the French Republic. Top German generals, infuriated by the suicidal resistance of the French army, took vengeance on Belgian civilians.

French, Belgian, British, Italian, and American troops did not commit atrocities in World War One (although, later, when Italy fell under the control of the ex-socialist, the fascist Benito Mussolini, Italian troops did commit atrocities).

French and British troops did not commit atrocities in WWII either (although they were both victims of Nazi atrocities; and not just the troops including other “races”; when the Nazis were winning, in May 1940, infuriated, once again, by the effrontery of British resistance, the Nazis killed at some point 95 Brits who had surrendered, among other cases like that; the cases involving the French run in the thousands of troops assassinated after having surrendered, just in 1940; OK, all right, after being stopped by French “colonial” troops that surrendered only after running out of ammunitions, after blocking Rommel’s 7th Panzer, the Nazis were justly infuriated: justice as fairness, Nazi style).

Definitively, plutocracy brutalizes minds, and makes men into furious, blood thirsty beasts. That’s the whole idea.

Trusting common sense rather that the authorities can save lives. Don’t trust today’s plutocrats when they tell you everything is OK.

JP Morgan, the USA’s top banker, was a great supporter of the Kaiser’s plutocracy.

Plutocrats pay each other with taxpayer money: JP Morgan, the bank the preceding founded, one of Hitler’s main supporters, and creator of German hyper inflation, paid the daughter of the former Chinese Prime Minister. Annually. $900,000. Yes, that’s nearly a million.

Don’t worry, the Plutos are not going to jail. That’s not done among gens de bien.


Trust Typhoons Not

Huge ocean-going ships 400 meters inland in the Philippines, next to each other, thrown there by super typhoon Haiyan. Filipinos are very expert in the way of typhoons.  After all, they live in “Hurricane Alley“. They are used to it, with an average of 20 typhoons a year.

So strong was the typhoon, that, those who trusted officialdom and made it to the local school, made to resist typhoons, came out swimming after the seven meters tidal wave struck.

Most, smarter than that, hit the hills, the old fashion way. Hence fewer dead.


Is Optimism An Absolute Good?

No. It’s rather an absolute candy. Pessimism is a greater good, and learning to live positively with it, while looking at reality, straight in the eye, an even more precious gift. In other words, the exact opposite of how Obama, the unelected European Commission, and all the secret commissions, NSA and assorted death panels, wants us to live.


Patrice Ayme


June 16, 2012


Highest Form Of Cruelty Cynically Fixed, If Need Be.


Abstract: As Wikipedia puts it: Cruelty can be described as indifference to suffering, and even positive pleasure in inflicting it. If this habit is supported by a legal or social framework, then it receives the name of perversion.” Several species disappear, each day. The biosphere has clearly entered its sixth great extinction, in 500 million years. And it’s caused by just one species, us.

Usually people evoke, a la Cousteau, the prospect of the sad, uninteresting world that their grandchildren will inherit to give themselves some moral spur to save the biosphere. This is a valid argument, at least to people who care about their grandchildren, real or imagined. 

But there is a more fundamental moral question.

Is it CRUEL to be indifferent to the suffering of the biosphere? Is destroying the biosphere a perversion of the degeneracy of  civilization that affects us? And if it is, why should we be surprised that this cruelty, once fully exercized and in great shape, does, of course, come out somewhere else, here, there, everywhere, to exert its horror on all things human?

There is a solution to the deterioration of the biosphere: restoration, on an industrial scale (you want to lower unemployment? Here you go!). Restoration does not mean just asking the Indians to save Asiatic Lions, the Chinese to save the Pandas, and Africans to be trampled by elephants. It means for the richest countries to take the burden directly, even more so.

To restore the biosphere is not just an esthetic and hedonistic necessity, but also a socio-economic necessity. Beyond this, restoring crucial elements of the life we are meant for, is a moral necessity, a psychological necessity, and even a neurobiological necessity.

The perverse society plutocracy is pushing on us is enabled by a loss of moral and common senses, both originating from cruelty against the biosphere.

(As I will hopefully explain in this and a companion essay.)



Cruelty against various species is often condemned. However, although great prayers evoking lofty principles are always good, they can also immunize against effective action, by replacing the humble, mitigating task by self satisfaction. The sad fate of individual animals should not be used to occult a much more ominous fate, the assault against life itself.

That assault is fundamentally immoral, and that immorality has drastic consequences. They lay at the bottom of the present socio-economic crises, as I will show in this essay, and the next.  

Some will say:”Wait a minute, which moral system are you using? Certainly not Judeo-Christo-Islamism!” Ok, first there is no doubt that religions and moods such as found in the Indian sub-continent, all about the inter-connectivity of lives and life, have more expertise in their appreciation of the wealth of the biosphere. Spinoza and Schopenhauer, even Nietzsche, infused Indian thinking into their Western brew (since their thoughts are derivative, I will ignore them).

As my attack against Jainism below will show, I present as all encompassing a moral system closer to that of “First Nations“.  I don’t know of a name for it, but it’s the simplest thing. Maybe I should call it paleolithic morality.

“Mores” means long term habits, ways of doing things, which have proven sustainable.

So morality is what works in the long run for the continuation of the human experience.  Anything making human life unsustainable is immoral. Certainly the destruction of the biosphere qualifies as the ultimate immorality. Because without biosphere, man dies. And when everything dies everything, and everybody will suffer. And the indifference to that is the definition of cruelty.

Thus one can say that cruelty against various animals generalizes to a much higher form, CRUELTY AGAINST THE ENTIRE BIOSPHERE.

Instead of hounding businessmen who want to make a buck from the biosphere, much salvation, especially regarding the preservation of species, could be found, by carefully turning greed on its head.

