Archive for the ‘Systems Of Mind’ Category

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 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.

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:

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…



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…


May 26, 2018

If one decides it’s true, it’s true“… is a necessary trick the brain has to use. A key to intelligence, or how to answer the question ‘why’!

For example, a child touches fire, it hurts. Real bad. So child decides,  that, every time fire will be touched, fire will hurt: empirical (from experience), but not statistical: the evidence is not firm, or numerous, just significant (pain). This is the foundation of FAITH. Thus the faith instinct is crucial to advanced brain function. We all have, and use, faith.

Giordano Bruno Thought a lot, and very pertinently about Faith. Both to trash it, as Catholicism, and be guided by it, as Truth. The Vatican and Catholicism showed clearly its real nature and fundamental essence when torturing horribly Bruno for seven years. To suggest EXOPLANETS (now we have found 4,000 of them; I hope the first habitable one be called “BRUNO”). The way the Pope treated Bruno was worse than the worst Jihadism enjoyed today! Really.

Those who believe, and have faith in thoroughly grotesque superstitions (such as “Jesus existed, flew like a helicopter, Muhammad flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem, etc..”) as a foundation for the most important system of ideas, aren’t serious. They are debasing reason, truth, and they know it, and that’s why they push the most ridiculous and grotesque notions. Those clowns therefore are distracting us… from their true purpose, which is, typically to serve their true masters, and their bloody, sadistic passions (Catholicism killed horribly millions of Cathars (circa 1200 CE)… and that was just one of its many exploits in the realm of mass horror and atrocious murder). This is clear with Christianism, or Islamism: the founders (emperors Constantine, Theodosius I, Muhammad the Rophet, Ali the Fourth Caliph, and don’t ask me what a rophet is, etc…) were real life tyrants, capable of killing thousands, whenever it caught their fancy, and it often caught their fancy: by the time of Ali, it was the Fitna, civil war, and it never really stopped since… Thus the superstitions they promoted were just distractions… crucially based on the FAITH INSTINCT (necessary for thinking)!

Indeed, one has to understand the tyrants who hijacked civilization, and keep on hijacking civilization, do this by using a very old instinct necessary for the proper functioning of intelligence… One can even see the faith instinct at work in all the hatred, grouping on the Internet (for example with anti Trump Derangement Syndrome, “Anti-Fa”, etc., as we saw it with Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Potism, etc…)

This is a short essay, but it has a key idea: to master Artificial Intelligence, FAITH will have to be programmed, as it is, with biological intelligence! At some point, intelligence has to decide what is true, and what is not true. It can’t decide truth on probabilities alone (Bayesian mumbo-jumbo).

Saint Peters, Rome, greatly built with Roman monuments’ stones. A faith building another. Also US Congress to be built in that image: the principle of faith building the Republic (even if, in Washington, the idea, long brandished in the Middle Ages of Christian Republic was resurrected… with “Christian” dropped). Out of the faith for the “Christian Republic”, as early as 400 CE, was born, in the long run, faith for the return of real large Republics (France and USA, late 18 C). Faith morphs…

Indeed, it does not stop here. The fundamental problem at this point with steering civilization is the… lack of faith, in the the right things, thus intelligence! By this the philosopher does not meant of course to a myth like Jesus or a nightmare like the analphabetic, genocidal caravan raider. And Political Correctness is a faith too, into something only founded on a small, partial set of feel-good-about-oneself emotions, and thus just as false: as it is, Truth is not Politically Correct, Yet Political Correctness should be true.

Proper intelligence has faith in only what seems genuinely to be true, to the best of one’s sincere knowledge. (Often intellectual fascists advocate publicly to NOT read what could disturb their mono-thinking. For example Muslims will kill you for “insulting the prophet”, meaning evoking, or reading something incompatible with all what the “prophet” is supposed to have “recited”; the point is that refusing data is one diagnostic of lack of sincerity).

When Giordano Bruno said: “I beg you, reject antiquity, tradition, faith, and authority! Let us begin anew by doubting everything we assume has been proven!”… He was talking about those erroneous faith. Verily to believe in error is more popular than believing in the truth, because the tyrants want you to believe in these errors, precisely, and you will ingratiate yourself with them by embracing the faith(s) they want you to have: thus Augustus wanted to be called “Son of God”, and Late Roman emperors a similar doctrine (“Catholicism”)

The same Giordano Bruno fought courageously the viciously mass criminal organization known as the greatly homosexual, pedophilic Vatican (represented above)… because he had faith in the truth: “I fought, and therefore, believed in my victory. There is more to the fact that I didn’t fear death and preferred a brave death instead of a life of an idiot.

Giordano Bruno, condemned to a particularly horrible death by the viciously criminal mass murdering Pope and his goons said:”It may be that you are more afraid passing judgment upon me, than I am receiving it. The time will come when all believe as I do.” And what did Bruno believe? What had been suspected by the brightest minds for millennia, namely that the Sun was a star and that other stars had (inhabited) planets, like around the Sun…

Thus, let’s not be people of little faith! Great intelligence means great faith in the truth, little faith in idiocy. The will to truth needs enough will to power for embracing it.

