Archive for the ‘Systems Of Mind’ Category

How And Why The Rebellion In France Is Depicted As Nasty And Venomous, By Its Enemy, Global Plutocracy

December 13, 2018

“GILETS JAUNES”: CARE AND EMERGENCY (France). “YELLOW JACKETS”: CLEVER, VENOMOUS INSECTS (Global Plutocratic Media).

The rebels  in France call themselves “gilets jaunes”. A “gilet jaune” is the sort of reflecting yellow vest used by personnel rescuing or repairing, and is also worn, in France, by automobilists in distress (it’s mandatory to have one in each car in France). So the feeling conveyed by “gilet jaune” in France, and in French, is care, distress, accident, rescue.

Amusingly, “gilet jaune” got mistranslated in English as “yellow jacket”, true on the face of it, but also the common descriptive of wasps. So the feeling conveyed when considering “gilet jaune” in English is that of a venomous nuisance potentially deadly (by 12/13/18, in 4 weeks of the rebellion, 6 have been killed, typically in collision).

The symbolism of gilet jaune is about care and love, the symbolism of yellow jackets is about venom and hatred.

A revolution led by those who usually never rebel: elder, lower middle class citizens with jobs… and senior citizens who had voted for the traitor.

Amusing to call “gilet jaunes” “yellow jackets”? Not only: also viciously underhanded. English speaking media plutocracy wants to emotionally paint the “gilet jaunes” as nasty (‘emergency jackets’ would have been more correct and reflective of the intended meaning). Why the hostility?

Do I need to ask? Global plutocracy wants slaves everywhere. A big country with an attitude like France, where We The People has not realize it should shut up and work ever harder, for ever less, is a major problem. So such a rebellious country needs to be completely unpowered. Here comes Macron, thereafter to be named according to the way he acted, Manu I, elected king of France. Manu I was central to this (although he is probably not aware of what he is exactly doing; I give him that). Manu I was brought to the finance and economy ministry to do this, unpowering France (Manu, a merger banker, replaced the social-nationalist Montebourg, a lawyer). There Manu didn’t disappoint the global financial establishment which had sent him, and he became the enabler of global plutocracy, in France.

The violence was not started by the rebels, but by the traitors who lead France in the name of global plutocracy.

Well, Manu I, the elected French dictator, was well on his way to destroy the French social model, great fear of the global plutocracy… When he was savagely interrupted by those “yellow jackets”. In the USA, starting during the last years in care of Obama, the social decomposition was so deep, that life expectancy started to go down. The controlling class was all for it, and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement died innocuously. 

Destroying the French social model is a must for the global plutocracy. Should social models survive in France or the USA, historically the two leading republics, it’s a terrible example for the rest of the world.

Trump, although he said he would do so, is not taxing the GAFAM much… For US leaders, taxing the GAFAM is taxing a US world superiority tool. It’s taxing a US comparative advantage. No wonder there is no motivation to do so. Trump is forced to be nice to Bezos, head of Amazon, because Trump is a US nationalist, and US nationalism has no weapon more formidable than Amazon. 

However France, as a nation, gets no advantage from being submitted to the GAFAM: it’s the opposite, France gets a comparative disadvantage. As French engineering built, industrially the first transistors, the first CPU and the first personal computer (in two ways, as Pascal did so already in the 17th Century!), France is perfectly capable of fabricating, inside France,, everything that the GAFAM does. France is still capable (but maybe for not much longer… if things keep on heading where they are…) But France doesn’t anymore have the will to be at the forefront of technological progress. Or at least its leaders don’t. 

Why? Because the elite has been sold on the global plutocracy dream, an attempt to build a new world “aristocracy”, centered around said “elite”. Thus Manu I, elected king of France, burnished his credentials relative to the global plutocracy, prior to his election, when he gave Alstom, a unique heavy industry company in France, to its US competitor, General Electric. General Electric used US public money (previously given by Obama) to “buy” Alstom: the US generates public money at will, whereas France doesn’t anymore (thanks to the EU plutocratic system).   

When the US owns the major French heavy industry, that can be dismantled, weakening French power, hence the French social model, by as much. Now the Manu’s government minsters go around saying France can’t afford Chinese made solar panels… Why not French made? What happened to import taxes on strategic materials? Why not 25% importation tax, as the USA is doing?

Because it would reinforce France, hence her social model, hence be a violence against global plutocracy, the unsaid emotions looming in the backgrounds of the souls of our corrupt “leaders”?

Weakening the French social model goes with calling French rebels nasty names, such as “yellow jackets”. Thus it makes the rebellion in France an object of fear and spite. Emotionally speaking, that is, at the deepest logical level.

Well, let’s embrace the notion. You want us nasty? Let’s welcome the notion. Revolutions are there to kill old worlds, old establishments, old emotions. Yellow jackets can kill, indeed. What needs to be killed, is the social model proposed to us by global plutocracy: slaves everywhere, plutocrats to the stars…

Patrice Ayme.   

Michel Serres, Or How Stanford’s Pet Led To Insurrection In France

December 2, 2018

HOW FRENCH “INTELLECTUALS” FOSTERED THE GLOBAL MESS IN FRANCE, WORLD; a broadside against Serres, Michel… And other temples of meekness adulated to the point of brainlessness.

Top thinkers are the most important leaders. Official thinkers lead according to what those in power want, unofficial thinkers lead, ultimately. We are in a world where leadership needs to change in all ways, and right away. Or the world, not just the Champs Elysees, is going to explode. So what the top thinkers think matters more than ever: one can see that the attempt of leading France with a Rothschild banker is not working too well.

Unfortunately honored thinkers are generally rotten to the core, as we will show with the unfortunate Michel Serres below. Make no mistake: Serres is a nice guy, I would enjoy talking to him (but not necessarily as much as the local plumber, as I just did). People such as Serres

For example, Aristotle was, very quickly, much more important than his pupil, Alexander the Great. The executor of Aristotle’s will, Antipater, the most senior of the close-knit group which led Macedonia, made Athens into a plutocracy… something that Alexander had not dared to do. Why was Antipater such a monster? Because Aristotle had persuaded him that monarchy was the best political system (especially when Antipater himself, was the king!) Aristotle destroyed democracy. This is why Aristotle got revered by the Christian-plutocratic leaders, most of the time, and became official thought, to be believed under the penalty of death if not.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/aristotle-destroyed-democracy/

The result of too much meek, plutophile thinking in France, from all these useless philosophers, among them, Michel Serres. Arc de Triomphe in the smoke behind. A real triumph for France under the leadership of Banque Rothschild.

Another example of intellectual leadership, one of many: one talks of Nero, initially a nice, poetic boy. Starting at age eleven, though, the “stoic” philosopher Seneca became his tutor. Many admire Seneca to this day (especially professional philosophers hoping to make a buck from Seneca’s “stoicism”). Right, Seneca wrote many nice ideas (most of them fairly obvious, hence seductive to the simple ones). Yet, where it really mattered, he was the worst (Seneca’s justifying discourses for the assassination of emperor Claudius, Nero’s adoptive father, and empress Agrippina, Nero’s mother, are among the worst things ever written… and I include in this the worst of the Bible…)   

Saint Louis wrote, and was viewed as an intellectual leader. So was Luther. Both hated Jews, to a point even Hitler never dare to express. Saint Louis and Luther gave birth to the mentality which blossomed with the Holocaust of the Jews (and the holocaust of even more of others…)

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/luther-hitler-unelected/

***

Michel Serres, or when the naive masses are taught their errors are the way to go:

Technical, but worth noticing: the extremely honored and well-connected French philosopher Michel Serres, one of France’s most prominent dictators of PC ideas, professor at Stanford since 84, “teaches” exactly what the powers that be, want to hear: nothing original, but for spicy details… He reminds me of Michelle Obama getting paid 60 million dollars for relating that incredible exploit, when she prepared herself a peanut sandwich. Imagine, if you can, a goddess, so much above us all, preparing herself a sandwich!

For example Michel Serres teaches what everybody knows: that “Copernicus and Galileo were the first to postulate” that the Earth turned around the Sun…. “First to postulate?” Where has he been? Something that everybody knows, and is completely false. It’s important to understand that people were led to believe that one could not doubt that the Sun rotated around the Earth… although top thinkers had good reasons to believe otherwise… for 18 centuries before Copernic. More astronomy was known long ago than is usually suspected. Even Muhammad told his followers that the eclipse which happened when his 2-year-old son Ibrahim died, was happenstance: moon and sun moved on their own. 

William, Duke of Normandy, conqueror of England, himself mentioned it was a possibility that Earth turned around the Sun (Willam was in touch and protecting, some of the greatest intellectuals, worldwide, who happened, not coincidentally, to live in his backyard). Buridan (15C) went much further, discovering the first two laws of mechanics later attributed to the Englishman Newton, etc.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/momentum-force-inertia-middle-ages-buridan/

Another irony: it’s from the work of Pytheas of Marseilles who measured the Earth (using non-Euclidean geometry!)… More than 23 centuries ago. Then, using that and shadows of earth on the Moon, the distance Earth-Moon was computed, and from there, the minimal distance of the Sun. Then it should have become obvious that the huge thing didn’t turn around the tiny thing at an immense speed, whereas the smallest thing (the Moon) took a month to turn around the Earth…  Serres may have never heard of Pytheas (although he was in the Navy).

***

Why heliocentrism was defeated for so long: because hypercriticism had to be defeated:

But the meta strategy the powers that be didn’t want, don’t want to be taught, was, is, hyper critical thinking. The heliocentric theory was irresistible… if, and only if, the strategy of hypercriticism was deployed… The same one which would bring the exploitative elite down. Thus the failure of considering heliocentrism was the failure of hypercriticism, and thus the safety of plutocracy.

Thus, when finally heliocentrism succeeded (in spite of the Church putting all of Buridan’s works at the index in 1479 CE), the catholic Church centered society exploded.

Serres teaches that nothing of the sort happened: heliocentrism was not suppressed by fascists regimes and their little pseudo-intellectuals. Couldn’t have been: Michel Serres, following closely the Catholic Inquisition, pretends that heliocentrism was not suggested before Copernicus…

***

To Control People Best, Control Their Thinking:

Also Michel Serres teaches that the Englishman Darwin “discovered” evolution…. As if that Englishman was the first (Darwin was the first to declare he was not the first)! Never mind Anaximander, 24 centuries earlier (the Greek philosopher declared we were descending from fishes…. he probably didn’t make it up: Greek scientists got the idea first, no doubt). So Serres celebrates Anglo-Saxon science, comforting the world into its feeling that dominant Anglo-Saxon thought is superior in the most important ways… Serres achieves this, by focusing only upon Darwin as “the”, the one and only

Whereas, in truth a number of famous Frenchmen, including Lamarck (epigenetics!) and Cuvier (catastrophism!) did it, two generations prior. And Lamarck and Cuvier provided in the process new explanations cogent today (the selection, natural or artificial had been well-known to the Ancient Greeks, who used it to evolve better breeds, sold all over… and was something invented to make herding possible, many thousand years ago…)

So what is Serres, supposedly a history of science specialist, up to, proffering nonsense common to the basest of them all? Teaching the superiority of the (received) view of the universe, the way Stanford University and its ilk want it to be taught. Hey, Serres gains from it: he even got a saber and a fancy green and gold costume.

Look how pretty I am, and how big my house is! Michel Serres at the 40 member strong French Academy. Just read Tintin, says Serres, all you need to know. (I’m not kidding, that’s what he said, and repeated, many times!)

Some may object that these are details. No. Ignore famous French thinkers, deny them their discoveries, and then, therefore, less well-known French (or not) thinkers will be ignored too. William of Normandy protected the abbot who insisted that God was reason, therefore reason was god, and thus, that, as a matter of theology, a society founded on reason was a society founded on god. The Vatican tried to have the abbot killed (it had got its first mass burning for heresy, not far away, around 1026 CE, a generation earlier). Indeed, this is exactly what was happening with French and especially north-west France society at the time (hence the military superiority which brought the conquest of England over the resisting, plotting English (William was the legitimate heir, but not the one English aristocracy wanted to be overlorded by…)

***

Jean Meslier, a real creative thinker, suggested to strangle nobles with their guts:

The history of ideas is full of thinkers, and trains of thoughts, which are ignored… Although they were often more important than the official ones. It’s not just so with pure philosophy. For example Euclid masked the already invented non-Euclidean geometry, just as Ptolemy masked the heliocentric theory (Aristarchus of Samos promoted the idea that the Earth turned around the Sun, and answered the scientific critiques. Which were numerous). Considering what the Greeks knew about the planets, the heliocentric theory was obvious, and the alternative unlikely (formal definitive proof came about only when telescopes were powerful enough to see the phases of Venus, namely that Venus rotated around the Sun…)  

Once in the early 18C, in 1729, a French priest, Jean Meslier, close to death, wrote a book, his “Testament” about the Catholic Church of an amazing violence… And entirely true. Meslier denounced organized religion as “but a castle in the air and theology as “but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system“.

That senior priest basically accused the Church to be the largest criminal organization in close association with the ruling plutocracy. That work had a tremendous influence on the Enlightenment, for example, on Diderot, Voltaire… who often attributed to themselves what Meslier wrote, while completely distorting his thought (for example Voltaire turned Meslier into a deist, thus ingratiating himself to the powers that be, making Voltaire wealthier and more influential as a simple monkey begging for riches).