Example: To save elephants, as a species, one should use their two greatest assets, and those are tourism (of course)  and…ivory. Otherwise elephants will disappear, because common people need very good reasons to learn to manage their lives with up to 11 metric tons beasts around, those mountains of irascible flesh capable of charging at 40 km/h through rice paddies (yes, there is native rice in Africa).

Making the biosphere profitable, by investing in it, is a high moral calling.

And if it means unsavory means, so be it. After all, people are known to go to the euphemistically named “restroom” everyday. The biosphere may be a temple, but Aztec style, with lots of blood. Invest in the biosphere, as it is, avert your senses, if need be.



Many ecologists have an anti-technology, anti-passion approach to the biosphere. They think AUSTERITY (that concept again) will solve it all. There is a Jainist side to them.

Jainism is the original version, 3,000 years old, of fanatical pacifism and ultra Buddhism. Its main idea, as practiced by its monks, is to have no dependency whatsoever. No dependency to love, even to their own parents. No dependency even to appreciating food, which is viewed only as a necessary fuel, as bland as possible. No dependency even to clothing, so they wear strictly none.

That works better in balmy India, rather than Siberia.

Jainism is superficially impressive. Its (naked) priests were already well known to pre-Socratic Greeks (who called them “gymnosophers“, that is the naked wise ones).

The silence of Greek philosophers is deafening. It’s not that the Greeks were afraid of nakedness: they exerted in the nude (gymnastics!). The Greeks could only feel that Jainism was mostly wrong. First because it denies the nature of Homo Sapiens, Earth’s ultimate predator. So it’s make belief. Even the rice the Jainist monks eat comes from violence. If Jainist monks want to be involved in absolutely no violence, they better stop eating. However, they would then commit violence against themselves. Jainism is a religion which tries to make us believe that lions can be angels, if they would just beg for grass and stop wearing clothing.

As a semi anecdote, Hitler wanted to be seen as a man of peace. That is the angle he found in Maynard Keynes’ “The Economic Consequences of Peace” (a German supremacy document that alleged that anything causing Germany umbrage was against peace!). So Hitler adopted the most sacred Jainist symbol, the Swastika (changing its red color to black, and putting the red around in a creative fit of his).

The fundamental intuitions of Jainism that we can just disconnect from the world, and that this is a good thing, are wrong, on both counts.

A baby depends upon love and adults, for years. All Jainists who ever existed started with love and dependency. Even Jesus had to acknowledge he needed a support system, when very little.

Of course one can deny co-dependency, and believe one is better than anybody else, that’s what the Nazis did, on an industrial scale. But that means one is either incapable of thinking correctly (co-dependency is a fact), or one hates all and any life. The Nazis proved both phenomena can happen at the same time (and Merkel is trying her best to demonstrate the same point again).

But that’s a mistake, austerity is anti-life, dependency the way, the biosphere is about exuberance, passion, experiments. Life is about the Red Queen Hypothesis (Alice asks the Red Queen why they are running the landscape does not move, and the queen explains they have to run, just to stay in place). Don’t go Jain on us, that’s what mussels do, and we are not mussels.

Life is all about maximum interdependence, no holds barred, it’s about bursting out of the biosphere, and death itself (French researchers just found that muscular stem cells keep the entire rebirth capability, 17 days after “death”, and out of one of these apparently dead cells, a million new ones could be born).

The most developed world should reintroduce dangerous megafauna. A new industry, another new way to fight unemployment (same as the old one, during eons passed, when the genus Homo was already the manager of life, at least on land).



I had not heard of all the charms of Traditional Chinese Medicine. However Sherryn Groch revealed to me in “Raging Against Cages”  an industry that I never suspected existed: extracting bile from caged bears. One gram of bile sells for $20 (that is half the price of gold)… Here we have a piece of nature with a high market value. From the BBC’s China bear bile farms stir anger among campaigners:

“In a secretly shot video, a Chinese farmer holds up a bag of yellowish bile he has just extracted from a caged bear.

“Some Westerners say this is cruel – but I think the bears are making a contribution to mankind,” says the grinning man.

Animal welfare groups have recently stepped up their campaign to end the practice of milking bears for their bile, still legal in China. They say the animals suffer enormous physical and psychological pain.

But bear bile has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for hundreds of years and it is not proving easy to change habits formed over generations. Pharmaceutical companies that farm bears are also fighting back to protect their industry, in a public relations battle to win hearts and minds.”  

Sherryn exhibits gruesome cases, which could clearly be outlawed for extreme cruelty against an advanced animal, the Asian Black Bear (“Moon Bears“).

Sun Bears, and the much larger Moon Bears, are tropical bears, all black, except for a big white crescent moon on their chests. Animals like these are part of the megafauna, and, as man replaces primary forest everywhere with furniture, palm plantations, asphalt, they are threatened with extinction.

Outlawing all and any bear farming is very honorable, at first sight, a bit like when Gandhi proclaimed that he did not want India to take part in World War Two. A honorable end: peace at any cost.

Never mind that if Hitler’s henchmen had their way, they would have stuffed the likes of Gandhi in an oven. If the means destroy the ends, are the ends worth pursuing?

Indeed, there is another side to the whole question. The Asian Black Bears are a “threatened” species. Yet, officially pharmaceutical companies in China hold 10,000! Some want to hold even more, and be listed on stock exchanges.

Says the BBC: “…. [a] company opened its doors to journalists – the BBC was not allowed in – to counter claims that its business is cruel.

Reporters were shown bears playing in a pit and others being milked for their bile by workers dressed in face masks and protective clothing. The bears appeared comfortable and unconcerned by the procedure.

At a news conference, company director Zhang Zhijun said making a hole in a bear’s abdomen was no different to “piercing people’s ears”.”

The notion that the pain can be so small should be judicially explored. If it is demonstrated, then the business ought to be tightly regulated, but kept legal. And I am going to explain why.