Faith is at the core of least effort logic (variational calculus applied to logics!) Faith based logic, which present AI doesn’t have enough of, doesn’t contradict probability based logic. It reinforces it. Both are needed, one to establish, the other to implement.

Faith we have, because think we do.

Patrice Ayme



Note: For more of what I think about superstition based tyrannical faith, in particular Catholicism, from its inventor, Constantine, to what happened to Bruno:

So the preceding essay is not about celebrating that sort of faith!

Rage Can Be Good: Reflecting On the Iliad’s Achilles

May 20, 2018


Achilles’ rage is the engine of Homer’s Iliad, it makes the story much more interesting, including the tragic figure of Hector, who does everything right, just to be dragged around the walls, as a piece of garbage. A frequent mistake is to identify rage, the engine of creation of the Iliad, with the cause of much unhappiness among the participants.  Actually, Homer attributes a cause to the rage, and, it’s… forgetfulness. Thus Homer condemns, ultimately, not a basic emotion, rage, but the erroneous logical processing of Achilles: Achilles forgot what he was there for.

What is the nature of wisdom? How all-encompassing is wisdom? Some want to clip wisdom’s wings, consign it to something tame, with few emotions. This is completely erroneous. Wisdom should encompass, and work with, all emotions. Including rage. Homer’s work and the Vedas,the Knowledge, (1700 BCE!? to 500 BCE),  teach us this.

That rage is sometimes optimal, the episode of the 1930s, appeasing the Nazis and other fascists, should have taught us. But many are still the subjects in history which justify our ire, and it should motivate us to explore them. For example why the criminal Louis XIV of France could get away with expelling all Protestants of France, and torturing the rest, or why slavery was re-introduced by Europeans in the Americas… a full millennium after being outlawed  in Western Europe (by the Franks who ruled most of it). This is one of the reasons why anger is good.


No Achilles, No Iliad:

Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are Europe’s oldest literature (India’s oldest wisdom in writing, the Veda, is older). That oldest work from the 8th century BCE can still move us today is a testament to the genius of old thinking, and, in particular Homer (whoever he, or they, was/were).

Both works are full of larger-than-life figures, among them Achilles in the Iliad, and Odysseus in the homonymous epic. As Massimo Pigliucci discussed in the past, Odysseus was considered by all the major philosophical schools, each interpreting his story to serve their mentalities. For the Stoics, Odysseus was a role model.

Greco-Macedonian Phalanx, Ready to Promote Civilization, Gender Equality and Democracy

Massimo says: “But what about Achilles? I must confess, I never liked the guy. All brawns and no brains (exactly the opposite of Odysseus), he never appealed to my nerdy self. And I always thought his treatment of Hector’s body after their epic battle was irredeemably shameful. More recently, though, I started thinking about him specifically from a Stoic perspective. Particularly the pivotal episode near the beginning of the Iliad, when Achilles gets pissed off at Agamemnon, the head of the Greek expedition to Troy (and brother of Menelaus, the husband that Helen left for Paris, thus allegedly triggering the war itself).

It’s worth recounting the episode in some detail. Agamemnon has taken a woman named Chryseis as his slave. Chryseis’ father, however, is a priest of Apollo, and he asks the god to return his daughter. Since Agamemnon refuses, Apollo sends a plague to the Greek camp to make a convincing case. The prophet Calchas diagnoses the problem correctly, but refuses to speak up unless he secures Achilles’ protection. When the hero grants it, Agamemnon is forced to return Chryseis. Petty as he usually is, he takes revenge on Achilles, demanding the latter’s battle prize, Briseis, in reparation for the loss of Chryseis. It is now Achilles’ turn to get pissed off and petty: out of spite, he goes on strike and refuses to lead the Greeks into battle. Hence the famous opening lines of the Iliad:

“Sing, Goddess, of the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles,

the accursed rage that brought great suffering to the Achaeans.”

(Sounds better in Italian, I think: “Cantami, o Diva, del pelide Achille / l’ira funesta che infiniti addusse / lutti agli Achei.”)

That rage quickly leads to the death of Achilles’ intimate friend, Patroclus, who had donned Achilles’ harmor to lead the Greeks in a desperate attempt to push back the advancing Trojans, and was killed by the Trojan prince Hector (who will later, in turn, be killed by Achilles).

What would the Stoics think of Achilles’ behavior? One clue is in the word “rage” used by Homer: as we know, the Stoics thought that anger was the most devastating of the pathē, the unhealthy emotions, to be avoided at all costs. But we don’t have to speculate much, as Epictetus addresses the episode directly:

“And when did Achilles come to grief? When Patroclus died? Far from it. But rather, when he himself yielded to anger, when he wept over a young girl, when he forgot that he was there, not to acquire mistresses, but to make war. These are the ways in which human beings are brought to grief, this is the siege, this the razing of the citadel, when right judgements are overturned, when they are destroyed.” (Discourses I.29-24-25)

The “citadel” being razed here is not Troy, but the very same one so often mentioned by Marcus Aurelius in the Meditations: our ruling faculty, the hêgemonikon, a term closely related to Epictetus’ favorite one, prohairesis (our capacity of judgment). Achilles’ true loss did not occur when his friend was killed, but when he himself lost the way of reason (assuming he ever had it, since there is little evidence of that).”


