Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category

Marx As Vituperating Racist, Proto-Nazi

May 6, 2018

… A little complement on my (mostly, but not fully) anti-Marx essay:”Marx, for terror and tyranny all along… (part of Marx’s 200th birthday celebrations). After I published it some accused me publicly on the Internet to be “anti-left” when my position is the exact opposite. Buried in my essay is the intellectual relationship of Marx with Hitler who wrote, and said, that Nazism was “half Marxist dogma“. Marx’s strident racism and violent anti-Russian attitude were mental preparations for what fascist Germany did in 1914 and then again under the Nazis. And, no, the excuse that everybody did it at the time doesn’t fly. 99% of the great thinkers of civilization were not racist, and the entire Greco-Roman empire was not racist at all (emperors came from Spain, Asia, Gaul, Arabia and Africa). Quite the opposite: the religion of the Late Greco-Roman empire, “Catholicism“, is Greek for “Universalism“.

Marxism is an ideology calling for dictatorship of something called the “proletariat”. The “proletarius” was well-known in Rome: it was the lowest part of the Plebs, the part whose only contribution to society was “proliferation”: from prolesoffspring, progeny“. The proletariat had babies, and owned nothing, but those babies. Thus the proletariat was exempt from taxes and military service.

The idea that those without even an education should exert dictatorship flies in the face of common sense: in the Roman Republic, where the office of dictator was used occasionally, during emergencies, only the best and brightest, not the lowest and least educated, could pretend to it. In practice, in “Marxist” countries, an hereditary aristocracy of the dictatorship evolved, the “apparatchik”, those of the apparatus, who knew, from birth, how to use said system, the apparatus, blossomed. The apparatchik had exclusive stores, exclusive rights (as they were the ones dictating). Such heirs are fully visible in China or (North) Korea, where they are multibillionaires. Notice that the idea that those without an education should dictate can be viewed as “Political Correctness“. (As we will see below, it all has to do with Marx’s self-hatred: Marx condemned… was he was. Marx a stridently racist anti-Jewish Jew got into anti-“capitalist”economics when his family’s capital, vineyards, suffered from Prussian policies… Paradoxes, paradoxes…)

 

Russian Communist supporters holding portraits of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin participate in a rally marking the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in downtown Moscow on November 7, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV. Funny how Marxists need gods.

The ideology was created by Karl Marx, borrowing the good bits from others, especially Proudhon. Marx—along with his collaborator and sponsor, the heir Friedrich Engels—wrote a pamphlet called “Manifesto of the Communist Party.”

In 1867, Marx wrote the first volume of “Das Kapital” from the British Library. The second and third volumes were published posthumously, edited by Engels. Neither Marx nor a fortiori Engels belong to the proletarius, by a very long shot: so why would they want dictatorship… when Marx spent lots of time screaming he was dictated upon?

Few people who call themselves Marxists have read “Das Kapital”, just as few people calling themselves Muslims have read unabridged version of the 83,000 words Qur’an. In both cases, the idea is apparently to make a show of believing in something absurd and offensive, to upset others, and use over them the dictatorship of insult to reason. If one did read Das Kapital, or Das Koran, one can see that people who call themselves Marxists, or Muslims, have little in common with those ideologies.

Marx and Engels were not always wrong. Those founders of so-called “scientific socialism”, which was neither, took positions on Islam most of the contemporary (pseudo-) left would reject as “Orientalist” and “Islamophobic”. Marx and Engels retrospectively supported the Franks of Charles Martel against the Arabs, and the defenders of Vienna against the Turks in 1529 and 1683. These Muslim empires threatened “European development”. It was necessary to save “European civilization”. In this context, Marx and Engels also approved of the medieval aristocracy who fought the invading Mongols at the battles of Legnica/Wahlstatt in 1241, and Klodzko,  in Poland, while draining the steppe invaders at the much larger Battle of Mohi in Hungary.

To contradict those who see Marx as their hero, here are a few historical tidbits they might find interesting. (One can read the 1979 book of Nathaniel Weyl, himself a former communist, “Karl Marx: Racist”.)

Marx and Engels had plenty of ideas, not just on dictatorship, but also on empire, race, war.

When the United States annexed California after the Mexican War, Marx sarcastically asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Engels explained: “In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.”

Marx’s was into self-hatred. This is clear in his attacks against his fellow socialist and Jew Ferdinand Lassalle (1824-64), a Breslau native who became the founder of German socialism, the SPD, as a mass movement. Lassalle’s achievements for socialism were much more considerable than Marx’s own. Lasalle secretly influenced Chancellor Bismarck, who installed the world’s first universal health care system Bismarck in 1878: …”[Lassalle] attracted me as an individual. He was one of the most intelligent and likable men I had ever come across”.

Marx’s vituperations stand in sharp contrast. Marx called Lassalle the ‘Jewish Nigger‘. Marx used the word “Neger” (although the word, meaning black was not, nor should be, pejorative…) Marx saw his fellow socialist as a Polish Jew and ‘The Jews of Poland are the dirtiest of all races.

Engels wrote to Marx, March 1856: “[Lassalle] is a real Jew from the Slav frontier and he has always been willing to exploit party affairs for private purposes. It is revolting to see how he is always trying to push his way into the aristocratic world. He is a greasy Jew disguised under brilliantine and flashy jewels.”  In attacking Lassalle’s Jewishness, and sneering at his syphilis, Marx expressed age-old anti-Judaism, virulent in Germany since the eleventh century.

Thus Marx wrote to Engels, 10 May 1861: ‘A propos Lasalle-Lazarus. Lepsius in his great work on Egypt has proved that the exodus of the Jews from Egypt was nothing but the history which Mantheto narrates of the expulsion of the “leprous people” from Egypt. At the head of these lepers was an Egyptian priest, Moses. Lazarus, the leper, is therefore the archetype of the Jew, and Lassalle is the typical Leper.‘ Or again, 30 July 1862: ‘It is now perfectly clear to me that, as the shape of his head and the growth of his hair indicates, he is descended from Negroes who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the father’s side was crossed with a nigger). This union of Jew and German on a Negro base was bound to produce an extraordinary hybrid.

Lassalle doesn’t look subsaharan African at all… It is reality itself which was taken for a ride, in Marx’s addled brain…

Ferdinand Lassalle in 1860, Schriftsteller, Politiker, Begründer des Allgemeinen Deutschen Arbeitervereins. Er war zeitlebens Vertreter des philosophischen Idealismus Hegelscher Prägung.
geb: 11.4.1825 in Breslau,
gest: 31.8.1864 in Genf (Geneva, Switzerland, where died three days after being hit in the abdomen in a duel he called for, as his beloved went back to the Prince she had been engaged with…)
Does that gentleman, founder of the socialist SPD, look like coming from Subsaharan Africa? To Karl Marx, he did!