In his “Testament”, Meslier repudiated not only the God of conventional Christianity, but even the generic God of the natural religion of the deists. For Meslier, the existence of evil was incompatible with the idea of a good and wise God. Meslier denied that any spiritual value could be gained from suffering, and he used the deist’s argument from design against god, by showing the evils that he had permitted in this world. To Meslier, religions were fabrications fostered by ruling elites; although the earliest Christians had been exemplary in sharing their goods, Christianity had long since degenerated into encouraging the acceptance of suffering and submission to tyranny as practised by the kings of France: injustice was explained away as being the will of an all-wise Being. None of the arguments used by Meslier against the existence of a good God were original. In fact, they had blossomed since the Eleventh Century in France, and caused the Cathars (12 C). Orthodox theologians had debated them between Jesuits, Cartesians, and Jansenists (all the way to Japan!) The inability of top theologians to agree on a proof for God’s existence was taken by Meslier as a good reason not to presume that there were compelling grounds for belief in God.

Meslier’s philosophy was that of an atheist. He also denied the existence of the soul and dismissed the notion of free will. In Chapter V, the priest writes, “If God is incomprehensible to man, it would seem rational never to think of Him at all”. Meslier later describes God as “a chimera” and argues that the supposition of God is not prerequisite to morality. In fact, he concludes that “[w]hether there exists a God or not […] men’s moral duties will always be the same so long as they possess their own nature”.

In his most famous quote, Meslier refers to a man who “...wished that all the great men in the world and all the nobility could be hanged, and strangled with the guts of the priests.” Meslier admits that the statement may seem crude and shocking, but comments that this is what the priests and nobility deserve, not for reasons of revenge or hatred, but for love of justice and truth.

More of the great works of Michel Serres, applied. Gilets Jaunes, Paris 24 Nov 2018. The Rothschild banker who rules France as a medieval kingdom doesn’t mind: as Obama, or the Clintons, he is just an employee of the powers that be, and those have said to destroy the French people into submission

(Those ideas of Meslier were reused, changed a bit, ever since, starting with Diderot; by the way, Voltaire had paid a fortune for a copy of the “Testament”, and used it a lot, completely changed in spirit; Meslier had made 4 copies, and hidden them with people he trusted, and the book was recopied secretly).

***

Machiavellian propaganda has turned people against themselves, and sense into nonsense:

Going over French history, one finds many iconoclast authors (arguably starting with elected king cum Consul Clovis himself, who seemed to have made a point not to understand Christianism deliberately, as when he said that, had him “and his Franks been there, Christ would not have been crucified”… namely Clovis and his men would have killed all the Roman soldiers, and the masochistic god would not have been able to be nailed to proclaim his victimhood…)

Michel Serres has been a power in the French propaganda system  since before he entered the French Academy. He makes a lot of sense, a lot of conventional sense, a lot of meek sense, a lot of the sense the powers that be want We The People to be tied up by again (re-ligare). Serres is supposed to be our religion, far from revolution. The religion of conventionalism, where those who succeed in the Euro-American social system are to not just be rewarded, but define the Politically Correct, and the Philosophically correct.

To be French in the last two years meant to have to agree enthusiastically with state/plutocratic propaganda that Trump was the problem, that France shouldn’t go into debt, so taxes had to keep on climbing, to save the planet, etc. All myth, legends, fake news, false notions, tottering pyramids of lies.

Pigs have hierarchies, often from brute force. A dominated pig will lie to his dominant, and get to food after leading the dominant pig in the wrong place.

Machiavellianism can also describe, in particular, all the strategies to make social groups to do something while they believe they are doing something else, even the opposite. By leading them astray. Machiavellianism doesn’t have to be evil, but evil power (Pluto-kratia) uses Machiavellianism to get We The People where it wants it to be.

Michel Serres was once selected to be the chairman of the French intellectual TV channel by the right-wing government of France. The idea? To instill Political Correctness. So now one can see, in French cities, illegal immigrants being treated better than French born citizens (they receive 37.5 Euro a day, around 45 dollars, not including free cell phone, etc.) For less than that, millions of French born citizens work all day long (and now the corrupt criminal golden boy prostitute clown masquerading as president wants to augment the price of non transport diesel by 50%, effective immediately, never mind 13% of the French population uses it for heating…)

Stanford University, core and soul of Silicon Valley, knows a placebo when it sees one: thus Michel Serres has been teaching there since 1984, while his old accomplice Michel Foucault taught next door in Berkeley (full disclosure: I taught in both places too!) They both rendered ineffectual revolutionary thinking, by inoculating heavy doses of nonsense against it.

Once nonsense has been erected as the best of all possible senses, the mental leadership has succeeded beyond even where Christianity led the sheep… Erecting nonsense as the ultimate sense has been the task of mid-Twentieth Century philosophy, much to global plutocracy’s liking! This is why, and what the giants of fake thinking and fake knowledge teach in most revered places of the US and French establishments: one has to secure the republics into submission, far from real democracy.

Yes, it’s a complicated world. Even those who loudly advocate non-violence can end up feeding even more violence than if they had stayed silent. An example is the US peaceniks in the 1930s, who, anxious to appease the gods of war, refused entry to millions of refugees, including Anne Frank, condemning them to death.

Complexity itself can get tyrannical: thus the real top thinkers will know how to simplify, to get to the heart of the matter. Of that, critters such as Foucault or Serres are unable, while pretending the opposite, thus the US intellectual establishment needed them desperately, to thoroughly corrupt the souls of new generations of “leaders” (truly just employees).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/fake-thinking-that-fake-french-theory-now-complete-with-highly-honored-fascist-spy/

Verily, creatures promoting the meekness of thought, such as Michel Serres and his ilk are precious… to the established order. Time to de-establish them, starting with the respect too generously bestowed to them, and foster the slashing subtlety of deep thought.

We think, therefore we parrot, says the global elite, just calm down. Stupid: the biosphere doesn’t have that kind of patience, it doesn’t have any patience, it’s the toy of various exponentials we unleashed. And the exponentials were unleashed from lack of democracy, because, fundamentally plutocracy wants war, because it is a war onto the people.

In France, the government of the Rothschild banker found the ultimate cynical ploy: tax people to death, under the pretext that taxing to death the French people will save the world’s ecology. Those Serres and other French “theorist”, not to say terrorists, taught will find this nonsensical reasoning cogent…

Patrice Ayme

 

MOODS RULE: Thus California Burns With Fire, Pascal & Other Jihadists, With Hatred

November 24, 2018

MOODS RULE: Thus HOUSES, BUILT FROM US Comfort-At-Any-Cost MOOD, BURN Enthusiastically In CALIFORNIA, While Blaise PASCAL, BATHING In CATHOLIC SOCIOPATHOLOGY, Was WRONG ON WAR, SPAIN, CATHOLICISM… A FORETASTE OF EVEN GREATER HOLOCAUSTS & WARS TO COME SOON AFTER His Deluge Of Nonsense.

Not lying is not just making correct statements. Saying A = A all day long, while feeling the Earth is flat, yet knowing that’s probably false, makes one a big time liar, while telling the truth most of the time. Not lying means, first, having correct moods, moods one really believes in.

(This was a snide remark against most believers, nowadays, who are just liars, as they know enough to feel their moods lie.)

All the rectangular burned debris are ex-houses. The “Paradise” (which Trump called “Pleasure”) “Campfire” massacre, which destroyed 12,000 buildings in a few hours, tended to burn buildings more than trees. As is always the case in the USA. Clearly the building of “Paradise” was orchestrated by greedy insanity, not caution, and respect for human life: the city of Paradise had 200 inhabitants (two hundred, yes) in 2010. It had 27,000 inhabitants in 2017. Yes, that’s a rise of nearly 14,000%… in seven years. A city that seems as large as Paris intra muros, built in a few years, with a few roads, within a forest full of towering highly flammable conifers, and even more flammable houses? Is that the logic of pain (pathology), at work?

When a forest burns in France, houses are what’s left, the trees are gone, whereas, in California, the houses are gone, and the trees stand. It’s not a miracle of geography, but a direct consequence of moods. Californians want cheap and roomy houses, now. Californians are told their houses, and cities, are safe, that’s a lie, but a mood has been carefully build to make them all believe, that it is so (by chanting ‘stay safe’ all day long, self-hypnotizing Hare Krishna style, while dodging bullets in houses ready to pancake at the first tremor, if they are not yet gone in smoke).

It’s not just France which has fire resistant cities. Here is Athens, Greece, submitted to proverbial “climate change”:

One of several massive forest fires around Athens, Greece, in recent years. Although houses did burn in fires around Athens, and the death toll was heavy, it would have been way worse, if cities were built US American style…

Building in stone, concrete (France), not thin glued-together-wood (USA), explains the difference. France used to be built in (solid) wood, resulting in great fires.

Thus, laws were passed in France against fire already four centuries ago, outlawing, or discouraging, the use of wood for construction. Stone and mortar were preferred. (that was not new: even before the great fire of Rome, Nero’s administration planned to rebuild Rome to reduce the extreme fire danger blatant to the 7,000 firefighters which the metropolis of 1.2 million possessed). Those anti-fire laws were extended in the 19th Century, disappearing wooden construction from France.

Nantes Cathedral roof burning, 2015. Although built in solid timber, which is very fire resistant (arguably more than steel, which loses half its strength at 500 Celsius… whereas timber stays strong in even higher temps), cathedral roofs occasionally burn (but cathedrals don’t collapse, like melting plastic, NYC World Trade Center style).

Go tell, to many an US American, that the massacre in “Paradise” was caused, mostly, by US ways of building houses, and cities, and you will be perceived to be, or even derided as, an anti-American clown. (Yes, right, it’s quite a shortcut, to be condemned as a bad person, just for seeing bad housing for what it is, but humans love these shortcuts, because they enjoy to hate!)

A mood of North America is that houses should be built in wood, like in Middle Ages’ Europe. Contradict that mood, to enjoy the pleasure of being excoriated. Contradicting moods is not to be taken lightly. Insulting “god” (whatever that is) is a capital crime in many a savage country, to this day.

Houses in Biguglia, Corsica, 2017, next to annihilated forest. French houses are generally the last line of defense against forest fires: Last thing to burn in a French forest fire is the first thing to burn in a US forest fire: houses. Because rebarred concrete doesn’t burn, but glued up together particulate wood debris does! Very well! Gee Even the proverbial Trump dimwit caricature should understand that one! So how come Californians don’t?

***

Blaise Pascal Deconstructed: Pascal’s Think-Good By Feel-Good should be viewed as the philosophical garbage it is:

Everybody is against war, even warriors (who love to rest)… Thus, so is Pascal.

Blaise Pascal went over this, the relativity of goodness, laws, justice and opinion, on the legislative side of it, extensively, page after page (Montaigne had preceded him). Good. However, Pascal wondered why one had to kill so many Spaniards, and why it was a virtue. He nicely forgets that Spain invaded French territory and politics extensively, for generations. And that was not to improve civilization. Just the opposite. Pascal famously wrote: “Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other side.” …. Right. However, I believe truth is not always relative, but sometimes absolute. For example, propagating matter propagates as a wave (De Broglie Matter Waves). An absolute truth. So is the fact Earth turns around the Sun, and not reciprocally.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/pascal/blaise/p27pe/part5.html

Truth is not just an absolute in the instant. In sociological matters, truth is also a sum over all histories travelled over, to get to the present. (The analogy of sociological truth with Quantum Physics is absolute.)

However, dissected further, the case of Pascal’s view of Seventeenth Century Spain is revealing. Pascal plays Politically Correct, deploring the apparently wanton killing of Spaniards. However, he is lying from deliberate (?) myopia. (Or maybe Pascal was ill-informed: I have better things to do than read all of Pascal’s elucubrations…) Exact nature of that myopia of Pascal? Ignoring the horror of fanatical Catholicism.

***

How Pascal was Lying About War With Spain; It was a battle of two moods, tolerance against fascism:

Pascal laments, deplores and condemns what was France’s total, unending war with Spain. Indeed, France was at war with Spain for around two centuries (from the 1400s until final French victory, and then Louis XIV married the Spanish Infante; his grandson would become king of Spain, ridiculous descendants occupy it, to this day…)

But France didn’t start that war, and the war became a dynamic, and a logic of its own, where losing meant losing all. One has to know much history, in full, and at a depth that most of today’s historians still eschew.

The short of it: the Franks, who succeeded the original Romans in control of Gallia and Germania, were fundamentally less fascist, and thus less theofascist, than the Late Roman empire. The religious tolerance they instituted lasted more than five centuries. However, the unending war with Islam, which started disastrously enough with the near instantaneous military invasion of more than half of the Greco-Roman empire, and the three centuries long war with the Saxons, made tempting to harden Christianism into a weapon. That was particularly true in the Iberian peninsula, which suffered Muslim exaction of holocaust proportions, for centuries… before been reconquered, over nearly eight centuries, with methods somewhat similar to those of the Muslims

The end result is that, while Islam was cleansed out of Spain, the Christian war machine naturally turned against its own originators, the French.  The Angevins’ Kingdom of Sicily (regnum Siciliae) was invaded in 1442 by Alfonso V who unified Sicily and Naples as dependencies of Aragon. At his death in 1458, the kingdom was again separated and Naples was inherited by Ferrante, Alfonso’s illegitimate son.

By the time of Pascal, more religiously tolerant France had been at partly religious, partly pure power-play, war with Spain… for around 150 years. The injuries caused to France by Spanish born Catholic fanaticism were incalculable, as they involved, inter alia, the extirpation of the French from southern Italy (which they had freed from the Muslims, in earlier centuries), the extermination of French colonies in the Carolinas and the present US east coast, and no less than seven religious wars inside France during the Sixteenth Century.

***

Blaise Pascal: Super Thinker Turned Ultra Catholic Jihadist Full of Hatred?