Achilles: the Wrongs and Rights of Rage:

One can live big now. Yes, it requires sacrifices. Yes one can die from it like in old times. Yes, that’s how really new, bold and deep ideas appear, and otherwise they will never blossom.

Rage can be bad, rage can be good. It depends upon circumstances: how the rage arose, if it is justified, what it will achieve. As all human emotions, it is present, because it has evolutionary value. All revolutions were propelled by rage, and without them, there would be no advancing civilization.

Achilles increasing rage is an example of the wrong sort of rage, which scrambles a proper consideration of reality. Yet, Achilles’ problem is not so much rage, than having a wrong hierarchy of motivating factors in his logical processing: he “forgot”. Consider the revealingly truncated quote of Epictetus:

when did Achilles come to grief? …when he forgot that he was there, not to acquire mistresses, but to make war. These are the ways in which human beings are brought to grief, this is the siege, this the razing of the citadel, when right judgements are overturned, when they are destroyed

Basically, Achilles came to Troy and then engaged in the wrong activities: that shaped his mind wrong, “overturning right judgements”.

Achilles forgot that, when one makes war, one makes war, not love. Love making scrambles his war logic, his hierarchy of motivations, and cautions, he overlooks the fact that his absence will force his friends to take desperate measures endangering them. (After the death of his friend which he caused, Achilles further compounds the problem by directing further rage at the stoic Hector, whom he uses to hide his own culpability… from himself!)

Conclusion: our logical systems are shaped by our experiences. Examining one’s logic is not enough for the wisest: the logic can be perfect, and still wrong in a more general setting. One has to examine one’s entire mental input, that is, one’s entire life, to find out where one’s logic comes from… And judge it optimally.

Some will sneer that I spoke of rights and wrongs of rage, and then just mentioned wrongs.

But, of course, Achilles is famous, and awesome, because of his rage, and how destiny changing rage is: Achilles’ rage wins battles… Achilles, the Iliad, is a poem about how rage is the maker of destiny, thus, how Greece won… and how the West, in more than one sense, was won… From anger, not just meditation. Accursed rage, yes, but then there is rage of the other sort!



May 10, 2018 • 1:58 pm

“Rage can be bad, rage can be good. It depends upon circumstances”

Not according to the Stoics, there are no circumstances under which it is good to shut off reason, which is what rage does.


Patrice Ayme:

Massimo: Thanks for the answer, it made me think. As often in matters philosophical, semantics is at the core of the debate.

I would suggest that rage doesn’t shut off reason, necessarily. Instead, it switches reason to the combat mode, a form of reason which enabled the human genus to survive, when it sustainably invaded and occupied lion territory. The real question is whether combat is justified. Any reasonable human would say that, quite often, there are situations where combat is justified. Socrates, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius said so, explicitly.

There are many ways to use a brain. There are many forms of reasons, and many reasons, and even forms of reasons, used by working brains. If I drive a car, while making an impassioned discourse about Rome’s Second Triumvirate, two sorts of reasons are at work: one quasi-automatic driving, the other, historical. However, the part of my brain operating the vehicle works flawlessly: otherwise I would have an accident.

When in combat, reason is still there, but it mobilizes the full combat brain: after a Greek phalanx uttered the Alala or a Roman legion the Barritus, shaking the plain, terrifying the enemy, the only “reason” that’s left is the reason of combat. It is akin to rage: consider the furia francese, the “berserker” Viking, the “amok” Malay or Indonesian. A human being in full combat mode is an awesome sight which makes even lions think twice (when lions see a Masai warrior, they take to flight).

Combat thinking is particularly important for philosophical, or any sort of mental, moral, progress. It is no accident that so many top philosophers were combat ready, or otherwise obviously unafraid, although they faced enormous threats, including, of course, death. Socrates came first to fame through his military exploits. And, as many a philosopher, he pursued his work, confronted to threats on his life:

…”take Socrates and observe that he had a wife and children, but he did not consider them as his own; that he had a country, so long as it was fit to have one, and in such a manner as was fit; friends and kinsmen also, but he held all in subjection to law and to the obedience due to it. For this reason he was the first to go out as a soldier, when it was necessary, and in war he exposed himself to danger most unsparingly. (Epictetus, Discourses, 4.1)

Combat mentality, akin to rage, enables, motivates, mental breakthroughs, because any mental breakthrough is, if formidable enough, something that tramples other minds, forcing them to reorganize, a form of ultimate aggression. The entire Iliad and Odyssey is there to tell us, first, that the deepest understanding only blossoms out of turmoil. Because a higher, more optimized mental order can only arise, after destroying the one before. To cut the Gordian Knot of obsolete reason, violence is the only way, whether we like it, or not, as Alexander pointed out.