A few years back, a company asked for authorization to farm a nearly completely disappeared species of sea turtles. They intended to grow thousands, although only a few hundreds were left in the wild. As the mortality, in the wild, is more than one adult turtle for 1,000 baby turtles, from predation, it’s easy to save sea turtles, if one raise them on a farm. They were refused. (I did not follow the story after that.)

Generally conservation organizations make the silly argument that it is more important to save the environment, and that, if one saves the most prestigious species in captivity, people will be less motivated to save entire ecological system. (Merkel makes a similar argument: better a dead patient, pour encourager les autres.)

However this is exactly how the California Condor was saved. Instead of waiting for the South West USA to return to wilderness, state conservationists captured all the condors, and bred them in captivity. They are now back in the wild, over several states. (Still dying from lead pellets, though.)

I do think that one should encourage the (as non cruel as possible) farming of some species threatened by extinction presently (say some sea turtles, sharks, etc.). As is done with some saurians (there are highly successful crocodile farms; crocodiles in farms are so well nourished and content that they do not practice cannibalism, differently from their common practice in the grand outdoors.)

I do not mean one should kill dolphins, because they are good to eat. Japan should stop killing whales. One should draw the line somewhere, with sentient animals. (Although I have seen Africans butcher dolphins, as they have always done traditionally to feed themselves; they should be allowed to keep on doing so, under legal monitoring, as is done with “first nations” Arctic hunters and sea mammals).

The case of elephants is different: dolphins or whales are innocuous to humans, and do not live where people do, whereas elephants, who are as intelligent, need another reason to justify their encumbering existence, in the midst of humans, because they are very dangerous, if not carefully managed (that means half domesticated; wild elephants can be domesticated, they are that intelligent).

In general saving prestigious species helps to remind common people how prestigious the environments they came from, as a species, were. Thus reintroducing the prestigious species is conducive to re-introducing said environment. For example California is making efforts to be ecologically correct enough so that condors can survive. Little things, such as leaving enough carcasses.



There are three crimes often committed nowadays against the animal kingdom:

1) the cruelty to individual animals. (Princeton philosophy professor Singer has waxed lyrically, not to say rather grotesquely, on the subject, with the base, not to say deranged, argument that, since people are animals, animals are people. Or something akin to that.)

2) the cruelty to the biosphere, by amputating it of its species. If one thinks about it carefully, literally, etymologically speaking, exterminating a species is genocide (it kills genes!). Some will say I torture semantics, but, if one insists to torture the biosphere, the following will happen:

3) inuring ourselves to being cruel and devastating to the biosphere, and the termination of species. That will make the commission of genocide something normal. We will start with bugs, and, when we run out of bugs, we will treat human beings as we treated the bugs (yes, this is a reasoning similar to Singer’s, and Singer falls exactly in that pit, like the mammoth he is). Call that psychological inertia: commit cruelty here, consider it normal, carry it somewhere else.

2) and 3) are arguably higher category moral wrongs than the cruelty against individual creatures. It’s torture against creation itself.

Farming wild species may often be the way out. For example, saving rhinoceroses by large scale farming beats the disappearance of the species, anytime. As it turns out, rhinoceroses readily domesticate (they were even used militarily, because they are highly combative. ).

Farming wild species may also necessitate saving enormous areas of wilderness (say if one were raising elephants for ivory). Hunting ranches in Texas are said to have more of some subspecies of tigers than there are left in the wild.

Another example is Spanish fighting bulls used for corrida de toros. They constitute a breed of their own. To cultivate their ferocity, they are brought up wild. For human reasons (bullfighting is cruel, at least at some terminal point, for beast, and, or, man alike) corrida may well be outlawed (as it just was in Catalonia). Then the breed will certainly disappear.

In general species without any commercial interest whatsoever may well disappear. Better sell a sea turtle soup, than to see the species the soup is made from, disappear forever.

A related activity would be to displace threatened species to places where they would have much more room. My preferred example would be to transfer surplus zoo Amur leopards to Yukon national parks (reducing if need be the local mountain lions’ population).

In conclusion, developing commercial interests to save elements of the biosphere is not crime, but virtue and (short term) solution.

Reciprocally, preventing the rise of legitimate, lawful, well regulated businesses, augments even more the commercial value of organized crime, and is leading to the present disappearance of many species.



The main reason Asian Black Bears are eliminated is that they are very dangerous. They are known to attack people without provocation, viciously and lethally. As someone who got charged twice by black bears (in the American West), and had many all too close calls (as a solo mountain runner), I can testify that only lions I fear more (OK, I have never run among grizzlies, and did not try it when I could, fishing proved dangerous enough).

If Asians are not given very good pecuniary reasons to keep dangerous predators around, they simply will not. True there are lots of national parks in the USA, but they are mostly in the empty west, and the really dangerous predators, such as grizzlies, and the equivalent of tigers and lions, have long been eliminated. The progressive return of the wolf is highly resisted.

Large animals tend to be deadly. A small, 5 kilogram shark is not a problem. It is a problem when it is 100 times more massive. The lethality of some species calls to actively manage them, and thus to make them profitable to:

1) pay for said management.

2) give a considerable incentive for the population to live cautiously, if not dangerously.

Elephants in Sri Lanka constitute a particular subspecies.  Under human pressure, they have quickly become smaller in the last two centuries. Without careful management, they are terrifying, and dangerous neighbors.

There are at least 5,000 elephants, there used to be 15,000 two centuries ago. They particularly like the rich alluvial plain, best for rice farmers and their families. Often girls come back from school and have to stop before getting home, terrified by a trumpeting band of irate multi tons quadrupeds in the distance. More than 100 elephants a year are killed to protect crops and houses. Their habitat is extremely fragmented.