Engels shared Marx’s delirious racism. In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Lafargue had “one-eighth or one-twelfth nigger blood.” Here notice the idea that US racists and Nazi racist pushed, the “one drop” rule. By contrast, in France, several famous individuals were up to 100% subsaharan Africans, and that was not noticed (one became a most famous general, his son, the famous writer Alexandre Dumas).

In a letter to Lafargue’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.

He was not joking…

Marx’s father, Heinrich, was the first in nearly a century to not become a rabbi and receive a secular education. Heinrich became a lawyer and lived a wealthy middle-class life, with his family owning Moselle vineyards. Although a descendant of rabbis on both sides of his lineage, Marx anti-Judaism was no passing vituperation. In his essay titled “On the Jewish Question”, published in 1844. Marx asked:

“What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.”

All too many otherwise good people got too drunk on that one… Hatred is great, yet, it is time to sober up.

***

Search the Diamonds in the Mud:

When his son asked Roman emperor Vespasian why he taxed urine, the latter famously replied:”Money doesn’t have a smell”. Well, ideas don’t have a smell either. So ideas can be grabbed wherever, and whoever they come from. What has a smell are systems of thoughts, and moods, mentalities.

Marxism, as a system of thoughts, stinks to high heavens. But that doesn’t mean Marx never had a good idea (though many of those he grabbed from others…)

For example, calling attention to Marx’s extravagant, quasi-criminogenic anti-Judaism is not to say Judaism shouldn’t be criticized. Far from it: on the face of it, Judaism is tribalism made divine (I will not tweet that one, at least not today…) Spinoza, a Jew, showed how a critique of Judaism reached radical and fruitful conclusions about the world. The French Enlightenment, while promoting Jews as individuals, struck hard against Judaism, Christianism, Islamism… And so do I (yet that doesn’t make me anti-Israel, as Israel has a good, multidimensional historical justification…)

Marx and Engels regarded capitalism and liberal democracy as historically progressive steps, compared to feudalism and royal absolutism. Only capitalism could create centralized nation-states with modern, industrial economies and hence lay the material basis for socialism, the next step in human history. For this reason, Marx and Engels supported “bourgeois” and democratic movements (such as the revolutions of 1848). However, as I pointed out “Marxist” style revolutions had happened before (especially the one which launched the coup of Octavian/Augustus… the dictator of Rome, a very much milder version of Stalin).

This is not all completely false. However, it suffers from a myopic vision of civilization. Civilization comes and goes, ebbs and flows, according to the vagaries of wars, invasions, ecology and plutocracy. It doesn’t go all one way. When the feudal system crystallized, in the Eleventh century, it did it the way it did from the Carolingian collapse which had followed the Carolingian renaissance which followed the Islamist invasions, which collapsed the Merovingian renaissance outlawing slavery, itself blossoming after vanquishing the non-Frankish savages, and mind killing terrorizing Catholicism.

In the end, by the year 1066 CE, civilization stood higher than Rome in some ways  (no slavery, more technology, more machines, more wind and water and tidal mills, better beans, better horses, hydraulic hammers…) and less well in others (constant wars of potentates against each others… As it was not clear who was the boss; and the European subcontinent was still blockaded and under siege from the Muslims).

Marx is so much on the right, or even Nazi, in so many ways that one can be cogent, right-wing, pro-Trump and view Marx as visionary in some ways… and be right! It’s complicated. However, unbounded admiration for Marx, and adoption of the Marx cult is also very simple, and completely erroneous. Much of the failure of the opposition to plutocracy originates just there: Marx made the left not just hateful, but so stupid, it cannot cogently act.

Indeed, much of the most determined part of the “left”, by embracing Marxism, thus the most delirious part of Marxism, embraced, however unwittingly, much of what constituted Nazism. Not a good idea. Nazism, tribalism gone mass murdering in a weird, yet neurohormonally addictive interpretation of the theory of evolution, could only fail, as open societies such as Nazism’s ultimate enemies, in particular the French Republic next door, were, and are intrinsically… superior (Nietzsche said as much, but not this way).

Some will say Marx was just the opposite… Well, look at what he wrote: if it walks like a duck, talk like a duck, flies like a duck, waddle like a duck, looks like a duck, and duck Adolf recognizes it as his own, should not it be called a duck?

Patrice Ayme

 

Advertisements

“Anti-Racist Racism” Is Racism

January 14, 2017

One of the fundamentals of (evil) Political Correctness has been that: “when we do it, it’s not evil, but righteous’. Unbeknownst to these criminally PC fools, evil men have always said that, when they did it, it was not evil.

The ideology of Négritude” (“Blackness”) appeared in France in 1931. Jean-Paul Sartre had plenty of time to contemplate it. In the 1950s, Sartre called Négritude an “anti-racist racism”.

“Anti-racist” here is an adjective, racism is the substantive. Substance versus adjunction. 

In the preceding essay, I observed that:

‘Aimé Césaire was from Martinique, not Africa. So he did not know that, in Africa, qualifying people by skin color is viewed as racism.’

Césaire was first of all a French intellectual posing as a rebel. This judicious observation of yours truly  ticked off François Luong. Luong wrote: @Tyranosopher An utterly ridiculous claim. & I’ll take 1 Aimé Césaire over 10^6 Patrice Aymé. The former made the world a better place.

Whereas, I suppose I am working hard to make it ever worse…

That of course was a gauntlet thrown. I am an African, talking in the name of the Africa which brought me up. Aimé Césaire was not an African, and he talked in the name of skin. Not just this, but he talked against colonization, namely civilization. Consider this:

.

Africa Enjoyed Slavery For 1200 Years After the Franks Made It Unlawful In Europe. Actually One Of The Argument For Imperial European Control ("Colonization" Without Colons) Of Africa, Was To Stop The Slavery & Cannibalism There. I don't Object To That Lofty Goal.

Africa Enjoyed Slavery For 1200 Years After the Franks Made It Unlawful In Europe. Actually One Of The Argument For Imperial European Control (“Colonization” Without Colons) Of Africa, Was To Stop The Slavery & Cannibalism There. I don’t Object To That Lofty Goal.

Analyze this: For Césaire’s (1913–2008), the concept of Négritude is historically derived from the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the slaves’ plight in the New World. In his own words, “Négritude is not a cephalic index, or plasma, or soma, but measured by the compass of suffering.”