Pascal was  a great thinker in math (Pascal’s triangle; however not necessarily the first) and physics (he demonstrated atmospheric pressure) and also computer science (he reinvented the Greeks’ work… by then totally lost). He is best known by the rabble for his bet:

The funny thing is that Pascal’s bet is all about the basest instincts: he gained “everything”. What? The proverbial 72 virgins of Islam? Pascal doesn’t realize that the Christian “god” is evil (as the Cathars implicitly said), and that he excludes from consideration decency, the honor of the human spirit, reason, and the order of a better hope. Pascal’s bet pre-supposes that we are as venal as Pascal apparently was…

So Pascal’s indignation at making war to Spain was anti-French. anti-tolerance, and thus, anti-civilizational (France was under the Nantes Edict, instituting co-existence of Catholics and Protestants). But, of course, Pascal was a Catholic fanatic, a child killer “god” worshipper, who wore a cincture of nails which he drove into his flesh when the slightest thought of vanity. assailed him (and that has got to happening all the time, considering he was high society…)  Man is an “incomprehensible monster“, wrote Pascal, “at once sovereign greatness and sovereign misery.” (Notice the obsession with “sovereign”, like the theofascist in chief, the Sun King Louis XIV…)

There are many monster men, because there are many monster moods. Spain became Catholic fanatic, because Catholic fanaticism worked against the monster Muslim invaders, and became highly profitable for those who indulged monstrously (they stole property from Iberian Jews and Muslim)… Enabling them to become ever more monstrous… Until the French army killed the Spanish army at Rocroy… It’s only in the confrontation with France that Spanish Catholic fanaticism became unprofitable.: war with France became very costly, especially as the French and the Dutch, won and won and won… Out of the war with France, came the Netherlands, and out of the latter, an antagonistic, anti-Catholic England (“Glorious Revolution“, 1688-1690 CE).

Fanatic Catholicism was a monster mood, which caused directly the Dark Ages (as distinguished from the Fall of the Roman State, the cause of which run deeper). The Catholic State made the Islamist State look like intellectuals: it destroyed not just incompatible and hostile philosophies, but even science and technology.

In Pascal’s times, destroying fanatical Spanish Catholicism was a civilizational must. Instead, Pascal worried about “libertines”. A few years before Pascal’s death, at age 39, the French army had destroyed the “Spanish Squares”.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/spanish-disaster-at-rocroi/

That broke not just Spain as an imperial, theological, fascist power, but defeated Catholic fanaticism, as Pascal feared. And why so much? Because human beings are social, and the social network of Pascal, made of Jansenists he hanged around so much, were, indeed, Catholic fanatics. Pascal talked of god and all that lofty stuff, but, ultimately was just a sick little monkey hanging around his brother and Jansenists…. 

Some will say Pascal was not burning with hatred. But how to else to define the behavior of someone who planted nails into himself, because of desires he had? And, considering the many atrocious religious wars which had wrecked France, fundamentally propelled by Catholic fanaticism paid and organized by Inquisition Spain, to make one’s utmost, as Blaise Pascal did, to further that fanaticism was indeed all about the pleasure hatred provides with.

So off with Pascal’s infamy! Pascal was a Jihadist without a kalashnikov, and that kind is even worse, as it gives the imbeciles their marching, and murdering, and messing-up, orders.

I do this very well, thank you. Actually much better than Pascal ever did: he was always surrounded by a crowd, and thought by the mood of said crowd, including Jansenists. I do mountain alone, on a regular basis, and highly recommend it. Viewed one way, the thought is correct, and addressed to all those who create lots of CO2 to give their money to dictatorships in exotic locales (such as 2018 Thailand)… However correct thinking is established by varying neurological regimes, and moving out of rooms is crucial…

***

Pascal’s Sophisticated Hatred Led To Dragonnades:

Dragonnades started in 1681 CE, under Louis the Sun of horror: elite troops, dragons, were billeting to live inside the houses of Protestants. Consider:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2018/07/04/learn-history-correctly-repeat-after-me-french-sun-king-louis-xiv-was-an-abominable-butcher-catastrophe/

I used big words against Pascal. I trash some of the major thinkers, such as Aristotle (for monarchism and general plutocraticism so extensive it lasts to this day), Montaigne (for inventing the PC myth of the good savage, whereas real savages are killers, such as those North Sentinel Andaman islanders who just gave a fanatical Christian missionary the fate he richly deserved), or generally much of French mid Twentieth Century philosophy for turning wisdom into impotent PC jargon faking opposition to the powers that be, just to implement their intellectual fascism.

So what’s my big problem with Pascal’s extremism? The exact same problem I have with Louis XIV. Louis XIV took part in lots of wars… but not always for bad reasons: France had to recover natural boundaries. However the huge, gigantic and unforgivable crime and error of Louis’ reign was the Revocation of the Nantes Edict of his grandfather, Henri IV (a great king). The Edict, conformed by Louis XIII, enabled Protestants to enjoy equal rights to Catholics. This was not just a question of justice, a question of empowering France -civilization- with her most thoughtful citizens, it was not just a question of a superior economy and a superior  population and superior debate. It was a question of the very essence of France, the enforced tolerance which had enabled Clovis and his successors to unify the heart of Europe, and stop the rot of Christian extremism, which had plunged civilization into the Dark Ages.

In the 1560s, the Protestant population of France was in excess of two million, 12.5% of the population. The Spanish dictatorship then send enormous funds to France, to foment a succession of religious wars against the Protestants (the Spanish financed Ligue Catholique was led by the Duc de Guise, correctly executed later by Henri III).

Instead, Louis XIV threw out of France ten percent of the population, two millions of her most intelligent, most enterprising citizens. Many of their descendants would fight the French state for more than a dozen generations after that, from the 1600s until they drove on tanks into France in 1940. Yes, Louis XIV was a first run at Hitler, no less. He was the foot in the door of mass murder.

Now look at the dates. Pascal dies in 1662; his “Thoughts” are published in 1669. Louis the mass criminal outlaws Protestantism in October 1685, applauded by many of France’s most illustrious writers and pseudo-thinkers: La Fontaine, La Bruyère, Mme de Sévigné., etc. In the entourage of the king, only Vauban, lucidly and courageously, opposes the religious cleansing order. Who is Vauban? The top military underling of Louis. Vauban is the marshall who is ringing France with fortresses (many world heritage sites now). Immediately, 300,000 Protestants are officially counted to be fleeing France (although, that, too, is made unlawful by Louis XIV!)

On January 17, 1686, Louis XIV claimed that his torture of the Protestant population of France, had caused it to be reduced from 800,000-900,000 to 1,000–1,500. So Louis gloated to have thrown out one million (In truth, there were many, many more Protestant than that left: nowadays the Protestants number three millions in France.)

An exiled French Protestant, the engineering professor Denis Papin, invented the first steam engines, and then the first steamboat, propelled by said engine… which was, appropriately enough, destroyed by Catholic monks. One can therefore see that my connections between lofty ideas, intolerance, obscurantism, and the advancement of even the most practical endeavors is rooted in the most basic instincts of power and destruction. Papin is also at the origin of the steam engine in England, where his invention got basically stolen. Had he stayed in France, and be celebrated with millions of Protestants, there is little doubt that France would have led the industrial revolution (instead of rather following England, in spite of the French invention of first cars and first flights). By throwing the Protestants out, a lot of the enterprising, industrial creative bourgeoisie was thrown out…

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/philosophy-feeds-engineering/

***

We Need the Goddess Maat, Truth, Our Real, Historical Inspiration, Not the Perverse, Child Killing Abrahamic “god”, who deconstructed civilization into deliberate obscurantism, and the most cruel passions. (Those who sneer, don’t know much about Egypt, Crete, Phoenicia, Sumer, Minoan and Athenian Greece: all these were part of the same civilization, or renewal thereof; much of “Greek” creativity is actually… Pharaonic Egypt creativity; the latter is still, in some ways, especially relating to gender, ahead of today’s version of civilization, meaning one can go backwards…)

Please consider:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/commonly-accepted-delusions-follies-that-bind/

Moods rule. Moods sustain, and are sustained, by sociologies. And pathological moods are sustained by pathological sociologies. An excellent example is Islam, which ruined what was the wealthiest part of the Greco-Roman empire, inter alia. That ideological disaster has been self-sustained, because the concept of “holy war”, although pathological to most, is most profitable to the most pathological warrior societies, justifying and sustaining them.

Thus the pathological nature, the logic of pain, of Islam made it  popular with war minded groups, such as the followers of Muhammad (in contradistinction with the rest of Mecca), or the Turks, or the three western Mongol Khanates… China, though, never converted to Islam, as no group of pure warriors could ever hope to take control of this vast, oldest, most sophisticated civilization:

Pathology on one side of the Karakorum, reason beyond it…

Pascal hid his fanaticism, ultra Catholic communitarianism and sadomasochism below Political Correctness. But hiding is lying… When contemplating Pascal’s weak thoughts, we can see once again that being guided by the fundamental Egyptian goddess Maat is better than be guided by the mad Abrahamic, cruel and jealous god. Maat was the goddess of reality. She personified truth, balance, order, harmony, law, morality, and justice, regulating also the seasons, stars, universe and other deities.

The master thinkers who misled us, have always insisted that we have a Judeo-Christian civilization, a way to define a ship according to the captain who wrecked it. In truth, we have more of an Egyptian civilization, than anything else. Time for us to free ourselves from the error of believing otherwise.

People calling for Aasian Bibi’s murder should be arrested and condemned to serious imprisonment among similarly minded fanatics… to prevent propagation of their Islamizing fanatical, murderous mood… In other words, concentration camps, after application of fully enlightened justice, is not always a bad idea.

And the time is now: the growth of Islam is apparently the latest trick to control and divide intellectual opposition to plutocracy, and a mad world leadership. The exact same trick was used in the Fourth Century, when Islamism’s more sophisticated parent, Christianism, was imposed by the emperors onto the intellectual class of the Greco-Roman empire. The same situation lead to the same moods, in unjust oligarchies, or We The People submitted to them.

An example is the case of Aasian Bibi, a Pakistani Christian condemned to death, for… insolence! Christianism arrived in present day Pakistan area, more than three centuries before the invention of Islam by desert raiders keen to raid, steal, murder and submit in the name of “god” (as Abraham’s god is mad, cruel, jealous , and prone to mass murder just because He can, the fit between the desert raiders and the Jewish “god” was perfect, the Prophet explained to his would-be followers). However severe the crimes of Christianism, basic Christian texts (in contradistinction with basic Islamist texts) are less strident about killing the “insolent”.

And the point is that, the only mood compatible with optimal survival now, is the world’s democratic republic of human rights. And the most fundamental of these rights, is the right to free thinking! All other fundamental rights, including life (but not pursuing happiness!) result from it… Yet, it’s not that simple: to free thinking, one has to free the moods, first. 

Rousseau pretended that civilization put men in chains, but it is actually system of thought put in place by military authorities which do this: Christianism is the best example. Christianism was put in place first by solo Roman super emperor and bloody tyrant Constantine, and his several nearly as bloody successors:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/emperor-constantine-christian-terrorist-325-ce-fall-of-rome-part-x/

Islamism was an even more spectacular imitation, put in place by a raider-in-chief.

As they rule emotions, that is the neurohormonal system, moods are nearly impossible to extirpate: one needs to fight them physically (as many an eradicating invasion testify), or emotionally. Appealing to formal logic is not enough.

There are hierarchies of moods. What brings together Californian fire architecture and Pascal’s consumption of the world by Catholicism is a most basic mood: the burning desire to oversimplify, and seek comfort, intellectual or physical, fast and cheap. In other words, 21st Century Californians living in matchstick houses and religious fanatics (such as Pascal) revere a mood oversimplifying the human experience by mitigating pain and maximizing comfort, to the point of denying truth… which is exactly what they were looking for.

Egypt ceases to be great and at the forefront, when it denied Maat, truth. That happened under Pharaoh Akhenaten and the redoubtable Nefertiti, his spouse, instigator, and sometimes sole ruler. Their fascist monotheism was soon reverted… but too late; the mood had changed. Egypt had lost Maat, Truth, and never fully recovered (in spite of a last sparkling under the Ramesses; some may argue the Peoples of the Seas invasions could be more to blame… but no, as Egypt fought those back successfully…)

Want to improve minds? Improve moods! And start with truth!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Notes: 1) Pascal’s real quote about the room is different from the one I picked up on the Internet above; Pascal really said: “Tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre”. (All misfortune of men comes from only one thing, which is not knowing how to stay at rest in a room.)

2) Pascal’s autopsy revealed damage to several organs, including his brain. So one shouldn’t be too mean to him, and reserve all the meanness to those who still admire his extremism to this day.

3) The preceding was written during Thanksgiving 2018, from the Alps.Thanksgiving entangles several interesting moods. Thanksgiving is a celebration of people good and dumb enough, to feed their previously starving, future exploiters and assassins… A depiction of what was long viewed as the correct mood in the USA: give and they shall take! Everything. And that’s not just good, but worthy of many thanks… As Native Americans did to their fallen prey, after killing the nourishing deer…

NEW IDEAS: NOT FROM CROWD HOWLING TOGETHER. CREATIVITY: WAR AGAINST CROWDS, Yesterday’s Culture…

November 10, 2018

DARK IMPULSES ENABLE INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY, HENCE CURIOSITY, COLONIZATION, THUS HOMO. AS LOVE IS A GIVEN, THIS HYPER AGGRESSIVITY, AT THE ROOT OF HOMO, CAUSES AN AMBIVALENCE…

Evolution is not Politically Correct. Evolution just is. But evolution is our creator. Some have said: we are not evolution. Yes we are not just evolution, we are also the culture ourselves and our predecessors, evolved. But still, we have to understand this evolutive part we are entangled with… and which gave birth to our cultural capability, if not directly, our culture.  