An extensive government monitoring and teaching program, complete with frightening pachyderms at night with firecrackers, has established some modus vivendi. However, that program is expensive, and will survive if, and only if watching elephants can be turned into such a profitable tourist activity, that it pays for itself. Blatantly.



Speaking of elephants brings attention to the hypocrisy of much of the North Atlantic countries will be exposed. Large species related to elephants, mastodons and mammoths, used to roam present say NATO. Agreed, they were a threat. But also a resource. NATO now has the technology to enjoy the resource, and keep the threat in check.

There used to be mammoths, wooly rhinoceroses, and elks with antlers 3 meters across all over Europe. Men eliminated them all in the last 14,000 years. The extermination started with the (giant) Cave Bears, about 50,000 years ago. Thank the Neanderthals for that.

Up to 3,000 years ago, European Lions were still found in Western Europe. Aurochs survived until the 17C. Lions and tigers were still in the Caucasus-Caspian area up to very recently. The Atlas lion, a larger species, survived until the 20C. Poison nearly completely eliminated Brown Bears in Europe (the ancestors of American Grizzlies), and wolves (who are coming back, big time).

So is Europe going to show the way, and re-introduce what it used to enjoy? Real big dangerous animals? Experiments in France (reintroducing prehistoric horses and bison) show that nature becomes completely different, taking more the appearance of a park, like the African savannah park (for the same reason). 

Homo sapiens has eliminated megafauna on most continents. Australia had many large animals (marsupial “lion”, marsupial “rhinoceros”). Men arrived by boats, killed them all. Ever since Australian ecology has been out of balance (in spite of dingoes to play predators).

Notice that the usual anti-idea that the climate fluctuations and attending vegetation change truly killed the megafauna do not hold for Australia: the extent of glaciation in Australia was rather reduced (to put it ironically). Verily, it’s the other way around. It is likely that killing (most of the) megafauna changed the vegetation, and maybe even the climate.

Exterminating “lions” allowed the cattle to multiply. This is what Neolithic herders wanted. However, differently from lions (previously the most frequent species, as they eat everything, from rabbit up), cattle make a lot of methane, CH4, the powerful greenhouse gas. Thus the first man made greenhouse. It may have prevented a return of a little glaciation.

It’s high time to reverse all this, and restore megafauna. Before being able to re-create the original species, stand-ins ought to be brought in. Elephants and rhinoceroses have been suggested for Australia, be it only to reduce the (African) Gamba grass (a giant grass, meters tall, made to burn spectacularly. I have seen some of these brush fires in the park-savannah).  Australia had a full megafauna, with rhinoceros sized “giant wombats“, and predators to control them. It disappeared 50,000 years ago, as Homo Sapiens invaded (that disappearance led, in turn, to climate change… this, please notice, is the exact opposite to what Conventional Wisdom is paid to babble about).

The full panoply of prehistoric animals ought to be reintroduced, say in Europe. OK, none of the ancient animals has been yet recreated, using genetic engineering (although some Japanese have just such a plan for mammoths). However some animals close to extinction such as the Amur Leopard, the Siberian Tiger could be reintroduced in safe places, along the lines of the reintroduction of the California Condor.

And yes, some of these places ought to be in Western Europe. Britain could start by reintroducing the wolf, exterminated in the 17C (the UK has signed a treaty to this effect, but “forgot” to implement it).



Why should we restore wild nature? As I said above, to abate cruelty, restore morality. However it goes much further than that, as I evoked in the abstract. That will be the second part of this essay, where spectacular connections with neurobiology, neurohormonology, institutional cycles, and the present civilizational crisis will be established.


Patrice Ayme

LUKE 19:27

March 31, 2012

Don’t Ask What God Can Do For You, Ask Who You Can Kill In His Name?


Recently Abrahamism demonstrated its mighty hold on the minds of those who want to commit horror. A 23 year old French Muslim killed three French paratroopers, one of them from Martinique (someone whom  American (unconscious) racists would call “black“). The other two paratroopers were Muslims, as it turned out (one of them a Franco-Moroccan).

One of the unarmed Muslim paratroopers who was treacherously assassinated was called Mohammed, just like the killer. Then this criminal, Mohammed Mehra, killed three children, and a dad protecting his two sons, at a Jewish school. He benefitted from the help of other Muslim fanatics. Dozens got arrested. All indications are that Mohammed Mehra was just a little creep. He was arrested many times for various exactions unrelated to religion. There is a video of him, laughing to no end, beaming with an angel face, after making a rodeo with a BMW.

More children were wounded, but they survived the horrible wounds. It is useful to peer into the horror. Not by voyeurism, but to see how deep hatred can go.

One of the children, a seven year old girl, was hit in the shoulder by a .45 colt of the U.S. Army (!). The Muslim fanatic, filming the assassination with a camera strapped on his belly, chased her, grabbed her by her pony tail. Then he brought the gun to her head, and fired. But the gun jammed. Instead of listening to Allah’s hint, still holding onto her, he got another gun he had, released the safety, and killed her.

This sort of violence, I claim, is intrinsic to Abrahamism (“Judeo-Christo-Islamism”). It’s what it was made for, and by. It’s no coincidence that Islam created the greatest empire ever seen, in a few years: by the sword, for the sword.

The lunatics are getting agitated. In the extract below, published in the electronic version of a newspaper read by millions, a fanatic ponders about my case:

Mr. belal zakaria asks me in the Wall Street Journal, whether Satan is hiding behind me. Here is Mr. Zakaria’s quote, complete with savage grammar, Saturday, March 31, 2012:

  • @patrice ayme
  • Who is hiding behind you like satan (also a light in wavelength and angstrom) misleading using and Abraham with illicit comment of Mental illness of Abraham? The following abraham proof of prostration given 1400 yrs like moon splitting Surah Moon …
  • In all muslim prayers, Muslim seek refuge from misleader 5/times per day world wide for reason Obvious.”