In other words, Africa as pathos. Africa as a pain. Well, F you, Césaire and your followers. As an African, I stridently object. Africa is neither a pain nor a pathos, except in the eyes of deranged racists. Africa is rather a quickly changing hope.  Césaire’s blackness has to do with “blacks” as found in the new World… Who often have, in part, slave master ancestors (as FLOTUS Michelle Obama does; it was actually probably a love story between Irish owner and colored slave… don’t laugh.). Nothing to do with Africa.

Insinuating that Césaire was racist is not new: “Even then Communists would reproach me for speaking of the Negro problem— they called it my racism. But I would answer: Marx is alright, but we need to complete Marx. I felt that the emancipation of the Negro consisted of more than just a political emancipation.” [Discourse on Colonialism.]

In other words, “the Negro” is a child. The Negro child needs to be emancipated some more.

The argument can be made that making “blackness” as a noble goal, forged the way for the Nazis to make “aryanism” (“whiteness”?) as a noble goal too. This Césaire, who insisted very much after WWII that Hitler was not dead, could be viewed as a fellow traveller of Hitler. Thus, indeed, Hitler was not dead. Césaire angrily denounced “colonialism”, although he was a pure product of it, in more way than one.

Trump has campaigned against Political Correctness for a long time, and me for even longer. I have a total objection for not saying things as they are (except to a dying child, of course!)

Even Socrates practiced Political Correctness: he was deadly set against total democracy, but he refused to admit that he was just that, DEADLY set against democracy… If he had admitted to himself and others that he was deadly set against total democracy, Socrates could have had healthy debates. Instead, he went around like a sting ray, injecting venom which caused a torpor, as was pointed at the time.

Until Socrates was in front of a jury for his life: then he had to either show himself to be a coward, for all of society and posterity to contemplate, or he had to drink his own medicine. He famously did the later; but it may be viewed as an admission that he had to commit (assisted) suicide.

Some will say, some have said: anti-racist racism is OK. Right… Until one knows history well. Racists are generally loudly claiming to be anti-racist: or so they claim to others, and, often, to themselves.

For example the Nazis were out to protect (“German”) minorities from assault, or even holocausts (Eastern Europe was full of German Settlements, just as it was full of Jewish settlements, and the settlements of various Natives, let alone Gypsies). In India, the hyper racist, hyper violent upper crust (the upper castes) viewed itself as an endangered minority (of superior beings).

In Antique Greece, as all Feudal regimes, the best people (“Aristos”) viewed themselves as an endangered race (the Aristos looked racially different, be it in Japan or Europe; interestingly modern genetics revealed that the Japanese Aristos genetically mixed with their own slaves, the original Natives of Japan, hence a different, more “European” physical appearance).

There is good colonialism, there is bad colonialism. Most of humanity descend from colonialists, not just Césaire. The latter wrote a whole discourse on colonialism, influencing generations of parrots thereafter.

Suppose Eurasia were still in the Middle Ages. What would Africans be doing? Besides enslaving other Africans? Well, eating other Africans of course. It is still going on, from conflict zones, to expensive restaurants..

(Notice that I am not trying to apply indignantly degenerate Euro philosophy to robust African wisdom. The philosophical strength of Africa is precisely to contradict a lot of Euro-American received ideas. African barbarity has a wisdom that even American barbarity does not possess).

There is fake news

There is fake history

There is fake wisdom

There is fake knowledge

There are fake intellectuals

If we want hope that really work, we have first to learn to distinguish what’s real, from what is not so. Self-justifying racism is the paradigm of hell paved with good, self-glorifying intentions. As an Asian proverb has it, nothing worse than a tiger who thinks it is in the right.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

A Black Problem, Indeed

January 13, 2017

Defining people by the color of their skin, and, even worse, by the color that their skin does not have, is racism. Period. Take that one, and swallow it, it’s good medicine. “Niger” is Latin for “black”. For racist reasons, the word has been controversial. Yet, the situation is complex.

Consider Greek tragedy, during the greatest age of Athens, from space. What is tragedy about? Primarily, reason. Secondarily, the fate reason, or lack thereof, irresistibly brings forth. In turn, fate imprisons human beings in its icy grip. The solution is to educate the Furies, those “Ancient Children”.

Reason can, and should, be applied, not just to instruct children, but to words and the concepts attached to them.

I was brought, raised and educated, as a child, mostly in Africa, among Africans. Let me tell you something I knew, so extremely well, when I was six years old, that I never deviated from, be it only once, for decades thereafter. This ancient piece of wisdom was taught to me by my mom. She uttered it just once, as a warning, she did not have to do it twice:

Calling someone “black” in Africa, is perceived, rightly, as a RACIST insult: never do it. Call Africans, “Africans”. 

A Touareg Couple. The Blue People of the Desert. Don’t Call Them Black: They Would Think You Are A Lunatic, Ignorant, Offensive, Vicious Aggressor. And they are not Arabs, either... Touareg alphabet is more than twice older than Arabic alphabet...

A Touareg Couple. The Blue People of the Desert. Don’t Call Them Black: They Would Think You Are A Lunatic, Ignorant, Offensive, Vicious Aggressor. And they are not Arabs, either… Touareg alphabet is more than twice older than Arabic alphabet…

[The French called Touaregs “Les Hommes Bleus”, the blue men, as they protected themselves from the harsh desert heat, light, wind and sand with layers of blue cloth. They live in the middle of the world’s largest desert, the Sahara. They have been denied a country, so far. The desert was crisscrossed by traders, war parties and raiders, for millennia. And many came for slaves in Black Africa. However empires, such as the Almoravids, were also born there, ruling over 3,000 kilometers, all the way from Mali to Europe’s Al Andalus.]

Most Africans, indeed, are NOT “black”, but of various shades. Thus, if I were, say, beige, why would you call me “black”? I am so little to you that you don’t even look at me? Is calling me according to a color I don’t even have part of the general distortion of me you enjoy inflicting on me, and having me answer to?

Am I so insignificant to you, that you do not bother to find a proper qualifier for me, deeper than skin-deep? Or, worse of all, as many “blacks” are from the deepest forest, or are well-known to be viewed as such, are you trying to insinuate that, I too, are not from a culture worth mentioning?  

In a reply, Facebook DuJuan Ross observed that: “Malcolm X himself popularized the descriptive as a deliberate militating against White Supremacists resorting to it as a pejorative.”

Malcolm X had an interesting trajectory (including among various variants of Islam, one of which got him assassinated). His reddish hair inherited from his Scottish maternal grandfather brought him the nickname “Red”. Malcolm said: “I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.”