New Ideas, wisdom, or even the love of wisdom, never come from a crowd howling together. However, we now live in times of crowds howling together on social networks, sharing silliness, superficial love and “likes”. But, even more enthusiastically, those crowds share hatred towards those they don’t want to understand, so that they can hate some more. Genuine creators have to make war to those brutish crowds, otherwise they won’t be able to create anew, that is above and superior.

Can’t escape War: war is tied in to the essence of the human project, curiosity.War is tied in to the essence of the human project, curiosity: that’s not really a problem, it’s tied in with Homo (or then Homo itself is viewed as a problem, and that’s nihilism). However, it’s a problem if, as “humanism” so far did, it’s ignored. Christianism viewed evil of curiosity, the original sin, tellingly contradicting Zoroastrianism.

***

Stupid people howling with relish didn’t start yesterday: just look at the way Christianism took over the Greco-Roman empire, one burned library at a time. More recent examples: generations ago, philosophy was heavily contaminated by so-called brainless structuralism, or “French Theory”, a medieval harking back to the times of no-thinking (which lasted more than a millennium before that, thanks to Bible). Before structuralism it was Marxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism which destroyed debate, and replaced it by lethal mob rule. Now, things are getting worse: increasing plutocratization depends upon stupidification (and thus the push towards controlled social networks, Communitarianism, Islamization, etc.). Wisdom, and its love, are on the wane.

Communitarianism is an enemy of wisdom and mental creativity. It categories people, and make these categories what’s most primordial about people. Instead of categorizing people, one should categorize ideas. If an idea is good, wherever it comes from, it’s a good idea. Roughly all thinkers have had some good ideas at some point, even Hitler or Saint Augustine! Thinking is about ideas, not howling together.

John Michael Gartland commented: “Thank You. One of the most astute observations I have seen in a long time. The insane fanaticism of the tribal political party narrative with no deviation from the party scriptures permitted no matter how fantastically fictional and politically convenient, steeped in the fantasy of something masquerading as the common good and self-righteousness has become a worldwide contagion.”

***

A dirty little secret of humanity is that, absent friendship, one can always befriend hatred itself. As social networks, paradoxically, have increased loneliness, they incite more individuals to partake in hatred and pack attacks. Hence the increasing venom in said social media!

***

In the Spanish Civil War, Republican forces arguably had more losses fighting each other than the devastation that they suffered from the Nazi and Italian fascist armies and Franco’s rebel army. The entire take-over of Spain by mass murdering lethal, church allied fascism, was financed by US plutocrats and corporations (many car companies and oil companies such as Texaco, which provided the Nazi air force in Spain all the fuel it needed to transport Franco’s army…

By allying itself with Islamists now, the left is making the error it did then, allying itself with Stalinists! Stalin and his goons ordered the killing of all the left. At the time, Stalin was secretly in a crucial military alliance… with the Nazis, on Russian soil.

Actually, the present alliance with Islamists is even worse than the alliance with Stalinists: the Soviets could claim to foster a new system of thought. A new man, let alone a new woman. Attacking the USSR in 1941, Italian tankers were amazed to find female Soviet tank officers, killed in action.

Instead, Islam was a new ideology… In 632 CE, in savage and primitive Meccan Arabia, which had been kept away from the major civilizing influences from all around (to the north, Rome, north-west, Egypt, north-east, Persia, west in Ethiopia, south in Yemen, and east in India). The Muslim prophet, speaking in the name of the great vegetable in the sky, ordered men to change in such a way it led to a demographic explosion, most militarily profitable (for example it was suggested not to kill girls, and have sex with slave girls…)

The success of Islam long baffled top Christians, such as this Byzantine emperor who debated an old Muslim scholar. In 1391 CE Manuel II Palaiologos debated a Persian scholar and recorded the exchanges in a book he authored (See dialogue 7 of “Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian”) in which the Roman Emperor stated: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Right, the whole point!

Many Muslims were offended by this characterisation of Muhammad, and protested against it. For others it may simply have been false indignation or the assumption that non-Muslims had been offended by it, and they had to look outraged, to keep the reputation of Islam as peace.

In his book, Manuel II, apparently a personal acquaintance of “god”, continues: “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”

Well, we know better. Our creator is biological evolution and our creator used war to conquer the world, and shape up our genetic and epigenetic. War made us, not just love. Islam understood that perfectly well, hence its success.

War, hatred and extermination have propelled humanity through evolutionary gauntlets (leaving lots of genocides behind). Evolution intelligently selected those strategies, from the first ape who braved the savanna, and forged human neurology with them. Ignoring them is ignoring not just wisdom, but incoming fate!

Humanity is more complex, and more perverse, than humanitarianism has imagined so far. Ignoring that complexity ignores the opportunity new technology (“social networks”) offers for old fashion hatred. There is an architecture an evil, and humanity was built with it.

To demonstrate here the aggressivity of advancing wisdom, let’s victimize Albert Einstein a bit. Einstein famously said:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” (One could call this definition, “Einstein Insanity”). Guess what? Nonlocality predicts that, indeed, doing the same thing all over again, will lead to different results. And that’s how the universe work, experiences & logic show. So Einstein was as wrong as wrong can be. He missed the point entirely, by assuming the veracity of its opposite, which is false. And Einstein was clever enough to realize that what he called “spooky action at a distance”… could be true, by just evoking its possible existence.

Tying evil, strife and mental creativity exaggerated? No. Unavoidable. Morality and the principle of precaution have to admit it.

So I was just nasty to Einstein, in a sense (after all, I’m saying I see something that could be seen in Einstein’s day and age… And Bohr saw some of it…). I can do better: I can spite all mathematicians between Euclid and Bolyai. Gauss made a point to spite Bolyai, daring to say that recognizing and flattering Bolyai’s work would be to flatter himself… as he had, he claimed, secretly got the same results (but didn’t reveal them as he “feared the cries of Boeotians”, a classic allusion to Athens northern neighbors… whom Athenians thought honorable to view as stupid). Here is Gauss, in full nastiness mode: “To praise it would amount to praising myself. For the entire content of the work…coincides almost exactly with my own meditations which have occupied my mind for the past thirty or thirty-five years.” In 1848 CE Bolyai discovered that Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky had published a similar piece of work in 1829 (but only on hyperbolic geometry). Discouraged by Gauss, Bolyai published only 24 pages, ever, out of the 20,000 pages of math he wrote…

In reality, after Euclid, mathematicians forgot that there was a wheel, a sphere, or even a cushion: Aristotle’s works contain SIX (6) theorems of non-Euclidean geometry (one hyperbolic, the rest elliptic). For all to see! Thereafter, in spite of these demonstrated theorems, an idiotic debate on the parallel axiom unfolded, for 21 centuries . Even worse, Non-Euclidean geometry had been used to measure Earth with great precision, around 300 BCE, in Marseilles, by Pytheas!

In the same vein, I have dared to stand all of mathematics on its head, and shake, by pointing out the infinity axiom makes no sense.

Any debate, in a sense, is a fight. Refusing all and any fighting, is refusing all and any debate. Hence, refusing us, the essence of what made us. It shouldn’t be a debate…

Patrice Ayme

We’re (Potential) CANNIBALS: LACK Of CANNIBALISM Is EVIDENCE OF PROGRESS. Montaigne’s Erroneous Multiculturalism Denied This

November 4, 2018

MONTAIGNE’S INVENTION OF THE GOOD SAVAGE was naive, anti-progress, anti-civilizational. To put it in one word: nihilistic. Dismantling Montaigne’s offensive credulity exposes the rotten roots of  grotesquely erroneous, extreme, indiscriminate so-called multiculturalism.

Abstract: Cannibalism was probably the environment in which humanity evolved, in excess of 99% of the time (see the scientific evidence below). Cannibalism was common in the Neolithic, and everywhere regulated. The discovery of cannibalism in the Americas contributed to demolish the Christian mindset. Montaigne, in particular, drew an erroneous conclusion. That error justifies today’s excessive cultural relativism (so-called “multiculturalism”), and an excuse for (“Neo”) liberalization, plutocratic globalization, and it’s little helper, Islamization (now that Christianization is collapsing, so the sheep are thinking too free and too much).

I demolish here Montaigne’s injurious, naive and unimaginative assertion that barbarity is just what we don’t do. So doing I demolish naive, unimaginative cultural relativism, re-establishing the concept of progress, and of the best of all possible civilizations (not what we have, but it could be worse).

***

Montaigne’s Extreme Cultural Relativism: Barbarians Are US:

Legend has it that Rousseau invented the lamentably unreal myth of the “Good Savage”. Reading the original writing, I just realized he may not have… Instead, it’s wise old Montaigne who invented the error of the Bon Sauvage. This monstrosity, the Good Savage, is of some consequence, as the Essays are generally viewed as an epitome of wisdom (Montaigne’s influence was enormous, for the better, on Henri III, IV and his wife, Queen Marguerite de Valois, féministe extraordinaire (among other things), and thereafter, as that good Catholic, crucially, yet unwittingly crucially helped to dismantle Christian terror; paradoxically the error I criticize today, helped to do so; by claiming everybody was a barbarian, Montaigne undermined moral religious superiority… perhaps, although Catholic that’s what he wanted).

Smart, but not that smart. And preaching this extreme multiculturalism had dreadful totalitarian consequences. Stalinism and Nazism among them. And now multiculturalism has been the main tool of global plutocratization.

Seeing Montaigne throwing overboard the concept of progress overboard came as a shock to me. The evidence can’t be denied, as it is blatant in the essay on “The Cannibals: ”we call barbarian what is not of our usage”. No, Michel, no, no, you got it all too grotesquely simplistic! And, Michel, you got it very dangerous: after all, following the erroneous Michel de Montaigne, the Nazis could call the Jews “barbarian” because, after all, they didn’t follow what the Nazis could call proper German usage…

Now, agreed “The Cannibals” was written seven years after the mad civil war of the Saint Barthelemy, ordered by the crowned plutocrats sitting pretty in the Louvres (which was crisscrossed by assassins that night). (The Duke of Sully, who barely escaped alive, esteemed 70,000 had been killed; people of Arles, down the Rhone from Lyon couldn’t drink the Rhone’s water for three months, from all the rotting corpses… the philosopher Petrus Ramus, and in Lyon the composer Claude Goudimel, among other intellectuals were killed.)

So Montaigne had good reason to be indignant, and suffer a momentary lapse of reason. Even more: all the Dark Ages was a direct consequence of that monstrous thought system, Christianism. Montaigne couldn’t say that. Very close friends and associates of Rabelais had been burned alive, just for printing books: the French plutocracy was that enlightened (Rabelais himself, an ex-Franciscan and ex-Benedictin, and a famous physician, and high level magistrate with highest level connections, including cardinals, escaped to the republic of Metz, the condemnation of the University of Paris. Others were not so favored).

I am even more of a cultural relativist than Montaigne. But I do not claim all cultures are equivalent. Far from it. Even a despicable culture can contain gems (this goes even for the Sharia!) Cultural traits, ideas and feeling can be picked and chosen, among all and any cultures, real, and imagined, to bring in nutrients into the salad of thoughts we need to forge forward into the richest world of possibilities Earthly intelligence has ever faced

***

Progress, which progress? Could Renaissance thinkers say:

Progress was hard to ascertain: the instigation of the Dark Ages by the civilizationally deranged Christians shook the very foundations of human reason. Burning nearly all books & intellectuals made it more irrecoverable.

When we look way back, now that we can reconstitute civilization through the fog of the immense destruction by the sexually deranged Christian Jihadists, we discover that the Greco-Roman empire was immensely advanced (and that empire extended well beyond direct political control: the Celts used the Greek alphabet and deities, centuries before the conquest of Gallia by the unifying Roman brutes).

23 centuries ago, around 330 BCE, the Greek scientist Pytheas headed an expedition by the Marseilles empire. Pytheas circumnavigated Britain, and  discovered the mysterious Thule: Iceland, or at least Norway, and certainly the polar circle and sea ice (his ship couldn’t advance anymore). Pytheas also discovered the method to measure the spherical Earth within 1% (often attributed to Eratosthenes, but the latter came a century later). Don’t ask today’s ignorant French: they may know what PC, but they don’t know the history of the place now known as France.

Other Marseilles’ expeditions went to Senegal, while Carthaginians captured gorillas, went around Africa, and traded with subsaharan Africa.

***

Native Americans Followed the Wrong Strategy With The Viking, Whereas Carolingian Franks Did it Right:

A thousand years ago, after following Irish monks to Iceland, the Vikings discovered a huge part of North America. The Viking were unable to hold North America militarily, though, as the Natives proved hostile, and uncontrollably so. Thus, ironically enough, American Natives organized their own demise, long-term… If the American Indians had invited the Viking in, Native Americans would have become civilizationally, militarily and biologically stronger, and could have endured!

By the way, by inviting the Viking to stay and colonize, what came to known as Normandy, the Franks put an end to their (more than a) century long war with the Scandinavians: the French were smarter than the Native Americans… Normandy also became arguably the world’s most mentally advanced place by the Eleventh Century: watch the Duke of Normandy casually tell dinners that the Earth turned around the Sun, or Berangarius de Tours,  a church authority, claiming all the god we needed was reason. Berengar was in turn discreetly protected by the Duke…

Experts may moan that the Franks got the war started by addressing ultimata to the Danes regarding Saxon refugees (in the Eighth Century)… So it was natural that after 900 CE they extend an olive branch. Yes, maybe. But it remains that the Native Americans were certainly stupid not to welcome and embrace the Vikings… And the massacre of Columbus’ men was more of the same. It’s not smart for savages to attack the gods, just after they showed up.

***

America, A Discovery Whose Time Had Come Through General Scientific Enlightenment:

But the discovery of North America was kept hushed, although maps went around, just as the existence of Inuits, one of whom paddled all the way to Scotland during the beginning of the Little Ice Age. The rich cod fishing off Cape Cod was also kept secret.