Even Christ knew this: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. [Matthew 10:34]


Massimo, on May 12, 2018, replied:

Patrice, two objections. First, we are not often in a combat mentality. Arguably, outside of actual combat, we shouldn’t be. Hence the idea of not relying on rage.

Second, Seneca rightly says that sure, an angry soldier is braver. So is a drunk one, but we don’t want our soldiers to be drunk on the job, because it would impair their decision making. So does rage.

Intrigued, “Chuchu” intervened, May 13, 2018: Is rage necessary for combat?

Massimo interestingly observed that:

Chuchu, Yes for Aristotle. No for Seneca. Seneca says that an angry soldier may be courageous, but he is also going to act rushly [sic] because of his rage. He makes the parallel with being drunk: that also gives you courage, but it impairs your judgment. We wouldn’t want drunk soldiers in the battlefield, right?

[Yeah we surely should use Seneca, a giant plutocratic vulture, Nero’s teacher to tell us right from wrong…One of the very wrong aspects of present-day Stoicism: all too busy justifying moral monsters…]


Patrice Ayme: 


Top mental creation is in combat always. That’s nearly its definition. A really new idea, especially if true, requires mental reorganization of those submitted to it, so it will always be perceived as an aggression… be it only because it requires work, either to repel it, and even more, to accept it.

Also top thinkers tend to walk their talk. Thus, many of the most famous thinkers found themselves in combat situations: after the Vatican imprisoned and tortured Giordano Bruno for seven years, he was tortured in public and burned alive (1600). That persuaded Galileo to submit. Those two were among dozens of intellectuals killed in that generation, just between France and Italy. And it keeps on going: hundreds of intellectuals and artists are listed in Wikipedia as killed in the period 1940-1945. So, whether they want it or not, top intellectuals often find themselves cornered like Cicero or Boetius. Milder forms of combat exist: the US physicist Bohm was out of a job (at Princeton), thrown out of the US where he was born, and denied the Nobel Prize (he experimentally demonstrated the Gauge Field importance in quantum physics)… just because he refused to collaborate with Senator McCarthy.


The Human Species Would Not Even Exist, Without A Proclivity To Combat, & It’s Neurologically Deep:

Not to say it has to be approved. It’s just a fact, a major one, and we have to consider it.

Rage is not necessary for combat, but an even worse state is. In real combat, or in situation where one’s life is in extreme danger, the ideal state is a total neuronal commitment to survival. So the perception of pain (of oneself, or others) disappears, completely. The mental concentration mobilizes the entire brain, enormous strength appears, dedication to the task at hand is the only thing that exist. I have myself experienced this more than once, either under attack, or engaging in solo climbing or deep-sea apnea diving. This is why dangerous thrills are addictive. it is also why and because reason shrinks in combat, and forms a lance to pierce the enemy.

Unwarranted rage is a state derived from maximal combat ardor, a neurohormonal and brain state which is such that the combatant doesn’t fear death, at all. Thus rage is combat readiness, without the release of actual combat. In that state, hundreds of thousands of soldiers have stormed walls on top of wobbling ladders, pierced by arrows, drenched by boiling liquids.

Human brains are pickled with reward centers. Hatred, rage, combat, risk taking, life endangerment (of oneself and others) are all behaviors which come with rewarding neuronal mechanisms. Once engaged in these behaviors, they are, all too often not perceived as evil by the perpetrators.

Avoiding hatred and anger at any cost brings an opportunity to do it much more, for those whose good pleasure is to so indulge. As one gets killed by a cruel tyrant, pitying said tyrant with all of one’s might, doesn’t redress the situation, it makes it way worse, it even enables evil, as Hannah Arendt courageously observed (she was pretty much hated for daring to point that out…)


May 13, 2018 • 4:26 pm


it is simply not true that rage is the only way to get people focused. While it is true that rage has all sorts of negative side effects, especially on one’s moral judgment. Which is the point of the Stoic criticism of anger.


Massimo has a 3 day reply limit, let’s we get too deep in a subject, so I didn’t reply. I have been in combat situations, or situations akin to combat, more than once. I have also been angry more than once. The neurological statuses are related. Refusing one totally, is refusing the other. All revolutions were based crucially on rage. Refusing revolutions is refusing evolution, and getting rid of parasitic elements in society, such as plutocracy, and the more organized the plutocracy, the harsher the, necessary, revolution.