Malcolm X made his little reasoning that calling people of part African ancestry “black” and “negroes” . He was himself following Aimé Césaire and Leopold Sedar Senghor, world-famous writers and activists who made the same reasoning a generation prior. (My father was a friend of Senghor, a great writer, French MP and co-author of the French constitution and first president of Senegal.) The martiniquais poet and politician Aimé Césaire forged the word « négritude » Cesaire and Senghor used outright “negre”. “negritude” (negre being the French deformation of “niger”, namely black in Latin). Fine, I am all for it.

There is something correct about this, when addressing the culture and art of populations which are as black as black can be (say in parts of West Africa not long penetrated by Peuls). Indeed the art, there is delightfully obsessed by ultimate blackness. A painting where the dominant “color” is black can be eerily beautiful, and street artists in… Black Africa are experts at it. I am very attached to this art, tied to my childhood, and which have seen nowhere else. So one can use “black” where it is appropriate. What I am decrying is systematic, deliberate distortions of reality.

Aimé Césaire was from the Caribbean, not Africa. So it is only natural that he did not know that, in Africa, qualifying people by the color of their skin is frowned upon, and viewed, rightly, as racism. North Africans, Peuls, many East Africans, Ethiopians, Christian or not, and most enemies of the Zulus and other Bantus in South Africa, turn livid when one calls them black.

I find much of the work of Malcolm X deep and judicious. However, calling someone such as Obama, who is not any more “black” than 50 members of my own American family (I have seen them together) is not just ridiculous, it’s dishonest. Obama himself knows this very well, so why the double language? What are we selling, which require lies to be bought?

Let me repeat slowly: calling people by the color of their skin, and even more so when said color is imagined (as when someone beige is called “black”) is giving maximum importance to maximum superficiality. It’s not just racism, but an attack against reason.

But of course, it’s no accident. There is a meta-reason for it. When one celebrates attacks against reason in one area, one is then in the mood to make more attacks against in other areas. Thus one ends, deprived of reasons, nude and without defense when exploiters come to issue their orders. Hence the sorry state of affairs.

Ironically, the Obama presidency was a victim of the black problem. Having called Obama “the black president”, and viewing this superficial absurdity as a great success, most of Obama “supporters” did not support him at all, when and where he needed support and encouragement.

The failure of the Obama presidency is greatly entangled with the black problem of brandishing the black label as the end-all, be-all. Let’s stay away from all this obsession with skin color.

Reason is about finding out why people do what they do. There are always reasons. The Universe does not play with dice. Yes, I know Quantum Physics, in its present most accepted formulation, says the opposite. But that was in the last few decades, and evolution has been all about reason, in the last 600 million years, ever since there are brains, and they think.

So please learn to call black what’s black, and leave it at that. Obama was first an Hawaiian (who spent 4 years in Indonesia), brought and educated by white people, at Hawai’i most exclusive private school. Nothing black about any of that, and as any real African would tell you. 
Patrice Ayme’

PLUTOCRACY IS MASS MASTER CRIME

February 1, 2016

American Racism & Slavery Originated With The Rule of Greed. This Is Just A Particular Case Of Plutocracy:

Atrocious pictures on TV: suffering infants with microcephaly in Brazil, victim of Zika. Most of their heads are missing. Below those nearly inexistent skulls, are eyes full of pain. They experience paralysis… This calamity was avoidable, with enough fundamental research, early enough. The governance of this biosphere tottering under our blows, is cruising to the apocalypse. The Zika virus was detected 2 years ago in French Polynesia, and now it’s all over. It is carried by an omnipresent mosquito which has learned to live in water-friendly human garbage. There is no vaccine. The immune system reaction often provokes paralysis (from the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS))

The world is turning satanic. Pluto power, all over. This can be directly traced to the fact the worst are allowed to rule (directly, or through their teleprompter reading servants). The worst people (from the CIA, G. H. Bush, or KGB, V. Putin), the most glaringly corrupt (Clintons), the worst moods (the market, that is, greed, as an ubiquitous guide for what’s good), the worst lies (plutocrats are philanthropists), etc…

Some who support the plutocratic Clintons claim that electing a female will subdue an evil, sexism, which is as bad as plutocracy (Krugman). This is ill-informed, naive, unobservant, silly and erroneous in many ways. What is needed is the instructive perspective of history. First of all, there were many female rulers before. Even several “Muslim” countries elected female Prime Ministers (and those countries are still legally sexist). China, Rome, Russia, Britain, and especially France, had female rulers, at crucial points of their history.

Hatshepsut Was A Great Pharaoh. She Ruled From 1479 BCE To 1458 BCE. One Of Several Great Female Pharaohs. However, Just Being Female Does Not Make Someone Great. Some Female Rulers, From China, To France, To Yucatan, Were Nasty Civilization-Destroying Plutocrats

Hatshepsut Was A Great Pharaoh. She Ruled From 1479 BCE To 1458 BCE. One Of Several Great Female Pharaohs. However, Just Being Female Does Not Make Someone Great. Some Female Rulers, From China, To France, To Yucatan, Were Nasty Civilization-Destroying Plutocrats

[Hatshepsut, chief wife of Thutmose II, mother, when she came to rule, of one year old, Thutmose III, is generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs. Hatshepsut ruled as the fifth pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Let it be said in passing that the famous Nefertiti apparently ruled on her own right. We know exactly what she looked like, as we have many detailed pictures of her.]

Egypt, the first massive civilization, had female rulers since the First Dynasty, 5,000 years ago. Queen Meryt-Neith or Merytneith or Merneith First Dynasty (~3000 BC) was listed among other, and her tomb is with the tombs of other Pharaohs. She was the wife of Djet, and the Mother of Den. Some of these queens played major roles: one founded the Fifth Dynasty.

Racism, sexism, religious intolerance are mass moods (which can be partly legislated, as in some so-called “Muslim” countries). Plutocracy is something else: a political regime. By controlling, and ruling society, plutocracy turns it into its own image: the rule of evil. Here is an example:

THE PLUTOCRATIC TEMPTATION BROUGHT SLAVERY TO AMERICA:

Take the case of slavery: the Franks made slavery unlawful in their vast empire, which comprised Gaul and most of Germany, in 655 CE. The situation was made even clearer in 800 CE: the Franks proclaimed the  “RENOVATION” (“RENOVATIO”) of the Roman Empire. And Constantinople agreed (Charlemagne, Carlus Magnus found himself sole emperor of the… Roman empire!)

How was the empire “RENOVATED”? Well, the one and only difference with the Roman Empire just prior was… SLAVERY. The Roman empire had been renovated by outlawing slavery! This is what the Franks said, and it caused a virtuous circle, as fundamental technology went where the Roman emperors had forbidden to go (Roman emperors, as good plutocrats, naturally detested change, and the Will to Knowledge which fosters it).