Various Portuguese sailors had determined that there was a continent west of the Azores, for example by recovering wood sculpted, but not by iron instrument, and also various trees of non-European origin, and even corpses of American natives, carried from the west by the mighty wind and currents Columbus would use to return in just 31 days.  

This Portuguese discretion was turned on its head in 1492 CE, when the queen of Castille decided to launch the veteran and irresistible Spanish army towards the New World (instead of liberating North Africa and the Middle East from Islam, as had been planned previously; 1492 was also when the Jews were thrown out, coincident to the day Columbus sailed away). A Portuguese sailor, Columbus’ father in law, had extensively travelled. His documents persuaded Columbus of the existence of the continent which became America… while his brother-in-law, Pedro Correa, produced more sculpted wood from the West…

Columbus informed the queen (the queen was less keen that her husband in pursuing Jews and Muslims to the ends of the world).The possibly Jewish Columbus sailed back on January 15 1493, reaching the Azores February 15 (after a terrible storm)! Columbus announced the discovery of lush and gold laden large islands, among them the enormous Cuba and Hispaniola. He brought back with him a few Natives. The 39 men Viceroy Columbus had left behind in a fort, were killed to the last man by the Natives (who were later themselves annihilated: just as with the Viking, Native Americans would have been smarter to welcome the powerful, knowledgeable strangers and insure their safety, come what may…).

By the mid sixteenth educated Europeans had fully realized that much of the world thought and lived very differently from what they called “Christendom”. No thinker viewed Europe more critically in the light of the habits of the natives of the “New World” than Michel de Montaigne. He gathered much evidence from an employee of his, a Normand who had lived ten years in Brazil among the Natives (and who was used as a translator). Montaigne describes his Normand as “un homme simple et grossier”. The Normand (and thus Montaigne) described mostly the Tupinamba of Brazil.

Here are the most famous extracts from the Essais from the essay “Des Cannibales”. After making the apology of cannibalism, Montaigne concludes:

Nous les pouvons donc bien appeler barbares, eu égard aux règles de la raison, mais non pas eu égard à nous, qui les surpassons en toute sorte de barbarie. Leur guerre est toute noble et généreuse, et a autant d’excuse et de beauté que cette maladie humaine peut en recevoir…

(Personal) Translation:

We may therefore call them barbarous, by judging them according to the rules of reason, but not relatively to ourselves, who surpass them in all sorts of barbarism. Their war is all noble and generous, and has as much excuse and beauty as this human disease can receive …

But there is worse on Montaigne’s part:

“Or je trouve, pour revenir à mon propos, qu’il n’y a rien de barbare et de sauvage en cette nation, à ce qu’on m’en a rapporté, sinon que CHACUN APPELLE BARBARIE CE QUI N’EST PAS DE SON USAGE; comme de vrai, il semble que nous n’avons autre critère (“mire”) de la vérité et de la raison que l’exemple et idée des opinions et usages du pays où nous sommes. Là est toujours la parfaite religion, le parfait gouvernement (“police”), parfait et accompli usage de toutes choses. Ils sont sauvages, de même que nous appelons sauvages les fruits que nature, de soi et de son progrès ordinaire, a produits : là où à la vérité, ce sont ceux que nous avons altérés par notre artifice et détournés de l’ordre commun, que nous devrions appeler sauvages.”

Essays, l. I, chap. XXXI, “Cannibals”,

Folio, Volume 1, Gallimard, p. 305 sq.

Now, to return to my subject, I find that there is nothing barbarous or savage in this nation, as far as I have been told, except that EVERYONE CALLS BARBARIAN WHAT IS NOT OF HIS OWN USAGE (1); in truth, it seems that we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and idea of ​​the opinions and usages of the country where we live. There, in that country of ours, is always the perfect religion, the perfect police, perfect and accomplished use of all things. They are savage, just as we call savages the fruits which nature, of itself and of its ordinary progress, has produced: where, in truth, they are those which we have altered by our artifice and diverted from the common order, that we should call savages (2).

***

Montaigne relaunched a tradition of using non-European peoples as a basis for engaging in a critique of Euro-Greco-Roman own culture. However Montaigne also went where (most) antique thinkers had not. He engaged in simplistic analysis, worthy of a 6 years old, undoubtedly in the process romanticizing what Jean-Jacques Rousseau would later celebrate. It is a theme which still appeals to many West-hating Westerners.

**************************************************************************

Montaigne:

. . . “ I do not find that there is anything barbaric or savage about this nation, according to what I’ve been told, unless we are to call barbarism whatever differs from our own customs. Indeed, we seem to have no other standard of truth and reason than the opinions and customs of our own country. There at home is always the perfect religion, the perfect legal system–the perfect and most accomplished way of doing everything.

These people are wild in the same sense that fruits are, produced by nature, alone, in her ordinary way. Indeed, in that land, it is we who refuse to alter our artificial ways and reject the common order that ought rather to be called wild, or savage.  In them the most natural virtues and abilities are alive and vigorous, whereas we have bastardized them and adopted them solely to our corrupt taste. Even so, the flavor and delicacy of some of the wild fruits from those countries is excellent, even to our taste, better than our cultivated ones. After all, it would hardly be reasonable that artificial breeding should be able to outdo our great and powerful mother, Nature. We have so burdened the beauty and richness of her works by our innovations that we have entirely stifled her. Yet whenever she shines forth in her purity she puts our vain and frivolous enterprises amazingly to shame. . . . All our efforts cannot create the nest of the tiniest bird: its structure, its beauty, or the usefulness of its form; nor can we create the web of the lowly spider. All things, said Plato are produced by nature, chance, or human skill, the greatest and most beautiful things by one of the first two, the lesser and most imperfect, by the latter. . . .

These nations seem to me, then, barbaric in that they have been little refashioned by the human mind and are still quite close to their original naivety. They are still ruled by natural laws, only slightly corrupted by ours. They are in such a state of purity that I am sometimes saddened by the thought that we did not discover them earlier, when there were people who would have known how to judge them better than we. It displeases me that Lycurgus or Plato didn’t know them, for it seems to me that these peoples surpass not only the portraits which poetry has made of the Golden Age and all the invented, imaginary notions of the ideal state of humanity, but even the conceptions and the very aims of philosophers themselves. They could not imagine such a pure and simple naivety as we encounter in them; nor would they have been able to believe that our society might be maintained with so little artifice and social structure.

***

Yes, Indeed, Cannibals Are Us, to the point we have cannibal DNA:

One thing Montaigne is right on, is to view cannibalism as nothing special. To quote Wikipedia:

Among modern humans, cannibalism has been practiced by various groups.[25] It was practiced by humans in Prehistoric Europe,[35][36] Mesoamerica[37] South America,[38]among Iroquoian peoples in North America,[39] Māori in New Zealand,[40] the Solomon Islands,[41] parts of West Africa[17] and Central Africa,[17] some of the islands of Polynesia,[17] New Guinea,[42] Sumatra,[17] and Fiji.[43] Evidence of cannibalism has been found in ruins associated with the Ancestral Puebloans of the Southwestern United States as well as (at Cowboy Wash in Colorado).[44][45][46]

Not just this: the evidence of cannibalism in humans is at least 600,000 years old. There are two reasons for it, I reckon: proteins were hard to find in the past. But not just this: by eating humans themselves, humans prevented predators to acquire a taste for human flesh, a paramount security consideration  around potentially human eating predators. Eating dead humans is then, indeed, nothing special, having two good reasons for it. What of the possibility of prion disease? (That was found in North Africa, and the Fore of New Guinea, who were too enthusiastic in eating their parents, causing the prion disease kuru).

In 2003, a publication in Science magazine suggested that prehistoric humans practiced extensive cannibalism, to the point human genetics adapted to this practice. According to this research, genetic markers commonly found in modern humans, worldwide, suggest that today many people carry a gene providing protection against the brain diseases that can be spread by consuming human brain tissue… A study of the Fore, an isolated tribe living in Papua New Guinea by Simon Mead, John Collinge and colleagues, at the MRC’s Prion Unit at University College London, found evidence that a gene variant arose in some of the Fore to protect against a deadly prion disease transmitted by their former cannibalistic habits. Prion diseases include CJD in humans and BSE – mad cow disease – in cattle.

The team found from analysing DNA samples that the same protective gene variant is common in people all over the world. This led the researchers to conclude that it evolved when cannibalism was widespread, in order to shield cannibals from prion diseases lurking in the flesh of victims.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action/

A DNA debate ensued, but my hunch is that the cannibalistic protection gene has got to exist, for the ubiquitous reasons I gave. Why New Guinea Highlanders are susceptible may have to do paradoxically with cannibalism being less practiced in that lush area since it was colonized by humans…

I suggested that cannibalism had, in part to do with not giving predators a taste for human flesh (notice the expression). Guess what? Native mammal fauna of New Guinea lacks large predators, so what I see as a main reason for cannibalism was absent in New Guinea! (Right, there are both Saltwater and Freshwater crocodiles in New Guinea, but those saurians are not smart enough to develop distinguished and cultural culinary habits, differently from felines, hyenas, canids, bears, eagles, etc.)

***

Montaigne had little imagination:

If eating dead humans is then, indeed, nothing special, having two good reasons for it, not eating humans is a deviation from normalcy. Thus, not eating humans is an indication of civilization, that most striking anomaly life ever evolved.

In the 21th Century, the Disney company has a problem: patrons spreading around the ashes of their loved ones (which they put in medication bottles as large containers are checked). Haunted houses are a preferred place. People can be weird, but there is nothing weird about cannibalism (psychiatrist associations have refused to label cannibalism a mental disease).

The word “cannibalism” is derived from Caníbales, the Spanish name for the Caribs, whom Columbus encountered. (Some say the Spaniards invented the word in analogy with the Latin “canis”, mixing it with the sound for the karina as the islanders described themselves). Dog eat dog, in other words… In any case, “cannibalism” was introduced in France in 1515 CE.  

Spanish conquistadores observed that the Carib Indians were cannibals who regularly ate roasted human flesh. There is evidence as to the taking of human trophies and the ritual cannibalism of war captives among both Carib and other Amerindian groups such as the Arawak and Tupinamba (the ones from Brazil Montaigne knew best). The Caribs themselves were invaders from South America, having arrived around 1200 and displaced the indigenous Tainos. With the Mexican Aztecs, cannibalism took industrial proportions (and turned out into their undoing).

In long prose I will not bother to reproduce here, Montaigne makes an idyllic description of cannibalism: something that happened peacefully after death. What a dearth of imagination!

Real cannibalism is something else. Did Montaigne think about the problem of indigestion? One does not want to eat too much meat at one time. How to preserve the meat, when one has no salt, no cold drying wind, no deep freezing lakes? Well, one can eat the meat, one piece at a time. Over a period of weeks.

In 1910, the American anthropologist, A P Rice, described how the people of the Marquesas Islands ritualistically killed their captives.

First, they broke their legs, to stop them running away, then they broke their arms, to stop them resisting. This was an unhurried killing, because the Marquesans enjoyed observing their victim contemplating his fate. Eventually, the man would be skewered and roasted.

Nuku Hiva has a population of just over 2000 and has a history of cannibalism, but the practice was believed to have ceased. Not so sure. In any case, when battling the enemy, eating him, or her, can be viewed as the ultimate insult. So it was perceived for many cannibalisms, such as the one in New Zealand.(Dishonoring the dead is a long practice for cherished enemies: see Obama with Bin Laden.)

***

If One Really Hates Them, One May As Well, Eat Them Alive:

(No, I won’t tweet that one! Such a statement will be evilly contextualized by the ill-minded and the mentally challenged…)

Long ago, I read extensive nineteenth century description of cannibalism in Oceania (I searched but could not find references). It goes from the humoristic to the grim. On the humoristic side, that time when the British delegation to New Zealand was invited to celebrate a treaty with the Maoris, with an extensive Luau comprising many roasted Natives.

That we have so much indications of cannibalism in Oceania is per the nature of islands (small, no extensive crops to raid after killing the peasants), and the fact these were Neolithic societies, equivalent to those found in Europe before the Mesopotamian farmers and their intensive agriculture crops colonized Europe, 7,000 years ago… (So, it’s not anti-Pacific Islander racism; actually the ethnicities of those islanders vary a lot, between Filipino derived and Melanesian… History is complicated, and not PC, as the case of New Zealand shows…)

One grim truth is that, in hot tropical climate, without refrigeration, some captives were eaten, ALIVE,  piece by piece over a period of days, or even weeks (not to say that Europeans wouldn’t do such a thing: the assassin of one of the “Orange” leaders of the Netherlands, William the Silent, was publicly tortured to death over several days).

The necessity to eat some people alive, under some circumstances, illustrates clearly that cannibalism, or the absence thereof, is dependent upon the environment and technology, not just the “mores”: there are widespread rumors that the Wehrmacht resorted to cannibalism in Stalingrad (in any case, the Wehrmacht’s Sixth Army resorted to practices, like torture to death, which are fully documented, in Poland, France, and Russia…)

***

Conclusion: As an indication of barbarity, eating people is neither here, nor there. Eating corpses when there is no other choice, is viewed as correct, even in the most conservative societies. The real barbarity is to set-up, or contribute to set-up, or tolerate situations where cannibalism would be a natural outcome. It goes without saying that, in a world of 8 billion people highly dependent on international trade to feed themselves (most energy is traded, at this point), a serious war would disrupt trade, and invite cannibalism.

Montaigne, by claiming that what we do not practice we view as barbaric, and, by claiming implicitly that this was legitimate, or by transmogrifying cannibalism into something nice, voided the concept of barbarity from any content.

To stay attached to the notion of progress, we have to be able to distinguish between what is bad and what is better. For example, having a situation where one has to eat one’s enemy alive is bad, and a situation in which we have no enemy is better.