All stoics were plutocracy compatible: the invention, blossoming and thriving of Stoicism coincide with the Hellenistic dictatorships. Seneca was a terrible person. Had a Nuremberg like tribunal been held after Nero’s destruction (on order of the Roman Senate), Seneca would have been condemned to be hanged (hopefully as slowly as Von Ribbentrop, Keitel and their ilk). I am not angry, or enraged, writing this: the fact is, examples have to established better paradigms. Had such a tribunal been held, the Republic, a more democratic Republic, could have been re-established. Instead what we got is more of the same: Vespasian and Titus were correct emperors, but Titus died within two years and was succeeded by his brother Domitian, who reigned for two decades of terror, in particular, philosophical terror. Under Domitian, Epictetus  and his “Stoicism” thrived in Rome…meaning “Stoicism”, revered by Massimo, was Domitian compatible (Domitian was very aware philosophically, he knew very well how and why to kill most philosophers and philosophies…)

Now, of course, it is easy for me to say all of this, because “Stoicism” is not my tax-deductible business… So I am free to see it for what it is: like rage, stoicism is sometimes indispensable. Yet, as Socrates correctly raged about, conflating teaching and income leads to very poor wisdom, and thus the fall of the City… The deer eaten by the wolves has to be stoic, yes. But then, we shouldn’t be deer.

Achilles’ rage is the engine of the Iliad, thus of history, and a good story. Yet, it’s not rage which drove him astray. It is forgetfulness. That’s Homer’s wisdom, in full. Without rage, and his amazing combat performance, which is related to it, Achilles simply would not have been, and the Greeks would not have defeated Troy, 12 centuries ago.

Rage is here, it is around, peoples, nations, governments, not only experience it, they compute with it: watch the recent exploits of Hamas and Israel, which got scores of civilians, down to an 8 months baby killed: Hamas computed that rage would break the fence. Israel replied that its own ferocity was too great for Gaza’s rage to overwhelm it psychologically…

Considering humanity without considering rage, is to miss the biggest picture… The first hominid who got enraged against lions, tried to do something about them. We would not be here without her (or him)…

Patrice Ayme



Note: “People are unjust to anger – it can be enlivening and a lot of fun.” Philip Roth, famous US author.

Sophisticated Enough Intelligence Is About Choice, Thus “Evil”!

May 19, 2018

To Build Truly Intelligent Machines, Teach Them Cause and Effect, says Judea Pearl, a recipient of the prestigious Turing Medal, a prize given to top logicians. In Quanta, this pioneering figure in Artificial Intelligence, AI, argues that AI has been stuck in a decades-long rut induced by correlation science. Mr. Pearl’s prescription for progress? Teach machines to understand the question why. We have sunk so low, cognitively, that cause and effect is now viewed as “new science”:

In his latest book, “The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect,” Judea Pearl argues that AI, Artificial Intelligence, has been handicapped by an incomplete understanding of what intelligence really is. At the core of this is not understanding (anymore) that science is the set of all causation, and that this is, in turn, the backbone of intelligence itself! At fault? A long hierarchy of errors.

I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Pearl. I was actually dismayed, in recent conversations with some professors, from primary school all the way to the most prestigious academic positions, that they seemed to misunderstand profoundly what intelligence, and even science, are. And therein perhaps the source of the decay of basic knowledge in the West (relative to Asia, or, all too often to 1960s performance!) Not the ultimate cause of said decay (which is plutocracy’s evil brainwashing), but an intemediate cause in between plutocracy and the erroneous education provided in (most of) the so-called West.

Intelligence was invented, by evolution, to, first of all, enable to distinguish cause and effect. Artificial Intelligence theoreticians don’t get that yet. Why is the very basis of intelligence not discerned by AI theoreticians? Political Correctness has negatively influenced the Artificial Intelligence community… As it did so many realms of thought, and art… And that’s evil.

Intelligence is all about Judgments, some of them, terminal. Sophisticated enough AI, let alone Artificial Consciousness, will come upon, and execute, choices, thus, indulge in evil! (Specialists can think of the famous “Trolley Problem”, when a cognizant car chooses who to crush…)

PC itself was evolved by the servants of plutocracy to make us believe there were no causes, just effects. Another name for Political Correctness could be: Poor Causation. And poor causation rests on fake news. (Example: we are told that slavery was outlawed in the 19th century; actually, the Imperium Francorum, covering Europe’s core, outlawed slavery in the 7th century; had that first outlawing, 12 centuries earlier, not happened, the one in the 19th won’t have…)

“Quanta” asked Judea Pearl:  “I should ask you about the capacity for evil, which we generally think of as being contingent upon an ability to make choices. What is evil?

Indeed, Quanta is correct: the West and Islam have operated according to the metaprinciple that choices were evil (the Qur’an punishes apostasy with death; and the idea came from the very Catholic emperor Theodosius circa 380 CE).

“Heresy”, has everything to do with choice. 12th century French “heresie” denoted a philosophical school of thought from the Greek hairesisa taking or choosing for oneself, a choice, a means of taking; a deliberate plan, purpose; philosophical sect, school,” from haireisthai take, seize,” middle voice of haireinto choose“…

I have argued that the fundamental atom of choosing is in evidence with the fundamental demonstration of the Quantum process, the double-slit. That means that what all too many view as evil, choice, is at the core of physics.

Judea Pearl replied: “When you elevate your grievance above those universal norms of society, that’s evil.”