Is organized superstition a mental illness “for reason obvious”?

Abraham is the mythical founder of Judaism. He is famous for agreeing with a voice in his head telling him to kill his son. Hence Abraham is the founder of Christianism five centuries later, and Islamism, another six centuries after that.

Muhammad got advice about founding Islam from several Christian family members, including his cousin, a professional Christian monk, who told him he had obviously encountered the Archangel Gabriel in the desert. That’s how the whole Islam (“Submission“) thing got to roll…

Submission to whom? That is the question. Well, to the boss. Abraham was the ultimate sucker: to please his boss, he was ready to kill his son. The Abrahamists adulate him for that. Bosses, naturally, founded a religion around the idea.

Once a French catholic girl told me:”Christianism is the religion of love.” For her it was a fact, not a theory. She overlooked three things:

1) love has long existed, since there are brainy animals, and they breed. Thus, those who need Christianism to love may be mentally diseased.

2) Millions were killed in the name of Christianism. And not just by Christians roasting Muslim children for sustenance in the Middle East, or wadding, knee deep in blood in Jerusalem (both facts related by the best Christian eyewitnesses). No, millions were killed by Christians, in Europe, killing Christians who, they believe, did not believe correctly. By the way, I am (formally) a Christian, so, if I get killed by an Abrahamist, it will be more of the same: I did not believe correctly, according to my own co-religionists.

The civil war  in Syria is, first of all, a religious war between fanatics. Between Abrahamists. So far, 10,000 killed and counting. Assad’s dictatorship rests mostly on the (legitimate) fear for their lives some sectarians such as Christians and Alawites have of the (majority) Sunnis. When the Arabs invaded the area, it was entirely Christian. Then there were massacres, and oppression. Some of these massacres were between some particular Muslims (“Sunni”), and the partisans (“Shia”) of Ali (hence Alawites). This is what happened in the last 13 centuries.

3) In the Bible’s Old Testament, there are many calls to murder. And so it is, more discreetly in the New Testament. Here is Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, indeed, a prophet of Islam, ordering to kill non believers. [Actually, a more careful read shows Jesus was supposedly telling a bedtime story, from a “distant land“. Al Frommi called my attention to that apparently nullifying factor; however the murderous tendencies of Jesus are in plain, unambiguous display in other parts of the Gospels, see: “Christianity’s Jesus Is Evil“.]

Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

How loving is that?

When people say that Jesus is love, they, either, did not read the Bible, in which case they talk for sure about what they certainly don’t know, so they are liars. Or, then they think slaughtering those who do not believe the way they like is cool.

In the later case, Abrahamism, as most other mass superstitions, would be a mental disease induced to better exploit the naive in a systemic fashion by making them goose step behind the notion that their superiors even know how the universe works.

Organized superstition is organized stupidity. The way Abrahamism originally had it, it’s organized stupidity with evil intent.

Stupidity is a force against which the gods themselves contend in vain. It is also, in the case of Abrahamism, organized calls to murder. In the case of the Bible and the Qur’an, there are many clear appeals to murder (you can go the site below to read the quotes in the Qur’an:

I never got around listing the same for Christianity, from lack of time.

Some have followed these calls to murder, for centuries, killing millions. There are also appeals to peace, true. But that’s irrelevant, once you are dead. The truth is, Christianism was imposed by emperor Constantine, viewed by a saint by the catholic Orthodox, and who viewed himself as the “13th apostle”. Among others, he killed his nephew, ordered his son executed (without bothering to give a reason), and boiled his wife (no reason either).

If Nero had founded a religion, the same ones would be probably worshipping that. (Nero assassinated his mother, but she was a well known plotter, had basically reigned as an Augusta, and poisoned her husband Claudius. So she was not that innocent. Constantine, by killing the righteous for no good reason, was more Satanic, on the face of it, thus better qualified to found the world upside down, as the Cathars noticed.)

Now, predictably, some of the fanatics roll out people who made a scientific career who were themselves fanatics. Salam, a physics Nobel, was an example (some said he did not deserve his Nobel, BTW). He called the Qur’an “the most beautiful book that ever was“. I guess, complete with the call for the destruction of the unbelievers.

One who is often rolled out: — John Polkinghorne, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge.

That Christian fanatic famously wrote that:

“only in the media, and in the popular and polemical scientific writing, does there persist the myth of the light of pure scientific truth confronting the darkness of obscurantist religious error.
No progress will be made in the debate about religious belief unless participants are prepared to recognize that the issue of truth is as important to religion as it is to science.
People who tell you that ‘Science tells you everything you need to know about the world’ or ‘Science tells you that religion is all wrong’ or ‘Science tells you there is no God’, those people aren’t telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons.”

Against stupidity and criminality, the gods themselves contend in vain.

Science is about what is true. Science cannot yet prove when people are lying. Science says nothing, globally, about superstition. At least, so far. We have no proof, yet, that those who really believe that god tell them to kill somebody are mad. The secular law does not treat them as criminals, early enough.

The only adverse relationship between superstition and science is that the same form of critical intelligence that built science, if applied to superstition, shows that it is wrong.

For example: twins have different fates. Exit astrology.

For example: that hearsay from some analphabetic epileptic in the desert, 14 centuries ago, with a chip on his shoulder from his analphabetism, and living from his wife’s business, is enough for a proof of a theory of the universe stretches the imagination of all, but the most stupid.

For example: people go on their knees, and evoke Jesus. But there is no record of his life (at a time when there were plenty of records, and at a time when there were the record of the execution of several Jesus like characters, in the same region).

Enormous histories like that of the Jewish general Josephus, written 7 years after Saint Paul’s writings, evoke plenty of pseudo-prophets, but not Jesus. On the usual strict criterions of objective history, Jesus never existed.