Four centuries later, in 1066 CE the Franks, led by the Duke of Normandy, re-conquered Britannia (England to start with), and outlawed slavery there too.

The American colons re-invented slavery in New England, starting in 1620 CE. Those colons were richer, by far, than European peasants (as evidence and letters from Pilgrims, flaunting their riches, show).The colons’ motivation in re-establishing slavery was not survival, but greed. Tobacco agriculture expanded greatly, very soon after, thanks to the import of massive numbers of slaves from Africa. Some American states were 90% African slaves.

Jesus Christ also thought that money was the root of much evil. Jesus did not mention racism as an evil (simply because the Greco-Roman empire was not racist: some emperors came from Africa, and at least one, from Arabia). In the USA racism appeared to justify slavery: it was OK to enslaves Africans, because they were just apes, or halfway there. (Sexism evolved along similar lines, thousands of years before; sexism cannot be found in small human groups, because it would make them dysfunctional.)

Paul Krugman pretends that sexism and racism are independent from plutocracy. Krugman claims sexism and racism stand on their own. It may be true in a sense, but they both originated from plutocracy, historically speaking. In a way, this is a debate about what the word “Pluto” means. “Pluto” was the new word for “Hades”, god of hell, after “Hades” got such a bad reputation, no decent Greek would dare evoke Him.

Whether one should fight plutocracy, or just say that just being ruled by a woman would dispel evil, is a debate about how evil works.

Anybody who knows a bit of history knows that such a debate is stupid: the last ruler of imperial China was an empress who ruled decades, and made a bad situation way worse… The mother of Louis XIV, a ruling queen, prevented, by a five-year civil war, the rise of a Parliamentary Republic in France. She was a significant malefactor of historical proportion. She also made her son all the devil he could be. She taught him, by example, that nastiness should rule (that’s another way to say “plutocracy”). Sure enough: Louis XIV threw the Protestants out of France, after mass torturing them for decades (the jerk is still respected in France, because he did a few good things, go figure this masochism in a boudoir… Naturally, Louis XIV established slavery overseas…)

“Pluto” is the god of the underground, thus Pluto is the god of hell, and fire, but also the god of gold, silver, precious stones, riches. The modern usage keeps only in mind the latter part, but Jesus disagreed (and so do I). “Pluto” has many of the characteristics we see in today’s plutocracy: for example, he could make itself invisible (like Dark Money, invisible to tax authorities and gullible voters alike).

Money it ultimately power, and ultimate money corrupts ultimately. And ultimate corruption means the affected individual becomes satanic, or, using the root of the concept of satan, plutocratic. Yes, plutocratic means satanic, it’s as simple as that.

Slavery, racism, sexism, are all consequences of plutocracy. Plutocracy is the master cause. Periodically, plutocracy runs out of control, and takes over. At best, it’s stopped by revolution (Britain, France and the USA had revolutions, and the former two, several, starting in 360 CE!) At worst, plutocracy brings annihilation of a civilization (as happened to the Mayas, or the Baghdad Caliphate, destroyed by a Mongol-Christian coalition in the Thirteenth Century).

A world is led by devils is intrinsically evil. Time to get rid of the whole idea.

Patrice Ayme’

A Simple Request: That Legal Religions Do Not Call For Killing People

December 11, 2015

If The Romans Already Did It, Why Can’t We?

Indeed, the Romans outlawed any religion conducive to human sacrifice. Let’s heed their example. Each time someone preaches, in the name of god, dog, or the local camel messenger, to kill some category of people, let’s put them in jail for ten years. And if they keep on preaching there, makes that solitary confinement (hey, that’s what Sultan Saladin imposed in the Twelfth Century: I have the best advisers!)

We hear this, we hear that. Some people say we should not fear religions who want to kill us, or which want to kill entire categories of people we view as innocent. Out of respect. What? Respect for whom? The executioners? I have nothing against executioners, as long as they execute for good reasons.

We also hear that what is good for one, is bad for the other, and vice versa, so it all does not matter, everything is relative. Except, not everything is relative. Poincare’ named the “Principle of Relativity”, relativity of UNIFORM motion. Accelerated motion is something else entirely. It is not relative. Actually a twin accelerated close to light speed lives longer, because she is the one accelerating at some point. So physics does not say all is relative, far from it.

State of Islamists: Killing (Ethiopian) Christians, Just Because They Are Christians

State of Islamists: Killing (Ethiopian) Christians, Just Because They Are Christians

[Men straddling squirming men: cheap sexual thrill?]

Who is “we”? The Charter of the United Nations, in other words the Rights of Man and the Citizen. That, too, is not relative. The Rights of Man are anchored in human ethology, the Cult of Man.

I was watching a debate on German TV, brandishing approvingly considerations of Mr. Macron, the plutocratic French finance minister, claiming “Muslim violence” was related to poverty and exclusion.  I subscribe myself to this thesis, and have done so for ever. However, it’s getting to be so much yesterday.

Material poverty can be boosted by intellectual poverty. Ordering all of one’s life around “reciting” the same little book, makes for a very small brain.

Exclusion is no doubt facilitated by a literally religious urge, to kill one’s neighbors, and all sorts of them. I have provided with enough quotes to make it clear that so it is with the “Cult of Death’s” most sacred texts.

Here are quotes I did not use before, and found in the Hadith, the indispensable, loquacious companion to the all-too short Qur’an:

Muhammad Got His Critics Killed (Think Charlie Hebdo):

Hadith from Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’

Hadith from Ishaq 551: “Another victim was Huwayrith. He used to insult Muhammad in Mecca. Huwayrith was put to death by Ali.

Ishaq:597 “When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized and insulted him. The scared poets who were left, ran away in all directions.”

State of Islamists: Slicing Throats Of Egyptian Christians Just As Muhammad In The Hadith

State of Islamists: Slicing Throats Of Egyptian Christians Just As Muhammad In The Hadith

[Yes, gory again, and I don’t condone goriness; however those who avert their eyes, DO condone it, because they refuse their hearts to get agitated by horrors: that makes them anxious to live in good intelligence with horror. There again, Christians were assassinated just for being Christians who happened to be in Libya, a land which was Christian for six centuries, before being invaded by Islamists propelled by Muhammad’s Hadith and Qur’an; comment below the picture is a translation from the Islamist State; Egypt retaliated by bombing the Islamist State.]

Serious doctors and students of the Islamist Faith know that, interpreted textually, literally, as it is, the Faith is completely incompatible with civilization. For civilization to survive, this has to be understood in a timely manner. In a more timely manner than was understood with Christianism. (Which nearly destroyed civilization, especially around 400 CE.)