Montaigne, dejected by the Saint Bartholomew massacre launched by his Catholic party was led to hint that Catholics viewed Protestants as barbaric, just because of their different ways (“usage”). Understood. However, the concept that barbarity is entirely relative has since taken a life of its own: one can see it loud and clear in Nazism (Himmler recommended to his men, after their daily massacres, of civilians, women and children, to immerse themselves to eternal German culture, complete with soothing classical music).

Cultural multiculturalism, in its extreme contemporary form, claims we can’t judge other cultures. Or even other cultures’ ideas and practices. If religiously endowed, the more horrendous practices, sexual mutilations or executions, are tolerated.

For example, Pakistan’s court condemned a young Christian woman, Asia Noreen – commonly known as Asia Bibi, to be executed for allegedly insulting Islam during a dispute with neighbors (she already spent eight years on death row). The Pakistan Supreme Court ordered her freed in November 2018, but she was left in prison as the Islamists called for her death. Her senior male lawyer, saying he regretted nothing, fled Pakistan.

Such behaviors from powers in Pakistan depict barbarity unchained: in the place known as Pakistan, at some point Jihadists invaded, and imposed their barbarity (centuries after Christianism peacefully seduced Pakistanis). That Islamists use terror doesn’t make terror any less barbaric. Michel de Montaigne would have us believe that, because terror is a usage of Jihadists, we shouldn’t call it barbaric, as they use it, and we, the secular civilians, don’t. Well, that’s swine level reasoning.

We can only love those we can debate, as, at worst, they provide us with the occasion to prove them wrong. At best, they make us more intelligent, wiser and knowledgeable, making us stronger. So I love Montaigne more than ever, even though my esteem for him went down a lot, while Rousseau’s, to my dismay, went up.

I am a real multicultural, multilingual, even multi continental fanatic. I even call Chinese history home, although I grew up (mostly) in Africa. Good multiculturalism is to pick and choose particular elements of the hundreds of culture we have at our disposal, and reject others we find horrid. I understand what Native North Americans were up to, with their tortures to death. I also understand and appreciate the psychology and traditions which motivated the “47 Ronins. I know very well that some Africans traits viewed as primitive, are actually more advanced. But in all this there is one meta principles: some ideas and feelings are more advanced than others. Comparing, or accepting, cultures wholesale is naive, even criminal.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Notes:

  1. Parroted by Levi Strauss in Race et Histoire, Unesco, 1952, pp. 19 sq.

“Dans les Grandes Antilles, quelques années après la découverte de l’Amérique, pendant que les Espagnols envoyaient des commissions d’enquête pour rechercher si les indigènes possédaient ou non une âme, ces derniers s’employaient à immerger des blancs prisonniers afin de vérifier par une surveillance prolongée si leur cadavre était ou non, sujet à la putréfaction.

Cette anecdote à la fois baroque et tragique illustre bien le paradoxe du relativisme culturel (que nous retrouverons ailleurs sous d’autres formes) : c’est dans la mesure même où l’on prétend établir une discrimination entre les cultures et les coutumes que l’on s’identifie le plus complètement avec celles qu’on essaye de nier. En refusant l’humanité à ceux qui apparaissent comme les plus “sauvages” ou ” barbares ” de ses représentants, on ne fait que leur emprunter une de leurs attitudes typiques. Le barbare, c’est d’abord l’homme qui croit à la barbarie.”

Notice that this piece of brain-dead sophistry minded devious apology of extreme multiculturalism was published by the United Nations. Now the UN can be proud that non-Muslims get executed in Pakistan for just being non-Muslim (as many Islam texts say they should).

Translation: “In the Greater Antilles, a few years after the discovery of America, while the Spaniards sent commissions of inquiry to find out whether the natives had a soul or not, the natives were trying to immerse white prisoners to check by prolonged surveillance if their body was or was not, subject to putrefaction.

This baroque and tragic anecdote illustrates the paradox of cultural relativism (which we will find elsewhere in other forms): it is to the very extent that we claim to discriminate between cultures and customs that we identify ourselves most completely with those we try to deny. By denying humanity to those who appear to be the most “savage” or “barbarian” of its representatives, one only borrows one of their typical attitudes. The barbarian is first and foremost the man who believes in barbarism.

“The barbarian is first and foremost the man who believes in barbarism?” that’s Levi-Strauss parroting Montaigne, denying there is such a thing as barbarity. Here Levi Strauss is poorly informed, repeating mindlessly a racist insult (against Spaniards): the notion of Indians having a soul was never put in doubt by the Spaniards: that’s precisely why they tried to convert them to Catholicism, as ordered by the Pope! Thus, irony of ironies, the holier-than-thou Levi-Strauss proclaims those who believe in barbarity barbarians, while himself indulging in fake news, fake, and racially insulting data, trying to make us believe that the Conquistadors were themselves delirious stupid racist brutes (they could be as brutish as needed, but were nether racist, nor stupid: for example, Cortez’s relationship with La Malinche, a multilingual Yucatan Princess, was crucial for the conquest… He recognized the children.)

***

(2) Rousseau parroted Montaigne, but not just... It is often said that Rousseau parroted Montaigne, but, reading the originals, I didn’t find just this. Instead I found this:

Ce qu’il y a de plus cruel, encore, c’est que, tous les progrès de l’espèce humaine l’éloignant sans cesse de son état primitif, plus nous accumulons de nouvelles connaissances et plus nous nous ôtons les moyens d’acquérir la plus importante de toutes, et que c’est en un sens à force d’étudier l’homme que nous nous sommes mis hors d’état de le connaître.

“What is most cruel, still, is that, as all the progress of the human species constantly removes it ever more from its primitive state, the more we accumulate new knowledge and the more we take away from us the means to acquire the most important knowledge of all, and that it is in a sense the more we study man, the more we put ourselves out of the state necessary to know him.”

This is correct in the sense of the salons Rousseau frequented, but not in the sense of laboratories exploring dendrites and neurotransmitters. Such a quote is also extremely far from the myth of the “Bon Sauvage” attributed to Rousseau…

However it remains that Rousseau held that men in a state of nature do not know good and evil, but their independence, along with “the peacefulness of their passions, and their ignorance of vice”, keep them from doing ill (A Discourse…, 71-73). Curious that Rousseau never heard of the systematic usage of lethal, prolonged torture among North American Natives, as the way to end prisoners’ lives… That was extremely well documented and known at the time, so one can see Rousseau was extremely biased, to the point of idiocy.

I tied in Montaigne’s divagations with Jihadism. So did Rousseau, I discovered after I wrote the preceding… except that Rousseau approves of Jihadism, Christian or Islamist, and approves of burning libraries:

They say that Caliph Omar, when consulted about what had to be done with the library of Alexandria, answered as follows: ‘If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.’ Our learned men have cited this reasoning as the height of absurdity. However, suppose Gregory the Great was there instead of Omar and the Gospel instead of the Koran. The library would still have been burned, and that might well have been the finest moment in the life of this illustrious pontiff.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (1st Discourse) and Polemics

***

3) So what’s barbarian?

Barbarian is relative to the circumstances. For example, many elements of the doctrine advocated by Muhammad, in his day, and age, and place of worship, was not barbarian… but, just the opposite, progressive! However, now, it both barbarian and regressive.  

Christianism, though, is another matter. When Constantine imposed “Catholic Orthodoxy” that was definitively barbarian and regressive. It opened an anti-intellectual abyss under Greco-Roman civilization it collapsed into.

PA

Frightening McCarthyism Style Senate Hearings For US Supreme Court

September 29, 2018

Abominable sexism is all over the planet. It needs to be fought. The sword of mental progress should decapitate sexism. But a sword works best when it has not been shattered, by striking too hard an object of no value, gaining naught. This is the problem caving to the Kavanaugh hearing hysteria. I am for the hearing, not the hysteria. [Thereafter Kavanaugh will be K and his accuser F.]

This is a philosophy site. Philosophy means loving wisdom, which can’t be accomplished without hating stupidity. And thus, in particular, hating the stupid (Sade, Hugo, Nietzsche did that well). Thus, creating philosophy has rarely been perceived as nice by most contemporaries. New philosophy exists by finding ways to contradict yesterday’s wisdom, uncovering stupidity, thus the stupid.

Individuals with over-wrinkled (F), marked, or reddish faces (from alcohol blown capillaries, watch K’s ruddy face and pink cheeks) and, or neurologically frazzled behavior (both K and F) show evidence of alcohol damage to various tissues. Thus, ex-old drunkards testify in front of the US Senate. Yes, because they both admitted to heavy  drinking of alcohol… while underage, and thereafter. K has made many statements about the festive state alcohol put him into, during many public events he was invited to in the past. Accuser Ford? The woman was a drunkard at the time… and what was a 15-year-old girl doing at a drunkard’s’ party  with older boys? If not for enjoying inebriety, trouble and illegal behavior?

A few points to which the USA seems most immune to: 

  1. crimes, except against humanity, shouldn’t be prosecuted 36 years later: no serious defense can be set-up.  
  2. Even more importantly, both K and F were children at the time… Ah, but the professional prosecutor who interrogated K said that even “horseplay” (what children do) could be sexual in nature, thus… a crime!  

A grotesque standard was established by the prosecutor: “sexual behavior” was defined as “genitals touching” (whatever “genitals” are) voluntarily or not, through clothing or not (this probably makes jammed subway people and football/rugby players sexual behaviorists engaging in “unwanted sexual behavior”). Puritanism gone mad, and vicious: because people are really sent to prison in the USA for behaving, at some point, for a second or two as if they were in Tokyo or Paris subways… This is deep inside the violence, judicial or social of the US: prosecuting what are basically non-crimes, enables the prosecution and law enforcement, and legislating bodies to ignore real crimes, as if it was not their fault. They just ran out of attention, cognition, reflection, time and energy you see. Instead they all worry about the hand of a child, perhaps, on the mouth of a drunk 15-year-old girl… 36 years ago.

An entirely grotesque process then. Kavanaugh the judge was the object of 6 FBI inquiries prior, before his various nominations as a judge. The accuser suddenly remembers in 2012, under “therapy” what happened in 1982. I have been assaulted much more severely, more than once… A tendency is to forget assaults, just to get inner peace, not to suddenly remember them. But never talking about them after they happened? No way. One is forced to share trauma.

***

Before gaining altitude, in a follow-up essay on sexism, to come later, let me reiterate the obvious:

Dreaming is best done above the clouds, for those who search ultimate wisdom, freedom

I am no philosophical friend of Kavanaugh, but mostly his enemy. In particular, I don’t like show-off Christians (they are liars: who can believe all the Jesus fable? Lunatics? Pedophiles?)

Nor do I like drunkards: the good judge was always one of them. I believe drunkards tend to forget, make up stories to fill-in the missing memories (I believe Ford was sexually assaulted in one of her drinking bouts, and that’s why she drank; whether K jumped on top of her, horseplaying, I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter: these were kids, but they shouldn’t have been drinking alcohol). Even more, drunkards can’t live with themselves. Socrates was a drunkard, and proud of it. But how can one be proud of “know thyself” and yet proud of messing up with one’s ability to gather knowledge?

However, this is a witch hunt: the alleged assault, had it happen, barely qualifies as such. It qualifies as horseplay on steroids. And the fact is, the accuser didn’t go to the police (she had probably committed crimes herself, hence her lack of alacrity to testify then or now).

Real assault, something I am all too familiar with, is something quite different. One doesn’t wait 30 years to “remember” it, as Ford claimed. One wants to share it with others, share the sense of injustice. I had a few near-death experiences (some from assault), and I am not mute about it, never was. It’s actually normal to mention violent occurrences… as long as one has nothing to do with the situation which led to the aggression.

Next: why sexism should be eradicated. Ah, last but not least: the prosecutor, a woman, was morbidly obese. That’s a form of violence, even lethal violence. Some will say:’Oh, but she kills only herself.’ No, she enjoys millions of women to view putting a hand on a mouth, or “genitals” through clothing somehow colliding with some other organics under clothing, as a most major crime. But dying of obesity pretty soon? That’s the American way.

I see a violence in obesity, as I do in prosecuting hand on a mouth 36 years later, or judging children as adults, 36 years later, but not of the parents who failed to provide supervision… 

Another point: while I am as anti-sexist as they come, I can see perfectly that sexism is a two-way road. Clearly, in the society at large, women are not on top proportionally to their number and, or, education. However, that should be no excuse for the self-described (pseudo) “resistance” to mimic McCarthyism, just worse. Some may scoff that, surely, this is not as bad as McCarthyism.

But consider this: the original population of Western Europe and North America is not reproducing, it’s actually dying, at a very fast pace by historical  standards. It’s not as fast as the collapse of the Aztecs (which went from say 16 million in 1520 CE to one million in 1600 CE). However, the Aztecs, like other American Native got crushed by Eurasian disease their genetics was weak to resist: it was a special situation. Now EU authorities say they need to welcome (mostly Muslim) immigrants, because European youth is collapsing.

Maybe, tighten the seat belts, please, maybe what is collapsing quite a bit too much, is good old machismo (I will not Tweet this, lest I lose plenty of followers…) If men of a particular ethnicity are going to be terrified of all and any “horseplay” with women, that particular ethnicity won’t just stoop to the level of fanatical Islam in its relationship between men and women. It will also implode. White Euro-American populations will also be replaced by Fundamentalist Muslims, because the latter reproduce aplenty… The reason is obvious: Fundamentalist Muslim males are not living in terror of approaching women when, and where, and how it really matters as far as survival of the “race” is concerned. Differently from all these disheveled white men on the run…

And the worst? All this is fake. The anti-machismo movement is supposedly to help women… But, in the end, it just helps those who have it all…  Those old white men it pretends to excoriates… By removing the fangs which could tear them up, and only fangs will do.