And in the first Christian writings, Saint Paul writes, black on white, that he “never met Jesus in person, except inside his own head”…It’s a hint if there ever was one..

Whereas mass superstition is organized stupidity, science is organized intelligence.

But, to practice science, one does not need to be particularly intelligent. And to be famous in science, one can just be lucky, or, like Einstein, present a lot of other people’s work as one’s own.
So professor Polkinghorne can say whatever he wants. There were very bright people goose stepping murderously behind Hitler. Including several Nobel Prize Laureates (Lenard), and super smart young mathematicians (Teichmuller an example). Locally intelligent, globally stupid. Certainly abject and criminal.

And what was Nazism? Why was Nazism so keen to kill Jews, and how come it succeeded so well? Well, just look at the history of Christianism, and at the belts of the SS: “Goot Mit Uns!” God With US! was written there. The first century of imperial Christianism was little more than a massacre of everything, and everybody non Christian.

Nine years after the last SS was killed in combat for his fanatical cause, the U.S. Congress adopted the motto of the SS. Amen.


Patrice Ayme

No Law Up High, No Republic

December 22, 2011


Is Government Too Separated From The Authority That matters Most?


The planet we have is increasingly ravaged by several conflating crises. Burned by the carbonic acid created by excess carbon dioxyde absorbed by the oceans, young fishes die, go blind or become crazy, as bees do on land. The plancton, which fabricates the oxygen we need, is dissolving in the acid bath we used to call a sea.

But the fossil fuel polluters’ crimes are not even fiscally discouraged. Instead they are allowed to also spew lies, and persuade everybody that there will be plenty of air for ever (see the financing of the Tea party in the USA by the Koch brothers).

Meanwhile, the grip financial pirates have on the world has become obvious since 2008. After they seized the world economy, they asked for a ransom. And then again, And it was paid again. Now the serfs are asked to pay for distant banks by allowing themselves to become destitute (and this is happening even inside prosperous Germany, where old retirees discover they have to go back to work!)

Ever since the amazing financial crisis which grips the planet came to everybody’s attention in 2008, it has become obvious that a handful of men in suits take all the decisions with the money, and even the fate, of the public, allowing their class to thrive ever more, while, and because, the public deperishes.

The spirit of the law, if not its letter, has been denied.

I claim that this comes directly from the fact that the executive branch has eluded its responsibilities in implementing the spirit of the law. This is not just a question of the present leaders being plutophile  (lovers of Pluto, thus, wealth). Institutionally, the way executive powers are presently set-up, has less to do with wielding justice than it had under the Roman republic.

Western democracy, led by the English, American and French revolutions of the preceding centuries, consists of representative democracies with three branches of government: the legislative, the judiciary, and the executive. Legislation is established by a bicameral parliament of elected representatives (an inheritance from 6,500 years old Sumer).

In a purely parliamentary system, parliament also elects the executive. In the USA, France and Russia, a powerful president is elected directly (by a college of a few hundred special electors in the USA, by the people in France or Russia).

In any case, the judiciary is supposed to be separated from the executive. It is not clear what this exactly means: after all, most judges are nominated by the executive in the USA, and confirmed by the legislative. In other countries (e.g. France) the judiciary self nominates.

So the judiciary is a bit more independent in France: see the Dreyfus affair, where the independent judiciary forced the executive, the army and the anti-Judaists to eat crow. What I will contest here is not the independence of the judiciary, but its power: an ant may be independent, but it is easily crushed by a plutocrat.

In the USA no judge is powerful enough to judge the obvious, namely that the Federal reserve has no right to transfer arbitrary amounts of “monetary base” to the same old crooks, year after year (although a judge recently blocked an all too comfortable accord between the government and a major bank).

The difference in judicial independence between France and the USA shows: the popular Chirac, 12 year president, and Prime Minister before that, was condemned to two years in prison (suspended). For allowing City Hall finances as Paris mayor to provide supporters with somewhat fictitious jobs with real salaries. The offense is so puny, it would not really register on American radar.

The Roman republic was not organized this way. In Rome, the top executives, the two Consuls, were also viewed as the top judicial officers. Why so? It is very simple: the republic rested on the law.

No law, no republic. That had to make the law more important than anything else, including the army. Military power could be used if, and only if, it was legal. The law was the highest value, and thus the highest authorities took care of it. The founders of the Roman republic saw this clearly. Justice was not a department, it was the foundation.

The superpower of the Consuls was compensated by the shortness of their terms: just a year. But they could be re-elected. Gaius Marius was elected seven times Consul. Ex-Consuls were called proconsular officers. They were frequently nominated governors of provinces, and had many prerogatives, including being protected by lictors, special trained bodyguards carrying the axes of the fasces representing the union of the Populus around the power of the law.  

When there was war, it was made in the name of the law, under the eye of the law, as the Consuls often personally directed the operations of the main armies (many Roman Consuls died in combat, over a millennium).

Let’s remember that a mostly functional Roman republic lasted about 5 centuries. And arguably for much longer: after all, there were Consuls, and a Roman Senate, for more than 11 centuries! The founder of Francia, elected king and imperator Clovis, was also Roman Consul. Stretched to the max, a Roman state existed for 23 centuries (753 BCE to 1453 CE).

So where does the system we have presently come from? How come justice got separated from the executive? The break happened around the 13th century. In England, the French barons limited the power of the king through the Charter of Liberties (1100 CE) and the Magna Carta (1215 CE): their ancestors had joined William The Conqueror, a Duke, (that is a high commander in the Roman army of the Late Empire), to invade England, bringing with them most of the (French) army that invaded England. William had been recognized as first among equals, and the descendants of his acolytes intended not to forget that fact.