Muhammad Punished Well:

Ishaq 595 “The Apostle said, ‘Get him away from me and cut off his tongue.””

Ishaq:316 “Following Badr, Muhammad sent a number of raiders with orders to capture some of the Meccans and burn them alive.”

(A little horror is most persuasive!)

Muhammad Killed Refuseniks and Apostates:

Sunan Abu -Dawud,4390  “Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”

Ishaq:551: “The Messenger [Muhammad] ordered Miqyas’ assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”

Bukhari:V4B52N260: “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'”

Tabari VIII:143 ” He set out with fifteen men. He encountered a large force whom he summoned to Islam. They refused to respond so he killed all of them.”

Surprise Attacks on Villages Brings Booty and Captured Women:

Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer [Prayer of Fear] near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, ‘Allahu-Akbar!’ [Allah is Greatest] ‘ Then the inhabitants came out running on their roads. The Prophet had their men killed; their children and woman were taken as captives.”
The Prophet enjoyed 17 year old Safia as his share of booty.

Bukhari vol 3,Book46, No. 717: “Narrated Ibn Aun: The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.” (Reference: Waqqidi, Tabari)

So why have we become weaker morally than the Romans? The Romans of the Republic?

Because, meanwhile, lethally minded, apocalyptically longing Christianism passed by, and Islamism is its mentally retarded desert progeny (although Judaism was the other participant of this hellish union). Because also, more recently, plutocrats have realized their colleagues in Saudi Arabia and the like, were their natural allies and collaborators. Thus, the more severe Islamism, natural enemy of civilization, was favored. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, thought plutocrats, and they control the media, so they could make it so, and program the public for its own destruction.

Plutocrats control not just the media , but also the politicians, and, also, all those who passed, all too long, for the wisest philosophers the world could produce. And were nothing of the sort: celebrity philosophers (Sartre, Camus, “French Theorists” etc.) who, in the end, just preached the destruction of the civilization which harbor them, should be abhorred, rather than harbored.

Meanwhile, in Paris, at the CO2 conference, the possibility of limiting warming to 1.5 degree Centigrade was seriously considered.
To do so, though, one will have to touch all forms of transportation, including air transport, which emits 12% of transport CO2. However the COP 21 Paris conference excluded air transportation from the talks.

It’s the same problem as with the Cult of Death: why to make exceptions? Why to exclude the Cult of Death from the spirit of the law? Why to exclude air transportation from the spirit of the law? Should not the law apply to all equally?

If one is a plutocrat, or an obsequious servant of plutocrats, one knows the answer to this: of course not. The very fundamental principle of plutocracy is inequality. Pain and evil are made to be applied by the masters, and the low lives’ existence is justified only as the indispensable servants and recipients of pain and evil.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

Wilson A Racist; Exploding Seas

November 23, 2015

A quickie today, I have to go dive with the Manta Rays:

The Architect of USA Policy In The Twentieth Century Was A Frantic Racist Disguised As An Apostle Of Peace:

A scandal is surfacing at Princeton University, as the president and founder, Wilson, is found by the student body to be a racist. The official view on Wilson is that he was a saint, an apostle of peace, and the gentleman who, to his regret, had to intervene in World War One.

My vision is the exact opposite. I  have explained that Wilson, after he became president of the USA, and because he was a racist, encouraged the Kaiser and his top generals to attack the French Republic. So doing, Wilson invented the American policy of using fascist Germany to destroy the world, and, in particular the world order imposed by democratic European power.

During World War One, American trade, with the active collaboration of the Netherlands enabled Germany to keep on fighting (otherwise the Franco-British blockade would have forced it into surrender within 18 months).

It is good to see the student body, and even some of the administration of Princeton University, is rising a piece of the veil covering up American racism, and its far-fetching consequences…

***

How the USA explodes seas:

One far-fetched consequence has been that, as the USA was made by oil, the fossil fuel industry has had a tight grip on American policy. Just a few weeks ago the American Secretary of State was claiming the Paris Climate Conference would not be bidding. He was rebuffed by the French president (they are friends, and speak in French together as Kerry is bilingual). If COP 21 is not binding, seas will explode beyond the comfort level…

Vast mounts have just been found in shallow seas off Siberia, some 1,000 meters across. They are probably caused by global warming, which is much more pronounced up north.

From university of Tromso:

….these newly discovered subsea pingos may be quite recent. This lends support to another hypotheses, the one that states that mechanisms that form pingos on land and mechanisms that form mounds on the ocean floor are completely different.

“The subsea-pingo like formations are significantly larger than the ones on land. Gas leakage from one of the ocean floor pingos offshore Siberia shows a specific chemical signature that indicates modern generation of methane. We suggest that the mound formed more recently, moving material physically upwards.”

Dissociation of methane ice

On land pingos are mainly formed when the water freezes into an ice core under soil, because of the chilling temperatures of permafrost. However, subsea pingos, may be formed because of the thawing of relict subsea permafrost and dissociation of methane rich gas hydrates.

Gas hydrates are ice-like solids composed of among other things methane and water. They form and remain stable under a combination of low temperature and high pressure. In permafrost the temperatures are very low and gas hydrates are stable even under the low pressure, such as on shallow Arctic seas. Thawing of permafrost leads to temperature increases, which in turn leads to melting of gas hydrates, therefore, releasing the formerly trapped gas.

“ The methane creates the necessary force that pushes the remaining frozen sediment layers upward, forming mounds.” says Serov.

Quiet explosions beneath the Arctic shallow seas

Subsea pingos can potentially blow out, without massive attention, as was the case with the highly visible Yamal craters, but with massive expulsions of methane into the ocean. For petroleum companies these areas may pose a geohazard. Drilling a hole into one of these subsea pingos, can be not only expensive but also catastrophic. During a geotechnical drilling in the close by Pechora Sea, an industry vessel unknowingly drilled a hole into one of these mounds. It triggered a massive release of gas that almost sunk the vessel.

“We don´t know if the methane expelled from the subsea pingos reaches the atmosphere, but it is crucial that we observe and understand these processes better, especially in shallow areas, where the distance between the ocean floor and the atmosphere is short.” says Serov.

Reference: “Methane release from pingo-like features across the South Kara Sea shelf, an area of thawing offshore permafrost”,  Journal of Geophysical Research.

Yes, the situation is serious. Even more serious than when American racist were supporting, enabling, instigating German racists, a century ago. Let no one say it was not clear. The racists failed, in their attempt to impose their order worldwide. However, the destruction of the biosphere, once it has gone too far, will be self-feeding. That’s what the tipping points are all about.

Patrice Ayme’

No Reconciliation Without Better Truth

April 30, 2015

Can we have true peace without truth about the conflict it is supposed to put an end to?