That’s too restrictive a notion of evil. It’s “evil”, not evil, and it’s evil to believe that evil is too restricted a notion…

Indeed the perception of “evil” doesn’t need “grievance”, as Quanta, Catholicism and Islamism point out.  Actually that point of view is, officially and in writing, even older: when the Roman dictator Sulla reformed the Roman state, he was driven by the idea that change (coming from We The People) was evil, intrinsically (so he re-established the prerogatives of the Senate against the Tribunes of the People).

The problem of Rome was that society had changed from its very success, massive geographical expansion, morphed ecology, etc. So the “universal norms” Judea Pearl appeals to as a solid substratum, are anything but universal… When society moves, so do “universal norms”.

And how do we know when society is moving? Well, by observing causes and effects, in other words, “causation”. When, and if, changes appears, it is diagnosed by the appearance of new causation (s). And yes, causations don’t have to be causally related to each other, or anything. (Relating causations by force, believing in a system, like monotheism, is the big mistake many a scientist, philosopher, or thinker has made… Even Nietzsche, ironically, fell into it, per his insistence to be systematically anti-system…)

The fact causation exists, is, by itself, a fact. A fact which is everywhere. I volunteered to teach some science to primary school third graders, by using a new method. I was pleasantly surprised by how much they focus on causation. They are hunting for pieces of causes and effects… In particular teaching children “the” scientific method, doesn’t work: children intuitively know there is nothing called “the” method (only Descartes and a few hundred millions mostly dead Frenchmen believe this). Children know the world is made from facts, many of them a causation: they home on these causal tidbits, because they have discovered the world of action is made from mastering them.

Fascist terror regimes know this all too well: to blunt the intelligence of potential future rebels, to prevent an inclination of the youth to make choices, thus limit what the see as “evil”, they make sure children are not taught the universe of causation… by limiting them to, say, one book to be recited by heart supposedly containing all and any causation (that’s why superstitious religion is the best friend of tyrants).

To come back to intelligence, as Doug Lenat put it: “Intelligence is ten million rules… Once you have a truly massive amount of information integrated as knowledge, then the human-software system will be superhuman, in the same sense that mankind with writing (or language itself) is superhuman compared to mankind before writing (or language itself). We look back on pre-linguistic cavemen and think ‘they weren’t quite human, were they?’ In much the same way, our descendants will look back on pre-AI homo sapiens with exactly that mixture of otherness and pity.”

There is a colossal amount of prior and tacit knowledge that humans presume other humans possess (such as “if person x knows person y, then x’s date of death can’t be earlier than y’s date of birth”). That, of course is culturally based: the 50 different types of snow of the Inuits are different  from the “facts” someone PC will find in the social networks they lurk in, or in what they search…

It gets worse: knowledge matters according to the significance it carries (that would how many significant consequences it has… including the emotional ones).

Here a very practical example: If your knowledge base is, allegedly, something an epileptic analphabet desert caravan raider said, 12 centuries ago, according to a panel of sexist generals whose idea of a good time was burning someone alive, your knowledge base is not as valuable as the best that can be obtained today.

Was I Politically Correct, just now? Of course not! I attacked a superstition invented 13 centuries ago, and about which the PC, the Politically Correct, the Plutocratic Con, told us that, if we don’t respect it, we are racist! That is, of course astoundly stupid, to the point of being evil.

However, Facebook, a large investor in AI, thus, presumably, viewing itself as a specialist of intelligence, just blocked “Génération Identitaire”, a French originated European organization, with more than 150,000 adherents, which claims that illegal immigrants should be kept out of Europe (naturally barbarians should disagree with the idea, as they did, when Rome collapsed). Facebook said it could not tolerate “hatred”. Facebook knows what is evil, and what is not evil… and will impose his notion of evil on to you: 500 millions African economic and Islam refugees in France? Excellent says Facebook. Not being happy about that? “Hatred”, Facebook calls it. Facebook is its own form of AI. Complete with a notion of evil…

For a while, what is now the USA was a land of opportunity. Now it’s turning into a land of plutocracy, and that domineering plutocracy gives the entire world an unending flow of “excellent” reasons for Europe to renew with the evil tradition, of giving birth to still another grotesque hereditary plutocracy… Where here evil means rising above what comes naturally to humanity, freedom and equality and fraternity.

You want to find, and destroy evil? You need intelligence and good capability to distinguish fairness and evil. It means adoring causation, revealing cause & effects… maximally. Causation, ferreting it maximally, is not just about AI. It’s about determining evil, absolutely. Thus indulging in choice and evil, virtually, cognitively, or effectively.