The point of this essay is this: whenone is civilized, it’s important to be civilized in-depth. In depth, Kavenaugh represents much that I condemn, and despise. The sort of aggression Ford claims she was victim of, I also despise and condemn, however much she assiduously prepared herself to be a victim of, with systematic drinking. However, one can’t judge civilization in-depth alone, especially regarding individuals. After all what is going down in-depth is hard to ascertain. Whereas superficial forms are easy to observe: acceptable form, appearance, politeness have also to be extended too, it’s a matter of civilization one can see and judge easily. When Feinstein and other “Dems” (Demons?) sat on the accusation against Kavanaugh, keeping it secret, until they could spring it at the last moment, they were sabotaging the (pseudo) democratic process of Supreme Court generalissimo selection.

Applying full adult justice on children, decades later, only an unacceptable civilization would do this. As Kavanaugh himself said:’What goes around, comes around.” In their fight to death against Trump, the “democratic” powers that be play a dangerous game: they create a precedent of using any sort of propaganda, however improbable (Trump as Russian agent… when Trump is on tape as having exactly the same opinions when the USSR already existed and Trump was fighting… Ronald Reagan’s plutocratic globalization).

One should not forget (should one know it) that the Roman Revolution which ended up with Augustus as dictator, started with legitimate gripes of the soldiers of Octavian army. Centurions went ahead, one bared and brandished his sword at the… Senate, the Roman Senate, and declared that if the Senate didn’t take the right decisions, his sword would. We are not yet there, and Trump is craftily surrounded by generals. But this is the nuclear age, and history goes fast….

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: The pseudo-left has also issued scathing comments about the Senate being full of old white men (as the tips of all hierarchies)… First that’s grotesquely ageist, a form of discrimination just as bad as discrimination against children, as the old can’t defend themselves well. Worse: there is a reason it’s called a “Senate”. Like in “Senior”. It’s about older people giving advice, because they have little personally to gain in giving poisonous counsel. Age discrimination is one of the worst thing: it is not just unfair, it deprives humanity of wisdom. Learn.

France Parented the USA: So Why Forget? Because The Child, The USA, Played (And Plays) Vicious Games, Partly Reflected In How It Neglected Its Parent.

September 24, 2018

Tremendous efforts are vested by the elite to tweak the mentality of those they subjugate. No detail is spared. Details impact emotional logic, and can fabricate fake minds, apt at serving only the masters who set them up. And that starts by instilling a perverse, twisted sense of history.

Yorktown” is the locale and battle where two French armies, a French fleet, and the American army defeated terminally the British in the US war of independence. The aircraft carrier by that name is at the bottom of the Pacific, after another heroic battle (which it helped to win).

Even the names of aircraft carriers can be tweaked, perverting the sense of history and even of democracy: once named after the major battles which made the USA (Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Belleau Woods), now they are named after unelected celebrities (Ford) or undistinguished president (there is a “Reagan” carrier, but no “Nixon”, or “Carter” carrier… The idea being Reagan is vastly superior to Carter or Nixon… although history will judge otherwise… and no carrier should be named after them. JFK, an authentic Navy war hero, who died a martyr, avoided nuclear war, send Earth to the Moon, is another matter, he deserved a carrier…)

Why do the French get downplayed in their importance in the American Revolutionary War?

One French army, commanded by Washington, plus two French armies, commanded by Lafayette and Rochambeau, and the French fleet, commanded by De Grasse, converged on Yorktown, and, after heavy bombardment by French siege guns commanded by De Barras, forced the surrender of the British army.

The irony is that the French themselves learned, and learn, history from the real supreme victors of 1945, the USA, or more precisely, what the USA mostly means, US plutocrats, their media, universities, businesses, with their CIA, Deep State and another 16 “intelligence” agencies in tow.

If one were a French intellectual in the 1950s, and one wanted a lucrative career, one had to sing the praises of the US, or the USSR, or both (Sartre and De Beauvoir did both, after earlier collaborating with the Nazi authorities). Significant details such as the French declaring war (and attacking) Hitler in 1939, while Hitler was allied to the USSR (which provided Hitler with all sorts of goodies, including crucial oil), had to be forgotten.

So had to be forgotten, the troubling double game of the USA at the inception of both WW1 and WW2. The machinations the USA and its moral persons and agents engaged in, favoring fascism and working against the French Republic, should have been seen as particularly outrageous, especially in light of how the USA came to be. Indeed, the French monarchy of Louis XVI was the main agent of creation of the US Republic, and deliberately so. Most probably, without France, the USA would never have come to be. Hence the USA is the baby France brought to this world, and the refusal of the USA to do anything in May-June 1940 to prevent the fall of France is ignominious. If the USA had given an ultimatum to Hitler, his generals would have made a coup.

German generals had asked precisely for such an aggressive attitude, on the part of the USA, as early as 1937, to get rid of the Nazis; after a clear declaration, on the part of the USA, that the USA would side with France against Nazism, the generals had all the excuse they needed for a coupinstead the plotting German generals got denounced by the USA and the UK… to Hitler himself; hence in 1940, German generals could only feel that the USA, or the powers which mattered in the USA, those which controlled public opinion, were in agreement with the Nazi invasion of France! They didn’t guess they were the victim of another bait and switch, just as in WW1…

Had the USA sent such an ultimatum, requiring the immediate German evacuation of France, German generals could have said the Nazis imperilled Germany, as it was obvious to all Germans they couldn’t win the grand coalition of France-Britain-USA. Thus a loud and clear US intervention in 1940 would have brought quick German surrender… Instead, when Hitler declared war to the USA, December 11, 1941, all of Germany, and, in particular the German army, was so deeply committed to Nazi racial and other criminality, that they couldn’t back out…

Even by late June 1940, France was far from defeated: the French air force was poised to gain air supremacy (after enormous Luftwaffe losses and exhaustion), and the French army and fleet could lock up the Mediterranean, and pursue the war from southern France, Corsica and especially North Africa (which the Germans demonstrated later they couldn’t cross seriously, just because of the small islands of Malta, which stayed unconquered).

The Canadians intervened: they landed in Brittany in June 1940, but their divisions were promptly beaten back. A US intervention, the US had aircraft carriers, would have persuaded the French Assembly to keep on firing on the Germans (who had already suffered enormous losses).

The US Deep State attitude during WW2, driven by the French hating plutocrat Roosevelt, anxious to gain control of all European empires, was to destroy as much of France as they could get away with. Hence the attempted grabbing of New Caledonia, the bombing and annihilation of French ports (the Germans had no more boats), and the plan to occupy France as if it were Nazi Germany (that failed because the USA depended upon the one million men French army in 1944, and most US generals were sympathetic to the French cause, and even admired some of their French colleagues, for example “Hannibal” Juin, victor of Monte Cassino, and who could have finished the war in weeks, had he been given free rein…)

However, after the war, the CIA is known to have had at least 50 top French influencers in the media on its payroll… And the real influence was probably much greater. Top French intellectuals did as they were paid for: they rewrote all of French history in a negative light, starting with Vercingetorix and Caesar. Grossly underestimating the French crucial role if the American Revolution was part of it.

The French and US Constitutions of 1789 were proclaimed only three weeks apart. That’s no coincidence: France and the USA actually had a common revolution, and probably its main character was not the American Founding Fathers as much as the tragic figure of Louis XVI, who did in America what he was afraid to do in France (although he feebly tried there, persistently, but all too weakly).

If enough US citizens had known the history of the USA and of the ideals they embraced, better, in 1939, they would have supported the French Republic against the Nazis, the USSR and Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy … As Great Britain (a monarchy!) reluctantly did, in the last few months. History would have turned out differently: no Auschwitz, etc. But US citizens didn’t know France gave birth to the USA, as much as she did (and twice, as France also gave birth to Britain in 1066 CE, complete with outlawing of slavery there…)

Those who don’t learn history are condemned to make it worse, today. more than ever

The greatest and final battle of the American war of independence was at Yorktown: one US army, two French armies, and the French fleet, cornered the British army, and forced its surrender. After inflicting grievous losses on the Japanese carriers, the US aircraft carrier Yorktown was sunk at the Midway battle, a tremendous US victory on attacking Japan.

There is no more US carrier named “Yorktown” in the present US fleet. But the most modern US nuclear carrier is named “Ford”. “Ford”, although US president, was never elected to that office, nor to the office of Vice-President, which he was honored with before. One would guess that democrats and republicans want to forget how one guy can get to the highest offices of the land… without election. But, no, now we have an aircraft carrier to celebrate this strange accession. Strange in a democratic republic, that is…. So, say the history people learn, forget how the USA came to be, through a revolution co-engineered with France, in a republican, democratic spirit, but instead, celebrate now an unelected US president: a telling difference between yesterday’s hopes and ideals, and today’s decadence into plutocracy!

The excellent movie “Gladiator” presents a nice alternative history of Rome. It could have happened that way, indeed. The Republic could have been re-established because of a courageous general. But it wasn’t. Why? The probability that the Republic would come back was low. We the People of Rome expected dictatorship. At some point all minds have become too perverted by fake history, inappropriate mentality! Mental inertia is in command, all the way down to the direst oblivion…

Indeed, Roman fascism and plutocracy soon fell into more of the same, adding hysterical militarism, then apocalyptic, beyond idiotic Christianism, followed by the weird alliance of the wealthiest, with the most religious and barbarian chieftains.

Should we want to avoid the new Dark Ages we often seem to be cruise towards, we need to see history as it really was, not according to manipulative agendas. Yes, France gave birth to the USA at the battle of Yorktown, and yes, the USA betrayed the French (and the Poles, and the Brits, and the Jews, and all the other victims of Nazism) in 1939-1940. That’s real history, not to be confused with fake hysteria.

Patrice Ayme

Why Plutocrats Hate France: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

September 19, 2018

Up In Smoke: EVIL OF BANALITY, Not Just Banality Of Evil!

September 2, 2018

Slash And Burn Planet: What Could Go Wrong?

Satellite pictures show that the planet is burning. Is that evil? Yes: when the biosphere goes up in flames, the end is near, just ask dinosaurs in a theater near you. Is that banal? No: it never happened before.

Yet, philosopher Hannah Arendt is most famous for describing evil with her concept of the “banality of evil”. She rolled out her banal notion in connection with Nazi mass criminal Eichmann. Arendt’s banality has been intensely criticized. She retorted that she wanted to make sure the devils of Nazism would not be admired. That’s banal too, and shouldn’t be the point.

Arendt’s grudge, that evil shouldn’t bring fame, is, by itself, an entire logical system implicating the notion of divinity. It’s vast, yet it’s one fundament of evil. However, precisely because it’s a pillar of evil, it makes Arendt’s attempt to belittle Nazis’ celebrity status, by claiming their evil was most banal, futile: evil, personified long ago,  achieved so much fame that Buddhism introduced Mara as their own version. Personalizing evil was known earlier as Angra Mainyu, and, a thousand years later, well before the Bible, as Hades, Pluto, etc.

Arendt admitted she was not really motivated by truth, but by what she viewed as the higher mission of belittling Nazism. This is of course troubling. Philosophers of ethics, and psychology, should know that (the philosophy known as the religion of) Hinduism  identified evil with untruth… No need for endowing evil with a personality! (In the matter of evil as untruth, Hinduism was probably inspired by the earlier Zoroastrianism; although Angra Manyu, later Hariman, personalized evil too, just to make sure…).

***

In truth, there is nothing banal about maximal evil. Horrendously evil acts accomplished by intelligent persons, are a metaphysical assertion: my belief in me, they say through their acts, or my god (me again!) is so great, that I can do the worst, and call it good. Self-satisfaction ensues, and that’s the ultimate. The song of the ultimately narcissist.

***

So what of these fires? Much of the American Pacific Northwest had the world’s worst pollution, during much of summer 2018. Some fires will have lasted many months. The devastation is unprecedented. I predicted as much, and more: the places I know which are ready to burn, have not burned yet. Consult the suitably dramatic personal observations last winter solstice:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/climate-catastrophe-california-forests-dying-giant-fires-coming-in-2018/

CalFire, the Californian state fire department, observes that large trees are desiccated, ready to burn, all over the state.

August 2018. Human Activity Covers Planet with huge smoke clouds (in red and orange), from CO2 induced warming, hence burning, or slash & burn agriculture in Africa… Blue clouds: salt; white clouds: dust… even the massive forest fire near Berlin is visible…https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2018/smoke-from-siberian-fires-reaches-canada

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2018/fires-overwhelming-british-columbia-smoke-choking-the-skies

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2018/agricultural-fires-seem-to-engulf-central-africa

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2018/ongoing-fires-in-sweden-quelled-by-weekend-rains-finally

***

***

So is it banal to observe that the planet is burning, or banal not to observe it? In any case, not to do anything about it is evil. Most will say that they can’t do a thing to prevent it. Well, no. Remember the Nazis. Who were the Nazis? Most Germans, actually. They went along, they collaborated with the Nazis, and the first thing they did was NOT to observe what was going on. It was banal for Germans, while enjoying Nazism, NOT to observe reality.

Actually, Hannah Arendt observes as much. She (implicitly) deduces that the judges of Eichmann should have said as much: the Nazi ideology was the normalcy of Germany, Eichmann was culprit of being extremely normal, all too normal. Mass murderer Eichmann was no freak: instead, he should have been executed as an official scapegoat, in lieu of, or as an extreme version of the ordinary German collaborating with the Nazi state.

And that collaboration consisted, first of all, by not seeing what was going on.

Yes I know that some will see in this an anti-Trump allusion; yet, clearly, the US Deep State is the major culprit of much evil, on a scale that makes Trump, so far, insignificant.   