No.

An excellent example is World War One. It caused World War Two, because the war did not expose the truth. Instead the lousy peace of 1919 nurtured bigger lies, and tolerance for horrendous war crimes. On the German side. The mistake was not renewed in 1945. In 1945, truth was allowed to crush a lot of (German) lies. (Lies made in the USA, or UK, were allowed to prosper, though…)

On August 1, 1914, the fascist German dictatorship headed by the so-called “Kaiser” Wilhelm II, had attacked, by surprise, the world in general, and the French Republic in particular (knowing full well Britain was going to declare war, but hoping to crush France before Britain could raise an army, and before Russia against which it had declared war to, became a problem).

In 1919, the Peace Conference in Paris brought no prosecution for the so-called “Rape of Belgium” (it was worse than rape, as it involved, well documented examples of the most atrocious crimes, such as deliberately Prussian troops killing Belgium toddlers, after an immensely costly counter-attack of the French army, which had strangely infuriated the Teutonic invaders).

After attacking France, Luxembourg and Belgium, the German empire proceeded to deploy a whole panoply of war crimes (the Allies answered in kind for gas attacks, but only for gas attacks: the first gas killed thousands of French troops and would have caused a hole in the front, had the Germans been more ready for it).

This lack of prosecution for German war crimes was not just a lack of prosecution of criminals, but also a lack of pursuit of truth.

All what German military personnel retained from the non-prosecution of their horrendous crimes, starting with war of aggression, was that the Allies did not mind war crimes. Adolf Hitler himself wrote that the Armenian genocide had been well accepted, and that the will of democracies and Christians was too weak to do anything for this sort of things.

***

One of Gandhi’s Errors:

Most of the following quote is entirely correct. Yet it is poisoned with an insidious error. Contrarily to what Gandhi thought, the truth is not about “You” always. The truth is not just about “being you“. All sorts of fanatics were very much about being themselves all too much, throughout history. Sometimes, being “You” is a disease. And a contagious, lethal one.

Gandhi Was Confused: “Being You” & Being Correct Are Not The Same.  Yesterday's You Is Not Necessarily Tomorrow's Truth

Gandhi Was Confused: “Being You” & Being Correct Are Not The Same. Yesterday’s You Is Not Necessarily Tomorrow’s Truth

***

Truth & Reconciliation Commission Saved South Africa:

Mandela’s stroke of genius was to enable the Truth & Reconciliation Commission. Truth & Reconciliation allowed South Africa to defuse great racial exploitation and its attending hatred, and the potential for terrible vengeance. (Contemplate Rwanda, or Shri Lanka for a different approach: terrible war and crushing victory.)

How did truth do it in South Africa? How does truth reduce aversion?

Whenever truth is revealed, and comes to rule, minds are changed. However changing brains requires energy, thus effort, pain. And any system of truth is related to a socio-economic order, a hierarchy. New and improved truth threatens existing hierarchies. They often resist, using whatever it takes. Thus the rule of new and improved truth often brings blood, sweat, and tears.

Thus we see that truth can (momentarily) augment aversion, emotion, even passion. So how can it improve matters? By changing “You”.

Some specialists have claimed that a terrible civil war such as seen in Cambodia (superficially caused by a sort of left wing fascism), was facilitated by a (Buddhist inspired) aversion to truth.

Therefore any mentality which privileges aversion to aversion above anything else, will see no reconciliation with truth. Searching for better truth is a war against one’s own past and present perception of reality.

However, if one is not reconciled with truth, one keeps strong aversions inspired by past tribalism, something antagonistic to a globalized world.

The truth is that racism, the aversion for people of different color or origin, is not just unjustified, but a source of harm.

In the case of South Africa, the USA, people had to learn that truth. Forcefully. And fast. How does one learn the truth? By being exposed to the truth. Generally people who have done something wrong, or who are wrong, have a strong aversion to truth, as it will expose them to loss of privilege, or punition.

The Truth & Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, removed the element of punishment, and thus the main reason for NOT telling the truth. So the truth blossomed.

Truth Saved Germany After 1945:

When Germany got denazified after May 1945, a similar process was engaged (this time by an exterior agent, the occupying Allies). The Germans themselves, in the following decades, learned to embrace the process of finding the truth about Nazism.

I am glad that, in an exchange in Scientia Salon, “SocratesGadfly” found me “not all wrong about Gandhi“. However he cautioned that “even if these gentlemen, Jesus, MLK, etc., weren’t perfect, they still stood out above the general crowd, and there’s still things to learn from them.”

What about things NOT to learn from them? Although I have no complaint about Martin Luther King. Jesus, though, apparently willing to teach violence for no good reason, has also things to teach us NOT to imitate.

Nowadays, at least 99% of people in the West do not think that killing people just because they are not Christian is justified, so we have got out of the Jesus trance. However, in the Middle Ages, the (“Christian”) establishment thought “heresy” (“exerting a choice”) was worthy of the death penalty.

What I reproach to Gandhi was to view the minor problem (getting the British exploitation of India to stop) to be major, whereas obviously the major problem was the 1,000 war, inside India, with Islam.

Confusing a major problem, and hiding it behind, a minor one, is a primordial cause of aversion. That Gandhi and his followers may only understand when nukes start exploding over South Asia.

In general, as the quote from Gandhi above shows, Gandhi failed to realize that truth starts, first as an effort against oneself. Finding new truth is never about protecting one’s old self.

Patrice Ayme’

DeKanting Philosophy:

October 21, 2014

Writing this essay made me sad. I had come across a group of self-assured philosophers, singing the praises of Kant. That was a moment of solitude. Sheep praising the wolf. When I brought up objections, pointing at the enormous connection between Kant and Nazism, I was haughtily told “We, in philosophy, do not judge thinkers on one sentence”.

This depicts how followers of Kant behaved in Nazi occupied Europe:

Dog Philosophy: Obey, Always To Obey The Mighty. Confucius, To Kant

Dog Philosophy: Obey, Always To Obey The Mighty. Confucius, To Kant

One Sentence, One Idea Can Move The World, And Not For The Best:

In the Twelfth Century, Saint Bernard (de Clairvaux; Abelard’s, and humanity’s, enemy) was asked how he, the saintliest and most influential Christian (he told Pope Urban II what to do), could defend homicide.

Saint Bernard haughtily replied: ”It is not homicide, but malecide, the killing of evil.” Bernard, one of the known universe’ most evil men, then launched the Second Crusade, the Cistercian order, the Knights Templars, the Inquisition, and the killing of millions, for centuries to come.

People who are viewed as philosophers, by a large following, have much more influence than is generally attributed to them.