The technological singularity is a moral adventure, just as when Caesar decided to steer the Republic: it costs ever more, and in more ways than one, to become divine…

Patrice Ayme



Note 1: In General Topology, a branch of mathematics, which is very general as it is the logic of “place, region, space” (topos in Greek), an “ultrafilter” is a maximal filter of neighborhoods (“ultrafilter” generalizes to partly ordered sets). So the notion of absolute is pertinent, even without a notion of infinity (I reject the later). Absolute morality is an ultrafilter of morality…

Note 2: The preceding maybe related to a “nerd” notion, Roko’s Basilisk... Which as many nerd notions is cleverly stupid, replacing cognition by twisted complexity…

Marx As Vituperating Racist, Proto-Nazi

May 6, 2018

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was not joking…

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

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

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


Search the Diamonds in the Mud:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme


Super Earths, Or How The Exponential Function Can Matter

April 23, 2018

We live in the times where exponentials have come to rule, as they never ruled before. Ignore at the risk of everything we claim to hold dear. As mathematically challenged Silicon Valley nerds put it, all too simplistically, the coming “singularity” looms. Simple minds do not much understanding create, though, so here a little elaboration…

An example of exponentials in action, is graciously offered by so-called “Super Earths“, giant versions of Earths, hundreds of which have been discovered in our neighborhood.

Before I get into this, a short lesson on the exponential.

The Ancient Greeks thought they knew mathematics, but they were prisoners of linear thinking (especially after the top intellectuals spurned non-Euclidean geometry and arithmetic). The exponential is the most obvious, most crucial to understand, most vital to handle example of nonlinear thinking.

An exponential is any function which grows proportionally to itself.

Our present “leaders” (Putin, Trump, Xi, Macron, etc.), and their underlings have no idea what an exponential is, and that it feeds on itself.

Civilizations get ambushed by exponentials. This is why they so often irresistibly decay: the effect is blatant, be it the Late Roman empire, Tang China, the Maya…  


Socrates:The unexamined life is not worth living“. That was HIS (wise) feeling. His own feeling. Others don’t have to share it. Actually vain, self-admiring, erroneous, hateful people detest nothing more than self-examination. They deeply dislike, hinder those, and what, promotes self-examination.

And tell me, Socrates, you who didn’t like knowledge you didn’t already have, and you thought everybody had, when did you learn about the exponential function? How can you know something that important you never even suspected existed? And, absent that tool of the spirit, you thought you could examine everything? How stupid was that? And you, out there, the ignorant admirers of Socrates and his ilk: you don’t even have the excuse to have been dead for 24 centuries! To extract you from the gutter, seize the exponential!


After discovering a few thousands exoplanets, Super Earths are, so far, more frequent than simple Earths (it may be a bias from our present telescopes, but I don’t think so…). If the Super Earth is slightly bigger than Earth, depending upon the nature of its core, its surface gravity doesn’t have to be much higher than Earth (I computed). However, the present article considers Super Earths were the gravity is much higher than on Earth…

“Super-Earth” planets are gigantic versions of Earth. In some ways, they are more likely to be habitable than Earth-size worlds: their thicker atmospheres protect them better from radiations, either from their parent stars, supernovae, gamma ray bursts, galactic core explosions, etc.. However, it would be difficult for any inhabitants on these exoplanets to access to space. At least with known, or imaginable technologies.

To launch a vehicle as light as the Apollo moon mission capsule, a rocket on a super-Earth such as (potentially inhabitable) Kepler 20b would require more than double the escape velocity.

To leave Earth (“⊕”)’s gravitational influence, a rocket needs to achieve at minimum the escape velocity vesc = s 2GM⊕ R⊕ ∼ 11.2 km s−1 (2) for Earth, and vesc ∼ 27.1 km s−1 for a 10 M⊕, 1.7 R⊕ Super-Earth similar to Kepler-20 b. Computation shows one would need a mass of about 400,000 metric tons, mostly due to the exponential demand of fuel. That’s 5% of the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt (still by far the Earth’s most massive monument, excluding utilitarian walls and dams).  

That means a chemical rocket there should have one hundred times the mass of one here (Apollo’s Saturn V launcher was 3,000 tons). However, that’s not a show stopper: our largest ocean-going ships are more massive than that, and a massive rocket is imaginable. So Hippke is not correct when he says that:

“On more-massive planets, spaceflight would be exponentially more expensive,” said study author Michael Hippke, an independent researcher affiliated with the Sonneberg Observatory in Germany. “Such civilizations would not have satellite TV, a moon mission or a Hubble Space Telescope.

This is of great practical interest. Research has revealed that Super Earths are abundant, and obvious targets for human colonization. They can reach up to 10 times the mass of our own Earth (after that, they retain light gases, and turn into mini Neptunes, unsuitable for direct colonization, although Pandora like scenarios are highly plausible). Many super-Earths apparently lie in the habitable zones of their stars, where temperatures can theoretically support liquid water on the planetary surface and thus, potentially, life as it is known on Earth. Although I have had reservations about this: I view the presence of a nuclear reactor inside the planet as necessary for life, since it provides with a magnetic shield, and the recycling of the atmosphere through plate tectonic, let alone continents… (Being in the water belt and the nuclear belt simultaneously is a miracle Earth’s biosphere profits from.)