In France the break came later. Elizabeth de France, the ferocious intelligent and domineering daughter of Philippe IV Le Bel had become reigning queen of England (having visited an unspeakable end to the father of her four children, a Plantagenet, Edward II). When her brothers all died, she ought to have become (absolute) queen of France too. She, and her son, the war like Edward III, were blocked by lawyers (her father had already rested heavily on lawyers, in his hunt for popes and Templars: his closest executors were lawyers). This is how the 475 year long “100 years war” started.

So parliaments rose, ever higher, taking judicial power away from the executive. By the time of the French revolution, England, France and the Netherlands had long seen the judicial system become nearly completely autonomous of the executive. The Bastille was stormed in France to take away from the king the last shred of Roman like power the executive had on the implementation of the law.

After the English, American and French revolutions, too much of the new system has still more to do with the monarchies that preceded it, than with the Roman republican system. The chief executive was elected for longish terms, as if it were a monarch, and directly from the legislature. In other words, the parliament now elected the kings (and queens).

Here a comical aside. The USA elects its president as if he were the Roman emperor. The Imperium Romanum officially re-established by Charlemagne in 800 CE, made Holy under Barabarossa (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum) indeed elected its head from a college of “grand electors“. Thus in 2001, the People elected Gore president, but the plutophile Supreme Court selected Bush, instead. (Perhaps the point when, in the future, the USA will be seen has having given in to the Dark Side!)

The representative democracy, separation of powers system is viewed unanimously as fine and good. (Although Switzerland, the oldest democracy around, uses less representation, and more direct rule of the people.)

But the question remains: when a massive injustice arises, quickly and powerfully, who can handle it? Who is going to deliver maximum power in the name of the law defending the People? In other words, when executive power is needed to re-establish the law, how can the meek executives we now have, thoroughly checked and balanced, exert the required power? America’s Founding Fathers were obsessed by checks and balances, but, although Founding Father Washington became filthy rich (317 slaves in his Mount Vernon house!), the Founding Fathers had no idea what real plutocracy was like. The only plutocrats they knew were in England, and that was judged to be an ocean away.

President Andrew Jackson, one the fiercest generals ever, had a better idea. He hated the Rothschilds (great practitioners of fractional reserve banking, who considered themselves the real power behind the thrones in Europe). Jackson prevented their implantation in the USA. Next he disintegrated the Bank of the United states, and considered that, on his deathbed, to be his greatest achievement. If he was around, as chief executive, he would probably occupy Wall Street and Congress with twenty divisions, the next day.

There are still remnants of the old Roman power the Consuls had: Obama, executing Ben Laden, for example. That was well accepted, because that was overseas (and even below the sea).

Besides Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Roosevelt Teddy, and FDR, another one who took himself for a Roman consul, was, of course, Abraham Lincoln. But all those powers they grabbed, as needed, were not really the appanage of the presidency of the USA. The water was boiling, so the frog jumped out. Right now, the temperature is slowly rising, and normal powers, in normal circumstances are not enough to address the various problems. That is made plenty clear with the European banking crisis, the on-going financial crisis all over the world (even… in China!), and the ecological crisis (which the USA resolutely refuses to consider, thus undermining everybody).

In the present financial crisis, and in the ecological crisis at some point, overwhelming power will be needed. The only question is to know if the power will be military, and extraordinary, Lincoln style, or civilian and legal.

The spirit of the law has to be defended. For example against the financial derivative universe (which has no collateral, which means the unsuspecting public is the collateral; see lower down).

Too many checks and balances for the power of the People, and all you end with, is the power of the plutocracy.

The arch-example: Geithner and Bernanke directed untold trillions of dollars towards the banks which had caused the crisis, but asked for nothing in return. At that point a strong executive ought to have stepped in and declare that this fabulous gift violated the principle of the law, which is that the republic does not make gifts to private parties, without compensation. Especially when the beneficiaries are the perpetrators.

(The gifts had started under Paulson and Bush II, when the daemon Dimon was offered 30 billion dollars by the fed, collateralized by what he was buying (!!!) to help him swallow Bear-Sterns, the “Jamie deal“. Thus, Dimon is viewed as a genius. When the state gives in to the daemon, crepuscule of goodness!)

The financial crisis has been allowed to roll on because a general laxity about the law. The laxity is fed even by videogames.

The Red Cross pointed out that in the world’s most popular, most sold videogames, the Geneva Conventions rules were not just violated, but gamers get rewarded for violating them. A whole generation is being raised, feeling that one gains 50 points by shooting on ambulances. The Red Cross wants to change this. The Red Cross is right. The plutocrats and their corporations facing them, making billions from a bloody obsession with an alternate reality, will beg to differ. Not only they make a fortune from violating the most basic morality. But those daemons know quite well that the games they sell preach violations of the law, and also violations of civilization itself.

The acceptance of barbarity, as a way to get ahead, the plutocrats meekly hope, will bring more of the abject world in which, and by which, they thrive.

The mood of the times is important: pathetic plutocrats have gone around, requesting the respect they have come to expect. Meanwhile the law is symbolically stepped on. In the last three years, both the French and American presidents, both trained lawyers, violated in public, the very first thing about the law, namely the presumption of innocence (this is not a good example for the inchoating republics of Ukraine and Russia, where the law is obviously used to hunt the loyal opposition!)

The presumption of innocence says that even suspects are innocent until proven otherwise by a proper legal procedure. The presumption of innocence protects freedom, every body’s freedom, not just the freedom of suspects or criminals.

President Sarkozy claimed that former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin was “guilty”… although Villepin was later found completely innocent. President Obama, having maybe talked to Sarkozy too much, declared that soldier Bradley Manning, who is accused to have shown the truth to the public, had “broken the law”, as his trial started.

However, as commander in chief, Obama is the ultimate authority for the military tribunal which judges Manning. Constitutionally, he cannot pose as judge and accuser.