Some are anti-philosophers, those who give guidance, honor and cover to the satanic minds who grab power and lead civilization to the abyss, driven only by the greedy instinct of the self-destructive predator.

Locke helped slavery. Rousseau, Kant, Herder etched in the stone of (pseudo) philosophy the erroneous systems of moods and thoughts which brought Nazism. Yet, they still have lots of cognitively impaired followers. Truly these guys are not philosophers, but plutocratic puppets. That makes them all the more dangerous.

How does one subjugate people? By making them feel wrong. Then it is easy to make them think wrong. In the end they believe it is smart to engage in whatever will and up oppressing, or even, could destroy them.

In the philosophy of the predator, destruction, whether means, or end, is an intrinsic good.

The archetype modern example here is Prussia, and the fascist, racist, anti-Judaic Nazi Germany it ended up creating… bringing the annihilation of Prussia.

The Germans, under the influence of a triumphing Prussia in the Eighteen, and Nineteenth Centuries Century, were led to believe it was smart to dislike, despise, hate, oppress, subjugate, exploit, dehumanize, Poles, Slavs and Jews. Superficially, it worked. Until September 10, 1914, when the all devouring Frankenstein of Prussian racial fascism had to beat a hasty retreat on the battlefield.

(Indeed, in parallel, and to be able to enforce all this oppression, subjugation, contempt, dehumanization, maximal force, that is, military force, had to be used. Thus, in Prussia and its admirers, militarism was inseparable with racism. Prussia had an army comparable in size to France, in the Seventeenth Century, with a tenth of the population. This militarization paid off handsomely: after coming close to total annihilation, under the gay aggressor Frederick II, Prussia grabbed immensely rich Silesia, its mines and industry, from Austria.)

Instead Of Reading Hitler, Read Kant, It Does Just As Well:

Thus a mood of exploitative racism and hungry military aggression was created by Prussia’s masters. All they needed were parrots to sing their praises. And they were many, the most prominent of these birds repeating songs of evil was Kant. Now for some comic relief. It turns out that Kant is still much admired, 70 years after his followers exterminated tens of millions of innocent civilians (they wanted to do more, but they were rudely interrupted by carpet bombing).

How was the mood created? In no small part by making people admire a pseudo-philosopher, Kant. Kant was racist, militarist, mechanical. A perfect philosopher for a racist militaristic regime.

“The reason a people has a duty to put up with even what is held to be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority is that its resistance to the highest legislator can never be regarded as other than contrary to law, and indeed as abolishing the entire legal constitution.” –Kant

In other words: dictators (=”highest legislators”) rule, disobeying them is immoral. That could only please Kant’s paymaster, the hereditary dictator of Prussia. Remark: This, that resisting the dictator is immoral, nothing new: I call that the Qur’an Fascist Principle (Sura IV, Verse 59).

“O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.

This is the essence of Hitler’s Fuhrer Prinzip. Kant was just a guy who heard about the Qur’an. This makes Kant vastly inferior to Voltaire. Voltaire read the Qur’an, and dragged the emperor of Mecca, Muhammad his name, it in the mud, to the point that the Politically Correct censored him, in the Twenty-First Century (!) Voltaire was right, so he gets censored, Kant is a Nazi, so he gets lauded. In a world where human values are inverted, a plutocratic world, in other words, this all makes sense.

Not only Kant was a fanatical Jihadist of the worst type, but Kant was a racist, and could be said to have invented the (false) theory of scientific racism. Sometimes the idiocy gets even funny: Kant thinks Africans smell bad. But it’s all scientific. Says the pseudo-philosopher:

“We know now, for example, that human blood turns black (as is to be seen in blood coagulum) …. Now the strong body odor of the Negroes, not be avoided by any degree of cleanliness, gives reason to suppose that their skin absorbs a very large amount of phlogiston from the blood, and that nature must so have designed this skin that in them the blood can dephlogisticate …”

Negroes are of course born idiots, and in this Kant follows another of the Prussiano-Anglo-Saxon pantheon of evil philosophy, Hume:

“The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents... So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color.” -Kant

Kant is the first author of no racial mixing (later implemented by the Nazis). A new concept in Europe:

The mingling of stocks (due to great conquests), little by little erodes the character and it is not good for the human race in spite of any so-called philanthropy.”

For comparison, Rome had African (Libya), and Arab emperors (or “Augusta”). Rome happily mixed all races.

That racist principle was used by Kant with lots of direct impact. The Spanish Crown was encouraging a policy of interbreeding and had ordered the Mexican governor to comply. The governor had, however, opposed the order. Kant encouraged him (in contradiction to making obedience the highest principle; Kant acted as if racism was an even higher principle than obedience). In a letter to the governor of Mexico, Kant wrote:

“[Of the idea that] nature would develop new and better races of produce them through the commingling of two races there is little ground for hope in as much as nature has long since exhausted the forms appropriate to soil and climate, whilst cross-breeding (for example of the American with the European or of these with the Negro) has debased the good without raising proportionately the level of the worse — hence the governor of Mexico wisely rejected the order of the Spanish Court to encourage interbreeding.”

Heil Kant!

Kant’s account of race also includes the superiority of the white race and that the others will become extinct. For details, see Wulf D. Hund’s “The Racisms of Immanuel Kant,” a book which begins and ends with this quote from Kant:

“All races will become exterminated … except for the whites.”

Kant’s insults against Jews are too numerous to count. The Jews are by nature “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.” Nicht so klar? Here it is, for the brin impaired. Kant: “THE EUTHANASIA OF JUDAISM IS THE PURE MORAL RELIGION.”

Johann Herder (1744-1803) quoted Kant’s lectures on practical philosophy: “Every coward is a liar; Jews, for example, not only in business, but also in common life.”… Nazis made a “hideous misinterpretation of Kant”? Or is it that some people are just hideous stupid?

So why is Kant still popular? Adolf Eichmann, on trial in Jerusalem, found the explanation:

“Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think.”

In other words, Kant is the perfect philosopher for weak-willed idiots. All the more as he invented a weird, pseudoscientific jargon which appeals to those who find too difficult to learn true science, the uneducated and unintelligent. Hence said jargon became wildly popular with philosophically inclined half-wits.

Tolerating Kant, is tolerating Nazism. Adulating Kant, is adulating the essence of Nazism. Time to get acquainted with those facts.

In other news, one of the world’s most powerful men died when his jet got flipped by a snow plough. In Moscow. He had just been plotting with one of the world’s dictators. Interesting how plutocrats live on the edge. (More on this later.)

Indeed, plutocrats do not have much too fear, besides snow storms, as long as those who view themselves as “philosophers” drink the cool Kant aid.

Patrice Ayme’