This being said, it is true that some ways to access space that we potentially have, won’t happen on Super Earths. Rockets work better in the vacuum of space than in an atmosphere: super-Earthlings might want to launch from a mountaintop. However, the strong gravitational pull of super-Earths would squash down super Alps (it’s a pure application of Quantum mechanics). Super towers won’t be be feasible, either…

Using space elevators traveling on giant cables rising out of the atmosphere depends upon the strength of the cable material. The strongest (per unit of mass) material known today, carbon nanotubes, is just barely strong enough for Earth’s gravity (it is not at this point possible to imagine stronger materials, putting in doubt the feasibility of space elevators on super-Earths). Here is Michael Hippke (Submitted on 12 Apr 2018):

Spaceflight from Super-Earths is difficult:


Many rocky exoplanets are heavier and larger than the Earth, and have higher surface gravity. This makes space-flight on these worlds very challenging, because the required fuel mass for a given payload is an exponential function of planetary surface gravity, ∼3.3exp(g0). We find that chemical rockets still allow for escape velocities on Super-Earths up to 10 times Earth mass. More massive rocky worlds, if they exist, would require other means to leave the planet, such as nuclear propulsion.

Comments: Serious version of the April Fool’s idea (arXiv:1803.11384). Submitted on April 4th 2018
Subjects: Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph); Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP)
Cite as: arXiv:1804.04727 [physics.pop-ph]
(or arXiv:1804.04727v1 [physics.pop-ph] for this version)
  1. INTRODUCTION Do we inhabit the best of all possible worlds (Leibnitz 1710)? From a variety of habitable worlds that may exist, Earth might well turn out as one that is marginally habitable. Other, more habitable (“superhabitable”) worlds might exist (Heller & Armstrong 2014). Planets more massive than Earth can have a higher surface gravity, which can hold a thicker atmosphere, and thus better shielding for life on the surface against harmful cosmic rays. Increased surface erosion and flatter topography could result in an “archipelago planet” of shallow oceans ideally suited for biodiversity. There is apparently no limit for habitability as a function of surface gravity as such (Dorn et al. 2017). Size limits arise from the transition between Terran and Neptunian worlds around 2 ± 0.6 R⊕ (Chen & Kipping 2017). The largest rocky planets known so far are ∼ 1.87 R⊕, ∼ 9.7 M⊕ (Kepler-20 b, Buchhave et al. 2016). When such planets are in the habitable zone, they may be inhabited. Can “Super-Earthlings” still use chemical rockets to leave their planet? This question is relevant for SETI and space colonization (Lingam 2016; Forgan 2016, 2017).


Pessimistically, Hippke considered another possibility, a staple of science-fiction which originated in the very serious “Orion” project of the 1950s, an apocalyptic period: nuclear pulse propulsion. It works by detonating thousands of atom bombs below a shield cum shock absorber attached to the vehicle, hurling it through space. This explosive propulsion has much more lifting power than chemical rockets, and might be the only way for a civilization to leave a planet more than 10 times Earth’s mass, Hippke (naively) said.

However, slaying the radioactive dragon he himself brought up, such a nuclear-powered spacecraft would pose not only technical challenges but political ones as well, he said: “A launch failure, which typically happens with a 1 percent risk, could cause dramatic effects on the environment. I could only imagine that a society takes these risks in a flagship project where no other options are available, but the desire is strong — for example, one single mission to leave their planet and visit a moon.”

Unwittingly, Hippke then demonstrates the danger of the single mind (in this case, his!) Indeed the most obvious way to use nuclear propulsion is simply to run a liquid, even water, through the core of a nuclear fission reactor. That was tested, and it works extremely well… and very safely! It’s much less prone to failure than a chemical rocket.  On a planet with ten times the Earth’s surface, there would be plenty of space to do such dirty launches by the thousands.

Besides, it may possible to engineer absolutely giant thermonuclear PROPULSION reactors (thermonuclear fusion is easier, the larger the reactor: the exponential at work again; if we just made a fusion reactor that was large enough, it would certainly work). The radioactivity generated would be neglectable.

So we don’t have to worry about colonizing Super Earths… We just have to worry about weight (that is, surface gravity)….

But, here, now, we have to worry about all those exponentials going crazy. Last I checked, the Arctic ice was running one million square miles below its old minimum: at some point the so-far linear decrease of Arctic ice is going to decrease exponentially, as warming there is highly self-feeding (that’s why it runs already at twice the rate of the rest of the planet…).

And as usual, let’s remember what the arrogant, stupid imperial Romans never learned, and the Maya never reached: inventing completely new, liberating, energizing technologies is how, and the only way how, to break the strangulation from the ecological, political, economical and moral exponentials which smother civilizations. A most recent example is diffuse, dim light solar cells, dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSCs), a tech already in full deployment, which has just made spectacular progress in the lab.

Even language acquisition is exponential… Let alone thought system acquisition. You want to examine life, in ultimate depth? Learn to think exponentially!

The coming “singularity” looms. How to manage it? First by understanding what makes it tick, exponentials.

Patrice Aymé