As Margaret Kimberley @freedomrideblog put it:

McCain, Bush, and Obama all killed thousands of people. Trump has a much smaller body count but he is the one being vilified today. (Of course he has at least 2 more years so he can catch up.) And no I’m not a Trump supporter.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a cover-up to dissimulate much greater horrors: in particular that globalization which is mostly a world plutocratitization, or new ways, such as Obama droning children personally, as executor-of-the-innocent-in-chief. Or Obama, Bernanke and their European homologues directing thousands of billions of dollars towards the wealthiest institutions in the world, apparently to reward them for causing a worldwide financial crisis…

The real Nazi-like phenomenon in the USA has been the incapacity to see what the US Deep State did, or didn’t do. And the same critique can be extended to Europe: Europeans have not even seen that Nazism itself was an instrument, and partly, a creation of the US Deep State. Eichmann learned that the hard way, when the Brits and Menachem Begin refused to further the negotiations for exchanging a million Jews against 10,000 trucks (“Forget the damned trucks!” would Begin later interject…) The mood, of ignoring the holocaust of the Jews, came from Washington…

One sees best, with simplicity: had the USA wanted to stop Nazism, at any point, it would have been enough to expose the Nazi crimes for all the (German) population to see, and warn that any civilian, officer or soldier thus implicated would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Because the USA didn’t try, was careful NOT to try, to stop Nazism by making a threatening scandal, as the German generals had asked as early as 1937, one is led to observe that the US Deep State wanted Nazism around.

Learning that the Nazis were preparing to further exterminate part of the Alsatian population, French general Leclerc warned that:

“The German army doesn’t obey anymore, when dealing with civilian populations, to the laws of war. Villages are systematically burned, inhabitants shot to death, or deported… I warn officially the German Command that I will, step by step, proceed to make formal observations, and that I find out, every time, the name of the officers who are responsible. Whatever the number of weeks, or months during which Germany will succeed to extend the war, she will have to surrender. I will employ all my influence so that justice will be done.”

(Général Leclerc to Général Feuchtinger.)

Result: the Germans and their Nazis (was there a difference?) stopped their exactions, their mass criminality, in Alsace.

What was the main point there, the basis of it all? Leclerc observed reality.

The planet is burning, let’s observe reality. When Angela Merkel pushed, and pushes, to burn lignite (the worst coal), she is a mass criminal. When Obama pushed for fracking (“bridge fuel” he called it!), and to export coal to China, he was a mass criminal (yes, Trump is trying to extend that… but coal is condemned, even China doesn’t want it anymore; the real problem is fracking…). And Trudeau in Canada is just a fake: the oil from bituminous sands are the worst. And Trudeau doesn’t have the excuses of the Third World countries with nothing but fossil fuels to export: Canada is wealthy… Yes, I know, some will say they didn’t see a fire coming to their neighborhood yet. However the disruption caused by a gathering nefarious climate change can’t be underestimated, and is already happening (see the African refugee crisis, the war in Syria, etc.)

So just look before you even think, but honestly… Now, to see what others don’t want to see, requires to ban banality. Thus expunging the evil of banality needs to become one of the moral commandments to obey. Should we fancy civilization to survive longer than expected.

Nietzsche promoted the Eternal Return of the Same, something which, strictly speaking, never happened. Instead, the universe is a force that goes. The closest thing to an eternal return, is the return of human creativity… Easily spontaneously spawning, as long as we ban banality!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Here is part of the French original of Leclerc’s warning, which stopped the Nazis dead in their mass murdering tracks. The Western “democracies” had ten years before that to express a similarly strongly worded warning to the Nazis and their obsequious servants, but they didn’t:

Facing the Vor Vogensen Stellung (1re ligne de défense), before dashing through Alsace with the giant Second Armored French Division, Leclerc a connaissance d’exactions allemandes. Il adresse une lettre de mise en garde au Kampfkommandant de Baccarat :

« L’armée allemande n’obéit plus, vis-à-vis des populations civiles, aux lois de la guerre. Des villages sont systématiquement brûlés, les habitants fusillés ou déportés… L’ordre de déportation de la population de Baccarat et de celle de Raon-l’Étape vient d’être donné… J’avertis officiellement le commandement allemand que je vais faire, au fur et à mesure, des constats et que je relève, chaque fois, les noms des officiers responsables. Quel que soit le nombre de semaines, de mois pendant lesquels l’Allemagne réussira encore à prolonger la guerre, elle devra bientôt s’incliner. J’emploierai tout mon poids à ce que justice soit faite. »

— Général Leclerc au Général Feuchtinger  

Leclerc’s maneuver was not banal. Had he been banal, he would have done nothing, like all other Allied generals before him, and thus, he would have partaken in evil…

France Won WW2, Yet Lost It On The Internet, Thus Insanity Progresses

August 3, 2018

The market capitalization of an US company, Apple Inc., reached one trillion dollars today (August 3, 2018). It’s the first company in the world to reach such high valuation. In part, because Apple pays taxes not commensurate with its profits (Ireland, a state, which bemoaned Hitler death, officially, has a lot to do with that). Once I talked to a Silicon Valley executive who told me that Apple, Facebook, Google, etc. should pay no taxes in a country like France, because France was Hitler’s ally. How did we get there? This essay, one of many, wants to throw a light on those devious ways. Far from being innocuous, they are at the psychological-socio-economic root of what made evil such as Nazism possible.

***

Civilizational Madness Lurks On The Internet:

How we behave is related to how we think, manage our emotions, and so on. Somebody with impulse eating and drinking, has what one should call a deficiency in frontal lobes development… and it can apparently be imaged. It does matter: we don’t want impulsive legislators around the world enabling their impulsive leaders to impulsively extinguish humanity… as. Potentially already happened. It happened because insanity has not been studied as it deserves. Watch “stoic” philosophers admiring Seneca, tutor of Nero, an ultra racist plutocrat. Right, Seneca talked seductively… But so did Hitler. One has to learn to look beyond appearances, and detect the madness.

The Internet enables the most ludicrous minds to broadly advertise their insane logic. Some are thrill seekers, some want not to feel alone anymore, and share the madness, some are Messiahs… And many are paid (as when I state we need a hydrogen economy to go hand in hand with photovoltaics, and get 100 scathing remarks in ten minutes on Twitter).

Insanity itself seduces: after all, it’s different, and perhaps the deepest, specifically more developed  instinct in humans is curiosity. What triggers curiosity is what is unusual. There are many ways to seduce with insanity. One of them is ask insane question, as if one were motivated by curiosity, when in truth the question itself is a lie. Here is an example for sheer lunacy found on Quora:

Could France have defeated Germany in WW 2? How?

The author of the question concluded that France had it all, all it needed to win, including mightiest army, weapons, courageous soldiers… All except the will to fight another war (this is disproven by the fact the French army suffered 9,000 casualties a day during the 46 days after May 9, 1940). My answer to this completely insane, fake news, “leading” question, “Could France have defeated…” (leading into delirium that is):

Another alternate reality question: the French Republic declared war to Germany September 3, 1939. Germany capitulated, without conditions, on May 7 1945 in Reims, France, and again May 8, 1945, in Berlin. Hostilities stopped May 9, 1945.

Four victors in Berlin, May 1945, from left to right: generals Montgomery (UK), Eisenhower (US), Joukov (USSR), De Lattre de Tassigny (France)

Thus, France actually defeated Germany in WW2. It is curious that people can be so ignorant, that they don’t know this fact, the grossest outline of history. Some will say:’Oh but France got defeated in a battle’… Well, it was not the first time France lost a battle and went on to win a war.

France and Britain scored a many victories in 1939 and 1940, notably a major win after their second landing in Nazi invaded Norway. That offensive in Norway, had it proceeded as intended after said victory, was to cut Hitler’s crucial ally Sweden in two, cutting Hitler’s iron road, with catastrophic consequences for Hitler.

Indeed, France and Britain suffered a huge defeat during the Battle of France which lasted from May 10 1940 until a ceasefire, June 23 1940. This “Battle of France” was the deadliest battle on the Western front: more than 200,000 died (Belgian and French civilians and soldiers of all sides, all together). The dead included more than 50,000 Nazi (“German”) troops. Some will smirk and say:’Oh, the French killed 50,000 Germans in May-June 1940, so what?’ So this: those dead “Germans” were actually elite troops, the most trained, dedicated, ultra-fanaticized. They were sorely missed a year later, when Hitler attacked Stalin.

US fanatics, and quite often liars in (mental) absentia, further smirk that the US freed France in 1944. The exact notion is: the US helped to free France in 1944. So did others. More than half of the troops on D Day were NOT US. OK, there were only 400 French elite commandos… because the French hating plutocrat FD Roosevelt refused to let the French command know about D Day. But the French resistance was told, and played a crucial role (mobilizing 17 German divisions in south central France… Plus four elite Nazi divisions occupied at reconquering the liberated Vercors… killing 5,000 French civilians in the process.

D Day was a close run thing, for the first four weeks. Had the Nazis been able to bring to bear a few elite divisions in, the Allies would have been thrown back in the sea. Disinformation played a crucial role: Hitler was made to believe Patton would cross over the Pas De Calais. Allied air superiority was fundamental. But so was the French resistance, by sabotaging all trains, and endangering all German night moves.

So the French Republic was definitively at war in 1944. It had been at war earlier, in 1943, when general Juin broke decisively the Hitler Line (renamed before it got broken), in the mountains, south of Rome (which had stalled the Allies for many months). Juin told the high command he could be in Austria in a matter of weeks, if given more divisions. The Americans, instead, removed divisions from him, preferring the stalemate of Anzio.

In 1942, the French army of general Koenig blocked the Afrika Korps and the Italian armor, preventing them to encircle the British (“8th”) army, the only British army between England and India. So the French were also at war with Nazi Germany in 1942. And crucially: the Bir Hakeim battle was the best opportunity the Nazis and Italian fascists had to defeat the Brits, kill the Jews, get the oil. The result was, indirectly, the desperate Nazi attempt on Stalingrad…

So when were the French not at war in WW2? Say, in 1941 (when actually French forces were at war: attacked in Dakar by the British, the French army defended itself successfully, and De Gaulle contemplated suicide…). Guess what? The US plutocrats were fully allied with Hitler in 1941.

The French Republic won WW1, and WW2. Now Germany, mimicking France, is trying to be a republic (and would be a better one if it stopped exploiting southern Europe and holding hypocritical discourse on the European Union, refugees, ecology and Russia…)

The victory of French civilization was total: military, diplomatic, philosophical, even emotional… The erroneous, fatal, abysmal deviation of German ideology into a spirit following the tribalist Herder, and strictly opposed to Goethe, was totally smashed. American plutocratic propaganda to the contrary is not futile, though. In truth, it works, and it is extremely dangerous: civilization is at stake when US propagandists claim that Nazism actually won… They are claiming they won. Maybe they did, but they shouldn’t, and we can still make it so.

Take the four generals above. In other pictures, they all stand at attention and give a military salute together. However I couldn’t publish those pictures: they have been all stolen by entities called Alamy and Getty (Getty was a famous plutocrat). As far as I can tell, this is just Anglo-Saxon thievery, an opinion shared by Wikipedia (Anglo-Saxon media has gone in overdrive accusing “Russia” of malfeasance; it may be time, for balance, to use the same severity on the other side). Thieves grab public domain pictures, and, with the complicity of US search engines, make it so that they capture the Internet for profit… Just as Anglo-Saxon corporations, by launching and supporting Hitler (sometimes to the bitter end, see IBM), made it possible to steal the world, and now own it…

So of course the US won World War Two, and everybody else lost, to a more or less greater extent. In France, the wealthy CIA put 50 of the top French influencers on its payroll (so things have not really changed, they just got worse). I also view “French Theory” as a tool for plutocracy, something which has led us to the likes of Merkel ruling Europe into oblivion. Merkel: no logic there, as long as she can export cars using her bankrupt banks, and burn lignite in the guise of condemning nuclear power. Guess what? Today Fukushima beach was open to children: initially it was supposed to be closed for all humans 40 years (after several nuclear reactors riddled with grotesque safety violations exploded, consecutive to having been hit by a 30 meter wave…). What does that mean: Merkel’s overreaction is the result of a cognitive-ethical failure: she doesn’t mind cooking the planet, because that’s not “cool” to worry about that… But getting in one million improperly vetted Muslims, that’s “cool” (even if they threaten to go use their English in the UK, and thus help cause Brexit…)

Nowadays, we need the spirit of France on September 3, 1939: if you see evil, you attack. The US never attacked Hitler: it’s Hitler who declared war to the USA, December 11, 1941, 4 days after its ally Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor (which had attacked France in September 1940, as part of its war against China…). The US didn’t intend to go to war in 1942:  the many US businessmen making a fortune in Germany (as they had 25 years earlier) didn’t want war.

All these moral failures are never commented upon. Yet they are rife in today’s global world order. Why do they increase? Because of the increasing self-promoting ignorance of Internet fiends. The more outrageous there, the more “interesting” one is found to be, and the more one can get a nice income and position. How low can civilization go? How many lies does it take to sink all rationality?

Patrice Ayme

Oh, by the way, war games were conducted on what happened for five days after May 10, 1940, and the Battle of France of 1940, have been run many times. They always end the same way: with a French victory. In reality the Brits and France were defeated, because of a succession, and combination of very unlikely events. War games show that France and Britain should have won. If just one Spitfire pilot had been taken seriously, or the French had not sent their fast deployment armored reserve of seven divisions into the Netherlands, or a Nazi plane with plans has not crashed, etc…

http://www.lefigaro.fr/histoire/archives/2015/05/07/26010-20150507ARTFIG00304-rene-bondoux-raconte-la-signature-de-capitulation-allemande-le-8-mai-1945.php