(Let’s note in passing that the Nazi government had given orders to not prosecute soldiers who had refused to obey orders, on the ground of violations of human rights. The Nazis were afraid that any official prosecution would shine a light on their violations of human rights, the Geneva Conventions, and German law! It is rather curious that the government of the USA is too arrogant to even be as wise as that…)

Methinks that it is not that Sarkozy and Obama have early Alzheimer, and forgot the very first thing about the law.

Instead I believe that they feel they live in times where anyone up high can get away with everything (witness the enormous transfers of wealth to the hyper rich under their reigns, transfers which threaten the very thrones on which they sit, but the establishments upon which they rule feel they could get away with it, and that there is no other way… Although Sarkozy may soon understand his error, especially when, after losing the next election, French judges start to investigate him in earnest…) 

Is a new age of connivance upon us?

Justice without the determination, or capability to impose it, is no justice.

We just had a beautiful example in Italy: Berlusconi, highest judicial officer of the Italian republic, if one looks at his job in the fullness of the authority inherited from Rome, as one should, refused to prosecute the Mafia energetically. He failed to arrest top mafiosi. Berlusconi was barely gone for a few days, replaced by Mario Monti, a former university president, that the head of the Camorra was arrested (after 15 years living in a bunker in Naples).

It cannot be otherwise according to the spirit of the French and American constitutions: the highest authorities of the state are, have to be, first of all, the highest judicial authorities. It is no accident that leech known as finance is so strong in London, where the Prime Minister has fewer powers (not being head of state, to start with; and according to Rothschild, circa 1820, not the real power in Britain.)

Such disregard for the basics, for the strict letter of the law, I suggest, comes precisely from a general mood which tramples the basics of republican civilization. Or then from having a plutocratic agenda. But to believe that, in the age of the Internet, plutocracy can win over democracy, is itself fiction of the highest order. As people get more and more informed, the transition to a military regime will have to take just a generation, and not five, as it did in Rome. 

To re-establish democracy fully, it will be primordial to realize that the highest authority of the republic is the law, or, more generally the spirit behind it: WE THE PEOPLE.

And the highest officials of the republic have to incarnate it. Maybe we want to have a second look at the institution of consul. Shorter terms of the higher officials (as in Switzerland), with more of a judicial mission may help in blocking the plutocrats. France is also going to imitate Switzerland and California, and make referenda possible, upon popular request. Switzerland has imposed on its banks twice the Basel III reserve requirements. And it is said that the Fed with impose Basel III to its financial daemons; that sounds technical, but, when the banks have not enough reserves, they find them among the unsuspecting public, and then the economy tanks. (It is amazing that not imposing Basel III on American banks was contemplated!)

The derivative markets use enormous leverage (say 25 trillion of net positions out of a notional 700 trillions total, at least that is what the industry claims, giving a leverage of about 30!) But the institutions using them have no collateral. Thus, in case of failure of one, the entire world financial system will come down (as exactly happened when AIG was 200 billion short in 2008). But nobody has had the authority mental, judiciary or political to stop the non sense.

How did Rome fall? The republic faded, Rome became increasingly a fascist empire where justice could not be visited on the mightiest. An intractable financial crisis developed. Its fundamental cause was the refusal of the plutocracy to pay taxes to the Roman state, while its agents were busy disempowering Rome and Italy (to avoid a revolt back to the republic). Since the plutocracy ruled, there was no way out.

Emperor Septimus Severus, a general of at least half Libyan ancestry born in Libya, knew the problem well, and hated the Senate (headquarters of the plutocracy). But he could not fight it.

A man, even an emperor, cannot fight a mood. Only philosophers can do so. But, by the time of Septimus Severus, it was too late for philosophy. All this, because it had become a self serving habit of the mighiest to not apply the law to those who had become too big to fail, too big to flail.

Ultimately, it was a new people’s philosophy, from Germania, which was to transmogrify the ruling mood, and the empire, three centuries later. In the new ruling mood, plutocracy and slavery were out. So the entire economy rested again on small farmers, just as it did in the early Roman republic (those new, northern farmers cultivated the rich heavy soil of the colder, wetter oceanic climes with the new technology of heavy steel ploughs pulled by oxen… or horse).

It would take a few centuries for Western civilization to reach higher than Rome ever did.

But we don’t have that kind of time, we don’t have centuries to change moods, and rebuild on a more sustainable basis: remember the methane bubbling in the arctic. And plutocracy is not that ingrained yet: it is nothing that a 90% tax on the very rich, Eisenhower style, cannot fix.

(In Rome, using the Trojan Horse of foreign wars of choice (around 146 BCE), the plutocracy was able to acquire private armies which were above the law. Right now, it is just short of that. Only its business practices are above the law, and the states have been captured to allow them. But a nasty war or two (say, starting with Iran) could fix the problem.)

Applying the law can change the world. As I said for years, mercury pollution from coal burning, kills tens of thousands of lives every year and causes birth defects, learning disabilities, and respiratory diseases among millions of survivors. And this in the USA alone (compare with the civilian nuclear industry, which did not kill one member of the public yet, in the USA: is the hysterical anti-nuclear crowd paid by fossil fuel polluters?)

Finally Obama, apparently remembering some of what he is supposed to do, has unleashed the EPA onto the coal burners. It remains, though, to do the same worldwide (worldwide carbon tax, worldwide mercury tax). And if the polluters in China can’t adapt fast enough, let’s tax them into extinction! Why should they be allowed to put mercury vapor in the air, and ruin our brains? Is not that a casus belli?

The mercury pollution is just a small example of the following. At this point justice, the republic, and the spirit of the law, is not just a matter of taste, but a matter of survival.


Patrice Ayme


October 5, 2010

(Pun intended.)



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


Patrice Ayme



SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism