Archive for the ‘Systems Of Thought’ Category

Sartre and De Beauvoir Were Nazis. Is Existentialism A Euphemism For Nazism?

January 15, 2018

Abstract: Once I went climbing somewhere. The equipment was heavy, the rope cumbersome, the slope steep. On the side of that upward struggle, a foot away, a boulder with a flat top, pretty crystalline colors. It invited me to put my hand on it, for a welcome rest. As I engaged the motion, some engine of systematic suspicion inside my brain addled by the effort, had an automatic, and, it turned out, life saving, second look. A magnificent viper was coiled on the colored rock, its pretty camouflage perfectly adapted. It puffed, ready to strike when I jerked back. As we will see, human vipers, are also perfectly adapted, perfectly camouflaged, and that’s what makes them so pretty.

It’s not because an ideology sounds good, that it is.  All the more as plutocratic propaganda finds good all and any ideology which serves it. And one obviously true and delicious ideology can hide another, non-obviously poisoned. De Beauvoir’s position on sexism, is pretty much unassailable. (However it is also pretty self-obvious.) De Beauvoir hides the fakeness of her convoluted “Existentialism” behind the trite truth of anti-sexism.

I am getting a bit impatient with extending respect to second, if not third, or fourth, order thinking. Nowadays, people go around saying that the president of the USA is an unbalanced idiot, and what they truly mean, deep inside their subconscious, is that the one before that, and his six  predecessors were idiots, because they were. What was Carter thinking of, attacking Afghanistan?

How can Carter look himself in a mirror? What are those admiring Carter still thinking? That they never heard of Afghanistan, Carter’s war? Do they really think? Shouldn’t they be thinking that they are, themselves, Trump? Without the money?

The diseases, the various diseases of the mind which misled humanity, are much older than those recent US presidents. In truth, evil conditions of ancient history put civilization on rails. Example: the true story of the causes, not just of Nazism, but of the First World War, was never told by classical historians. Consider this instead:

And it has very practical consequence: the worst of what Trumpism is alleged to be, started much more than a century ago, it has been the bread and butter of America (and not that it needed to be!)

Ruinous ideologies are devastating the planet. One of them is what passes for the study of economics: actually it is just what one needs to believe to serve plutocracy, as even banks, which create nearly all the money, are excluded from the study of economics.

An example of a ruinous ideology has been so-called “Existentialism”, a nebulous “philosophy” preoccupied with the self, which played a crucial role in deploying, and justifying Lenino-Stalinism, Nazism, the “American Century”, also known as “neo-liberalism”, and “Maoim”… Existentialism gave a justification, if not inception to the “Et Moi, Et Moi, Et Moi” philosophy, which brought us, in turn, both the cult of wealth supreme (“neo-liberalism”, “inequality”) and “communitarianism” (my community is all I need to enjoy and know, by birthright; in particular Islamism, but it could be Buddhism in Burma… or sexism). 

“Neo-liberalism” is neither: neither “liberal”, nor new in any sense.

Existentialism was founded by Kierkegaard, and can be viewed as a form of nihilism, or, more exactly selfishness using nihilism to thrive. Fundamental to “Existentialism” has been the personality cult of De Beauvoir and Sartre (to be skewered and slowly roasted below). Personality-cultism is, per se, an ideology, a meta-ideology: it pervades philosophy, politics, history, science, religions, etc., replacing the debate, and landscape of ideas, with childish obsessions for particular dolls.

So here we will apply a remedy, demolishing the founders of “Existentialism” by showing they were anything but wise. Or showing existentialism for what it was: selfishness covered-up by big words obscurantism. Not to say all what Sartre and De Beauvoir said, and did, was idiotic, worthless, and misleading. Far from it. But from their worst errors, and the follies of their blind admirers, we can learn more than from any of their mellifluous dissemblance.


Here is a true, top notch, break-through feminist, the real thing, major plutocrat, Queen Marguerite de Valois. She was known for her great beauty, towering wits, extreme erudition (she was a polyglot mastering Latin, Greek and several European languages), countless lovers, extreme courage and humanism during the religious wars, and scandalous feminism. She started also several fashions, doing away with enormous collars, instead putting to advantage her colossal chest all the way to he nipples, and launching a new colors mixing red and orange. Her robes, often with gold thread, could cost the equivalent of millions of dollars today. Daughter, sister, and wife of French and Navarre monarchs, she  played several important philosophical roles. An author herself, and a historian, her provocative feminism knew no bounds. She goaded Montaigne in writing his essays, using the basest flattery to urge him on back to work. She chose, and imposed a child-bearing wife for her husband, King Henri IV, another Medici (like her own mom). She died in her sixties, in 1614, a queen, and celebrated throughout Europe. Breakthrough thinkers are conditions sine qua non of humanity’s progress, and I have to recognize that, often, they emanate from plutocracy…

Being Nazis, as Sartre and De Beauvoir were, is different from being forced to collaborate with Nazis:

When the Nazis imposed their ideology, Nazism, on a French Republic which they occupied with two million (deep-down, in truth, below the sheen of correction) blood thirsty soldiers, De Beauvoir and Sartre used Nazism for their enjoyment and aggrandizement: among other crimes, Sartre stole his employment from a Jew, De Beauvoir worked as a Nazi propagandist. No wonder they thereafter posed as Stalinists (actually, Stalin was allied with German fascist for 25 years, so the contradiction is shallower than it sounds), or as freedom fighters for those who set bombs in Algiers (in the guise of progress, and justice). 

Here is the meat of the matter: most individuals in occupied Europe, even Jews condemned to death, had to collaborate with the Nazis, whether they wanted it or not (when not engaging in actual lethal combat with said Nazis). Sartre and De Beauvoir were different: they were among those few who met, engaged, helped, and were helped, when not outright employed, by Nazis at the highest level. This is what “Existenz” meant. This is what “absurd” meant.

For mongrels with intellectual pretense not to have noticed this is telling. Not to say absurd. If they get kicked around, one should welcome their yelping.

If one votes for “the lesser of two evils”, one votes for evil. Doing this repeatedly makes one a source of evil.  This is how “representative democracy” generates the power of evil (Pluto-kratos), election after election.

Thus some, such as Céline, advocated, even before WWII not to vote: “I have never voted in my life… I have always known and understood that the idiots are in a majority so it’s certain they will win.”

Louis-Ferdinand Céline 

But the evils of everyday life don’t stop there. One can vote at the ballot box. One can also vote with one’s mind. Or can vote with one’s culture. 

De Beauvoir’s nude pictures are many, thus implying that she had nothing to hide. Actually, she fiercely lied about her sexual ways massively, all her life, as countless letters revealed after her death.


Is France’s Encroaching Mental Retardation, A Result of too Much Embracing Existentialism? 

In the 1950s, all too many people, in a leading intellectual country like France, having just escaped from her mortal combat with Nazism, voted for so-called “Existentialism”. In practice it seems to have meant, take care of oneself, and roll over all ethics, and others. It was revealed, after their deaths, and more is coming, so far hidden from view, as it is so shameful, that Sartre and De Beauvoir were obsessive sexual predators… for decades. Virgins preferred. De Beauvoir lost her teaching credentials for statutory rape. One second sex too far….   

Most of those with intellectual pretense adopted “Existentialism”, not knowing what it was that they were truly swallowing… Nazism (or Stalinism, or Maoism, not as bad as Nazism, agreed, but Nazism arguably got completely insane after the French war declaration condemned it to death).

After two generations of “Existentialism”, Muslim nihilism has been embraced as… anti-racism (!), and, not surprisingly, French intellectual leadership long assumed, 16 centuries and counting, has been in clear recess. Among 65 tested nations, only the Netherlands and France have deteriorated in students’ ability since 2001. In the latest TIMMS test, evaluating science and math, France tested below the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.Not to insinuate, as Trump may say, that these are “shithole countries”, but certainly, France, by her own ancient standards, is heading there!

I will suggest, indeed, that so-called “Existentialism” in general, and the sort of fake intellectuality De Beauvoir and Sartre incarnated, (partly) originated this degradation. Because it was fundamentally a collaboration with the powers that be: Nazism before 1945, the USSR and the USA afterwards. For the existentialist, the starting point is “the existential attitude“, a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world (all feelings fundamentally alien to prehistoric man). Indeed, if one has been Nazis, as Sartre and De Beauvoir were, and one suddenly is depicted as great resistance figure, disorientation will ensue, a feeling of absurdity will creep in. “Existentialism” makes absurdity, confusion, disorientation, the new religions.

Existentialism’s exemplary struggles were for “Algerian Independence”, anti-colonialism, and Stalinism. 70 years later, we observe that the anti-colonialist struggle was a “trompe l’oeil”. It was greatly make-belief. In 2017, there was officially 97,000 refugees admitted to France (and much more in truth), all coming from ex-colonized countries (if one let them all come in, without drowning, or being reduced to slavery in Libya, and by hyenas in the Sahara, it would be millions).

Tiny French philosophers meet with gigantic Dr. Lynch (the real name of the one with nom de guerre: Che Guevara). This is not meant as an approbation of the assassination of the Che by the CIA. However, the alacrity with whom Beauvoir and Sartre embraced dictatorships is to be noticed: more of the same always. As US extremism fighting dictators depended upon those dictators being dictatorial, this sort of silly embrace actually advanced the US empire, while feigning to fight it.

The rage of “Existentialism” against the European empires was make-belief, it was accompanied by great effective friendliness towards these mightier empires, Stalinism, Sovietism, Americanism, and, or, deep down inside in all cases, global plutocracy. Just obeying greater gods! (Those preoccupied by the self first, will make their morality slave to their creatures comfort.)

Arguably many of the “decolonized” countries were, and are, more exploited afterwards than they were under colonial administration (and would have been a fortiori if the colonial model had been replaced by more advanced civilization); that’s roughly obvious for the entire Sahelian zone, from Senegal to Somalia. Under the French empire, the fisheries had not been nearly extinguished by powers foreign to Africa, so people could eat. Algeria is a FNL dictatorship, ever since “independence”. Tunisia is on the verge of civil war, one-third of the economy depending on olive oil paid to the locals, one cent per liter… Morocco is one man show plutocracy, and so on…


Sex Crazed Maniacs Exists, The Existentialist Way, Prior to Any morality whatsoever:

Sartre claimed that a central proposition of Existentialism is that existence precedes essence. This can be variously interpreted in diverse, sometimes quite opposite, ways (the usual interpretation is that what one does precedes one’s morality). Apparently, looking at Sartre’s life, it meant having sex with as many young girls (procured by De Beauvoir) as possible. When asked by Camus what the problem was with all the crazed sleeping around with youth, Sartre retorted that he was uglier than a toad (paraphrasing), and thus he had to reassure himself all day long, with young, fresh female flesh. Surely, Sartre couldn’t be that infantile. So the more natural explanation is that he was just a sadistic conqueror. Sartre had sex with De Beauvoir’s students, who were teenage girls. OK, maybe it could be sincere and happen once, understandable, however, this was systematic, industrial. In 1943, the parents of a minor sued, and De Beauvoir was thrown out of the public school system. The Harry Weinstein of philosophy. Is that the top philosopher of the Twentieth century.

Or is it what Sartre looked like, namely a half crushed toad, with accompanying half smashed brain??  

In “Being and Nothingness”, Sartre attracts attention to the hypocrisy, the fakeness of the “Garçons de Café”. Right, it takes one to know one. Except Sartre was  Garçon de Café to the top German Nazi censor in France (who later revealed Sartre to be a hypocrite; and we know he was a hypocrite in independent ways).   

Sartre’s lifelong (APPARENT) commitment to socialism, anti-fascism and anti-imperialism still resonate. The problem is that as with Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, or Obama, appearances are there to deceive (not to say that the insignificant Obama was as nasty as Lenin, on a personal basis; but the missed opportunity may have been greater).


I am, therefore let me Nazi splurge:

Sartre: “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards”

Long after World War Two, Sartre is a rare introspective, yet FAKE contrition claimed that: ““the whole country both resisted and collaborated. Everything we did was equivocal; we never quite knew whether we were doing right or wrong; a subtle poison corrupted even our best actions.” That was a positive interpretation of what he wanted us to believe he did. In truth, thousands of French intellectuals resisted for real, and were tortured and assassinated by the Nazis, as early as 1942 (when seven intellectuals of the Museum of Man in Paris were executed for resistance, inter alia).

The problem with Sartre and company is that the Devil is in the details. Sartre and company had a very comfortable Second World War. Sartre and De Beauvoir met with Nazi operatives, at the highest level, and it was not because they were double agents. It was because they were ingratiating themselves with the power that be. Sartre was brought out of his war prisoner status, probably because of the intervention of some high level Vichy gangster. Sartre even took the position of a professor who had been deprived of his job for being a “Jew” (you are welcome to imagine Sartre as a vulture with Swastika ornamented wings, devouring the corpse of a dying Jew)..

Power corrupts, and apocalyptic power corrupts apocalyptically. When Sartre was sitting in the office of the main Nazi censor in France, chewing the fat, it was all about power. By honoring top occupiers by his presence, and singing the praises of German culture, Sartre was encouraging the executioners of civilization to go with their grisly task. The average Frenchman, at the time, was just ignoring German soldiers when crossing them in the streets.


US Thinking: What Philosophically Matters Is Accusing The Victims One Made Of Collaboration:

When Philosophy Matters (which has nearly 30,000 followers) thought smart to wish “Happy Birthday, Simone de Beauvoir !”, 9 Jan 2018. I discerned there immediately the uncritical agenda of the personality cult and collaborationist bend: start with blind love for Simone, end by blind love for Maréchal Pétain (as will be shown below, a Philosophy Matters promotes the fascist lie that “France collaborated”, something as perverse as saying someone being executed “collaborated” with the executioner; so, indeed, “Philosophy Matters” ended and revealed itself to be of the exact “Maréchal Nous Voila!” school of politics as Simone herself….). Make no mistake: I have quoted Simone de Beauvoir approvingly. However, of the galaxy of people I have quoted, most I have quoted approvingly. Even Muhammad, FDR, Jesus and Adolf have said something I agreed with at some point. What I discerned there was personality cult. De Beauvoir was a feminist, true, and so I am, and so have been most women. However, there has been feminists in France for more than 14 centuries, and feminists of 14 centuries ago in France were much more important than the relatively insignificant Simone: some of those now forgotten feminists were heads of state, no less, and one of them abrogated slavery.

Cats pounce when they smell a rat, I replied:

“Simone De Beauvoir was employed as a Vichy history propagandist. It’s unlikely someone as misdirected, racist, arriviste, Nazi, criminally vicious ever said something philosophically valuable. Simone De Beauvoir worked for the Nazis as late as 1944: she was an imbecile too!”

(By 1944, it was clear that the Nazis would lose and that they were all criminally insane maniacs. Their collaborators had become fair game for the resistance in France. A collabo like De Beauvoir could expect the well-justified death she deserved at any moment (as Sartre hypocritically, but correctly insisted Brasillach deserved later). Let me say slowly: had I been behind De Beauvoir with a loaded gun in 1944, I would have shot her, as I would have any talking head on Radio Vichy. That was the correct thing to do.

Would we have been deprived of a great feminist? Probably not. What I meant by this is that De Beauvoir sucked up her feminism right and left. After all, the last of the Valois of France, Queen marguerite de Valois, known also as “Margot” wrote a much inflammatory book on the subject, more than four centuries before.

Predictably, Philosophy Matters gulped down the poisoned bait, and retorted with what passes as smart over the Internet: “Tyranosopher, You will have to prove and not merely assert such claims.”

On the Internet, if you assert that 1 + 1  = 2, smart asses without any education whatsoever, come around and ask you to not merely assert, but prove such a claim. This is what happens when instruction and education have been replaced by coding. Anybody with a modicum of education in philosophical matters should know that the child molesting De Beauvoir worked as a propagandist for Radio Vichy, and that Sartre, inter alia, stole the job of a “Jewish” professor.

On the Internet, if one is an idiot similar to all other idiots, one has to prove nothing: it’s all about galloping in the same manner to the same music, the orgasm of the stampeding herd down well-known avenues of what passes for thinking. I replied in a deliberately provocative fashion, a cat playing with a mouse: Advanced wisdom doesn’t “have to prove” anything basic to the grossly ignorant. Knowing fascism thoroughly should be essential for those who pretend to love wisdom. BTW, Sartre was such a notorious lover of fascism, he embraced at least three sorts thereof (contrarily to Camus!)

But that mouse, I guessed, was up to no good Philosophy Matters inner Trump got revealed when it replied with fake opinion and real insult:

Philosophy Matters:

You are delusional.  If you cannot support your outlandish claims with anything resembling fact then please stop making them.” (Latter on Philosophy Matters would assert it knew what I talked about all along; by then it was all upset and making plenty of spelling mistakes.)

Patrice: Calling me delusional is an insult. 😉 I express a judgement about historical figures, I get insulted. Typical Internet, ad hominem violence. Sartre and de Beauvoir didn’t just collaborate, they WERE Nazis. It is a matter of historical record, not opinion. Philosophy Matters didn’t bother to check. Instead, it calls me outlandish. This is a compounding error. In English: …

Notice here that I introduced a new notion. Some non Germans, even some Frenchmen, were not just “collaborators”. Collaborators means co-working. Instead, some went beyond forced collaboration, and, instead, espoused Nazism itself. This is what Sartre and De Beauvoir did. And I am saying this is intrinsic to the “Existentialist” attitude: their existence is more important than our morality. The morality of us, humanity, our nature provided ethology extends to us (Sartre made that point again and again, by claiming that he, Sartre, was free whatever he wanted, and it didn’t matter what Spinoza thought about it.

When the Nazis occupied countries, people in authority were forced to collaborate with them. The occupied part of France, in particular, consisted of half of the metropolitan French territory. France was occupied in 1940 by two million German soldiers. Some government officials tried to resist orders, right away. An example is Jean Moulin, who was a prefect, and refused to obey strictly orders by the Nazi occupiers. He was immediately arrested and tortured so extensively, that he tried to commit suicide by cutting his own throat (that’s why later Jean Moulin always wore a scarf and had a scratchy voice). Then Jean Moulin switched to apparent obedience, while starting contacts with all the resistance networks. Arrested as head of the resistance, Moulin was tortured to death, over several days, by the future CIA employee, Klaus barbie (who tortured to death personally another 5,000 people, Barbie himself declared: he finished his life, decades later, in a French prison).

Replying to “Philosophy Matters’ claim that Patrice was “outlandish”:

“Books (en français) were written about De Beauvoir and Sartre’s Nazism. You apparently do not even know that they exist. BTW, I am from a hard-core resistance family, on all sides, which was personally hunted by the Gestapo. Family members were injured & killed fighting fascism!”

In one of these supposedly smart pirouette the Internet is famous for, Philosophy Matters, opting for a majestic plural, admitted that what it just described as my “outlandish claims” was actually well-known:

“We are very familiar with that book, and several others, and the kinds of claims you are making are simply not supported by it.  They [Sartre and De Beauvoir] may not have been heroes of the resistance, but they were by no means nazis or collaborators.   Try reading it instead if reviews of it.”

(Notice the spelling mistakes: apparently Philosophy matters less than agitation and lack of correct logic: “if” is not “of”. It turns out I am much more familiar with the subject than “Philosophy Matters”)

Patrice: “De Beauvoir was talking head for Radio Vichy. Her own program was sandwiched between horrendous 100% criminally insane, racially maniacal propaganda programs. She was socializing with those insane criminals off the mike. Philosophically Matters claims that being a propagandist on the radio between mass murderous ultra-racist programs is not collaboration? Sartre got approbation from Goebbels. According to Philosophy Matters, getting Goebbels’ personal approval isn’t collaboration? Sartre waxed, lyrical, about the corrections of Nazi officers, throughout the war. Writing praises of the Nazis, according to Sartre’s admirers, is not Nazism? I read thousands of pages on this, much directly from Sartre. His tunnel vision was fascinating. Is that a philosopher?” …

“Philosophy Matters” didn’t quit while it was already losing badly, and started to reveal its true colors, its true fascist colors, as I had guessed all along:

“This is sort of our aos, so yes, we are familiar with them.  We are also quite familiar with the ongoing mythology proferred by the likes of lepen and melenchon that france didnt collaborate.  Which is nonsense[Original spelling, full of mistakes, which shows PM was losing its cool, as its bearings were threatened.]

Here “Philosophy Matters” reveals the fundamental anti-French, Francophobic, so pro-Roosevelt, pro-plutocratic, pro-US imperialism position that “France” was a major collaborator. This is a level of hatred and lying unequaled even by the worst allegations made against Trump, by a very long shot. However, ask the average pseudo-cultivated person in the average US street, and that person will utter the same lie from US Big Brother: France did collaborate with Hitler. And by “collaborate” they don’t mean obeying two million guns pointed at French necks. No, they mean killing Jews and the like.

That “France collaborated” was a semantically outrageous lie promoted by right-wing, more or less corrupt French president Chirac, and his corrupt family, who presided over the latest decay of France, and was great friend of the ideology of harasser and plutophile B. Clinton (although he resisted invader W. Bush). it was in complete contradiction with historical evidence and the position of preceding French governments in the 50 years prior.

However, France WWII bashing is fundamental to the present worldwide plutocracy. Because worldwide plutocracy was behind Nazism, and never forgave France to have spoiled the party, and nearly pulled of the stunt of turning fascism itself against the plutocracy which had engineered it.

I tried to educate “Philosophy Matters” with the most basic notion of that subject: France declared war to Hitler, September 3, 1939: that’s not collaboration. The USA, headed by plutocrat president Roosevelt DID collaborate with Hitler, and throughout the war (Hitler declared war TO the USA, December 11, 1941). Start by reading Black’s “IBM and the Holocaust”.

The point here is this: it’s the truth. It’s not fake history, nor fake thinking. France plotted, conspired and finally attacked Hitler. The USA did the exact opposite. In complete contrast, the collaboration of the USA with Nazism was more than deliberate, more than enabling. It was causative. Causative of Nazism. Roosevelt knew of this collaboration of the USA with Nazism so well that when his own ambassador, the historian Dodd, told him, in 1937, that the USA should stop Nazism, whatever it took, Roosevelt replaced Dodd by a pro-Nazi ambassador. FDR did the same in London.

(One can read the book “The Garden of the Beasts” as a reference. Dodd was great friend with the French ambassador, Francois-Poncet, they would meet in Berlin Tier Garten (beast garden, the Berlin zoo), to avoid being recorded; hence the name of the book.)

Roosevelt didn’t just betray France, Europe, civilization, and, ultimately, the Germans themselves, or the US middle class. FDR was instrumental in the Holocaust. Even covering it up, when various governments in exile, including the French government, informed him of it. FDR hated the French even more, as a result: FDR was furious the French were going around, claiming millions were assassinated by the Nazis, when FDR’s grand plan was NOT to go to war with Germany in 1942 (the Japs and Nazis decided otherwise, because they were already losing the war, so had nothing more to lose… Except for a sense of vengeance!)

So who was collaborating? France, attacking Hitler, and thus US plutocracy, firmly entrenched in Spain, Italy and Germany? Or the dual use US government, entangled with the global plutocracy it had set-up, and which originated in Washington and Wall Street?

The assumptions made by Philosophy Matters about yours truly, are funny: try reading? I have read thousands of pages of Sartre, books and interviews, in French, over the last few decades. Sartre and De Beauvoir’s Nazism (implicitly recognized) are actually fascinating & help us understand better their “existentialism”….


Nothing to see, they were all Nazis, say those who side with the elite:

Mussolini, Hitler (and to some extent Stalin) were US plutocrats’ pawns. That’s why Mussolini was hung from a US gas station in Milan. The Italian resistance knew about the connection between Mussolini and Standard Oil. Today’s US citizens have no idea, whatsoever, of the role the USA played in the rise of fascism. It was fundamental.

The pattern displayed above is familiar, it’s always the same trick: first claim that some of the most important collaborators of Nazism were not Nazis in any sense. Secondly, insist that their pro-Nazi behavior was not pro-Nazi, but just something that happened to exist (get it? Like existence-tialism). A major instance of that is so-called “American Isolationism”. It was actually a pro-Nazi policy, which was both necessary and sufficient to make Nazism and its monstrous policies possible.

Thirdly, one turns around and claim everybody collaborated with the Nazis. Proof? France, which declared war to Nazism, and thus initiated its destruction sequence, was actually a collaborator.

And this is the ultimate trick: this way, nobody is responsible of Nazism. Thus no ideology, no way of practicing business, no plutocratic system, no ideology is the cause of Nazism: nothing to see, just circulate.


Shithole Ideologies:

Shithole ideologies are all over. Ask a Euro-US philosopher about ethics, and there is a high probability that it will start evoking Kant. Kant was a moralist of slavery (he was for it), and Nazism (at least so the Nazis thought, and evoked Kant each time they were perplexed, or on trial: Kant had said morality consisted in obeying the powers that be; Kant guided them in their obedience to the “Guide“).

Why is it that there are so many shithole ideologies, and nobody condemns them? Because corrupt elites are sustained by them. 52 African countries screamed against Trump for (allegedly, Trump denies it) evoking the concept of “shithole countries”. This is not a concept I agree with, prima facie, but, certainly, “shithole ideologies”, just good for excretion, exist. Africa has a long and rich history, mastering many elements of civilization already 7,000 years ago. Why Africa didn’t take off is because of erroneous, or, more exactly, shithole ideologies.

A case in point is Egypt: several of the mightiest pharaohs, over several millennia, were women. Egypt partook in the invention of the alphabet, originated basic mathematics and geometry, even the steam engine (in its simplest form). Now, though, Egypt is crushed by Islamist ideology, a primitivism on steroids, and Egypt, because of this, is not at the forefront of civilization (it was, until the rabid Christians and their Muslim parrots cultivated the habit of burning libraries, intellectuals, and any critical thinking…)

“Neo-Liberalism” is a case in point, as a shithole ideology, so is today’s “Economics”. Putinism gets criticized, but that’s easy, being Russian (thus alien, special, antique, something about brutal souls deep in the forest).

Existentialism is not just a shithole ideology, it is the master shithole ideology. It was intimately connected to a whole succession of disastrous “isms”. And Political Correctness, which is the institutionalization of dissemblance, lying and hypocrisy.  

Existentialism boils down to “me, driven by the lowest instincts, no questions asked, I am free, absolutely”. When Sartre chewed the fat with top German Nazis & fascists, he advanced his career, not minding for a second how many innocent victims the Nazi machine killed per second.

The essence of Sartre’s “existence precedes essence” means that the selfish subject “existence” is a more important motor of behavior than morality and the like, what Sartre called “essence”.

To Sartre, “existence precedes essence” means that a personality is not built over a previously designed model or a precise purpose, because it is the human being who chooses to engage in such enterprise. While not denying the constraining conditions of human existence, he answers to Spinoza who affirmed the obvious fact that man is determined by what surrounds him. Therefore, to Sartre an oppressive situation is not intolerable in itself, but once regarded as such by those who feel oppressed the situation becomes intolerable (this explains why Sartre made his accommodation with the Nazis). So by projecting my intentions onto my present condition, “It is I who freely transform it into action… the world is a mirror of my freedom”, meaning he was free to leverage himself from Nazism, and, later, Stalinism and Maoism, so he did! The world obliged us to react, to overtake ourselves, he admits. It is this overtaking of a present constraining situation by a project to come that Sartre names transcendence. He added that “we are condemned to be free“.

Same with De Beauvoir and Radio Vichy (she was a successful novelist, and, considering she was pretty good-looking, she could have supported herself as a prostitute, even a prostitute for Nazi officers… which would have been infinitely better than being a Nazi propagandist… as she insisted she had to do).


Should we avoid De Beauvoir and Sartre?

No! Be it only because they are excellent, smart lab rats, and, considering how malevolent they turned out to be, in some ways, we can have no qualms about trashing them around, as deserved. Most people are much more stupid and uninteresting than De Beauvoir and Sartre, so I recommend their company (Montaigne and many others are to be preferred, though).

I also esteem Simone and the big feminist horse she hypocritically straddled, much more than I do Jean-Paul (readers nearly escaped the famous photograph of Simone naked, from fear of US censorship, led by smart idiots such as Mr. Z).

Simone had the courage to ask some courageous questions, even though she answered them in a conservative manner: “Faut-il bruler Sade?” (Must one burn Sade?) She got carried over, in the Second Sex (good title!) when she said one weren’t born a woman, one became one. Carried over, because there are real differences between men and women. Jokes aside, and even if male and female brains are just the same genetico-physiologically (something that may well be true), they aren’t the same in every day physiology. As they bath in different neurohormones. Nothing very mysterious here: one of my long snow mountain runs went wrong recently, and I really had to fight, survival in balance. I can guarantee you that my brain, then, was in another universe. It was flooded my different neurohormones. In cases like that I get the impression to be on the deck of a starship, cooling giving orders to the crew.

De Beauvoir and Sartre never got there, in full contact with the universe, because all they knew was the garçon de café and sex-love-seduction-statutory rape games frenzy they pathologically thrived in, destroying all hearts in their wakes. How more artificial can one be? (Foucault himself said his philosophical drive was all about seducing “pretty boys”, roughly the only thing he has in common with Socrates… I am skeptical of philosophers driven monopolistically by sex mania…)

Well, one can have trained by living in Bad Faith during all of World War Two, and afterwards too, as Sartre and De Beauvoir did. People tend to speak a lot, of what they know all too well. Shithole existentialism was the metaphysics of shithole plutocracy, and attacks against “bad faith” were a vaccination against noticing this.

Concepts such as “conservatives” and “progressives” aren’t appropriate anymore. One can be very progressive in some ways, precisely because one is extremely conservative. Ecology is an example: the drive is to conserve, the tool is to legislatively progress. The difference is information and reflection, thinking power… While being honest in, and with, one’s true logic. Maximally informed and subtle good faith, not ready-made jerkiness.

Other concepts still apply. De Beauvoir and Sartre were treasonous, self-obsessed, partook into the commission of crimes against humanity at the highest level, and then covered the whole thing up with absurd mumbo-jumbo (“Absolute Freedom! People always essentially free! En-soi! Pour-soi!”). Pour-soi ou pourceau? That is the true question! Even an official, major card-carrying Nazi such as Heidegger, who took command of his university, in Nazi uniform, and expelled the “Jews” (although his thesis adviser had been a “Jew”) was disgusted. Sartre was going around, saying he was absoltely free, while, in truth he was prisoner of his glands, and, as he admitted to Camus, the obsession of proving to himself he was worthy, when what he viewed as his disjointed toad face (what else?) showed him, in the mirror, the exact opposite. And the lower he went, the worse he felt, so the more he had to compensate. Instead of going from Charybdis to Scylla, he went from Hitler, to Stalin, to Che, to Mao…

Sartre and De Beauvoir went around, insisting, implicitly, like Nixon, that they were not crooks.

Intellectuals such as De Beauvoir and Sartre played a major role in the Twentieth Century: they influenced other intellectuals and writers, who in turn influenced professors, who taught students at major universities, who became opinion makers, etc.  what came out was an inability to think disguised as “Political Correctness”, so acute that now a whole class of young people can’t even see the interest of debate, let alone have the capacity to carry it. A characteristic is to emphasize the crimes of some, while ignoring the much larger crimes of others, who brought the first as a reaction to the latter (for example the silly crimes of the British in India are blown out of proportion, whereas those which brought the partition of India, and Islamism in Pakistan, are overlooked…).

To be fully human, one has sometimes to do not what one wants, but what one has to do. Homo is the metaphysical animal. Existence is all what matters, driving what we do, but it’s not just existence as we used to know it, in the absent remembrance of times passed away. Existence is nothing if not kneaded with the hopes of better futures to come, smartly informed by the past.

Who knows what to do correctly in life, who doesn’t love life?

One can’t tell all & sundry, life is absurd (“Existentialism”), or unlovable (“Christianism, Islamism, Buddhism”), then switch around, been good, well-meaning, giving.

One may not get back all the love one gives to life, but one has to: others will, that’s how humanity is. How humanity became possible.

Patrice Aymé



January 1, 2018


Pure reason incorporates pure emotion. This is what most philosophical critters have missed so far. So when they talk haughtily about reason, they spurn emotions, just as if they were runners, on paper, but couldn’t possibly imagine what legs are for.

A professional philosopher claims that “ethics can’t be based on human nature, because biology tells us, there is no such a thing as human nature”. He deduces from this that everyone is an existentialist… In the sense of Sartre’s silly pronouncement that we are as we decide to be (something he proved by his own life, not to be true, as Jean-Paul as predictable as a cockroach). Not so far from things I wrote for years. However, the devil is in the detail, and I am the devil, as Nietzsche didn’t dare say (he just took himself for Jesus). Actually come to think of it, not really details.

To pretend that ethics can’t be based on nature, because evolutionary biology shows that such a thing as human nature can’t be precisely determined is as smart as saying that Quantum Mechanics couldn’t be based on momentum, because the latter can’t be precisely defined. (Both Relativity and the Quantum are based, in part, on momentum.)

Actually it’s not because something is uncertain that it can’t be determined well enough for precise computations. Quantum Mechanics is complete and well-defined a theory, in spite of the position-momentum uncertainty relationship: (uncertainty position) X (uncertainty momentum) > h. Biology is great, physics is greater. Lack of precision at some point of the logic doesn’t mean anything goes. This is case where the scientifically trained mind reveals itself vastly superior to those who croak with the centuries.

They appeared 1.9 to 1.4 million years ago. Tool use belongs to the Acheulean industry. Distinguished from Homo Erectus by its thinner skull bones. Reduced sexual dimorphism, a smaller face but a larger (700 and 850 cc) brain and was up to a gigantic 1.9m in height. Made hand axes and cleavers. Homo Georgicus (below) found in Dmanisi, Georgia in 1999 and 2001 seems to be intermediate between Homo Habilis and H. Erectus and is 1.8 million years old. It’s the oldest known hominoid in Europe and were found in association of implements and animal bones. Considering the cold climate in winter, he had to have had clothing. The species name originates from the Greek ergaster meaning Workman . This name was chosen due to the discovery of various tools such as hand-axes and cleavers near the remains of H. ergaster. Its use of advanced (rather than simple) tools was unique to this species; H. ergaster tool use belongs to the Acheulean industry. H. ergaster first began using these tools 1.6 million years ago. Charred animal bones in fossil deposits and traces of camps suggest that the species made creative use of fire. By then, tech was launched, big time!

When Sartre said “existence precedes essence” he was getting drunk, drunk on his own words. No, we can’t be just what we decide, and even if we could, most of us don’t decide what we want to decide, as the life of the highly predictable fame driven automaton called Sartre bears witness. Sartre and De Beauvoir were Nazis when it was a profitable to be so, resistant when it got safer that way, then Stalinist, anti-”colonialist”, when, that, too became the highest fashion, before meekly trying to look hip by being a “Maoist”.   

Hume distinguished ‘is’ from ‘ought’, claiming one couldn’t get from one to the other. Hume lived three centuries ago. What does he know about facts and values? What does he know about deduction/ Did he know heat was motion? Did he know nerve impulse was electricity? Could he have guessed that a value could be a fact anchored in physics?

Moore, more than a century ago, was baffled about what reality really mean. Moore wrote before Quantum Mechanics. He could never have guessed how entangled, quantum entangled, our world is.

If reason incorporates emotion, deducing morality from pure reason also means deducing it from pure emotion. Logic is not just ‘logic’. Logic is the set of all possible logics, in particular not just linear logics (as found in treatise on mathematical logic). It also incorporates topologically induced logics (as from neurohormones; in other words, emotions).

The world-wide web enables to recreate fireside conversations our ancestors had, a million years ago. It’s not really revolutionary, it’s just worldwide.

Human nature involves maximal mental creativity. In other words, maximal software innovation, from a hardware, the brain, which is greatly influence programmed. Sartre’s opinion that he was self-created, as he were Jesus/God is just arrogant and dumb. Sartre was trying to hide, with an outrageous theory, obviously wrong, to deflect attention, that he and Simone de Beauvoir, were outrageous collaborators with the Nazi invaders, something which was obviously true (for whoever knows the facts, and has the  values).

hat did Sartre know about existence? Nothing. He was the pampered child of a certain self-absorbed upper layer of the Paris coffee shop culture, famous in his aquarium, when he was not busy seducing Nazi officers with his theater. Existence is not the province of words. It is now the province of hard-core physics, and so it was in Paris, since 1923, when Prince de Broglie rolled out his matter wave theory. To think the matter wave theory has nothing to do with existence and thus values, would be cretinism.

Following human nature is following whatever goes. Just as science, or philosophies themselves. Technology is not just a human transition. Technology is the human transition. Our ancestors (Homo Ergaster) were found in the Caucasus 2 million years ago. They have got to have used technology, from weapons to clothing (the proverbial animal skins). Our ancestors (Homo Erectus, China) used fire at least already 1.3 million year ago. Human technology changed the environment, so our ancestors created not just a theory of evolution, but an evolutionary machine to evolve humanity further from.  

Biological mutation have thus been under the direction of humanity for millions of years. The next complication being of course that Quantum Physics is so smart it’s nonlocal. Hence evolution is driven by intelligence squared, human intelligence multiplied by Quantum Intelligence.

Lamarck was made fun of, excoriated, and threatened by slave master tyrant Napoleon, for suggesting that intelligence drove evolution. The true reason of the rage of the church and plutocrats was that Lamarck had established evolution by studying fossils (some under the microscope). If humanity evolved, and that had been scientifically demonstrated, shouldn’t society evolve too?

Lamarck was right, we know this better everyday. Darwin learned Lamarckism, as a student in Scotland (“evolution”t was outlawed in English universities). Darwin turned evolution into a version more compatible with plutocracy, the nebulously defined “selection of the fittest”. Hitler and the “intellectuals” who inspired those who controlled that German politician, mentally deduced that “selection of the fittest” meant extermination of those who were not the “fittest”. Hitler didn’t realize that ignorant, self-important morons like him, impregnated with their own gravitas, were not the fittest, but instead the lowest of the low. It is now surfacing that, indeed Darwin, by decerebrating Lamarck’s evolution, missed its most important point. Even Tom Wolfe has understood this (see his 2016 published “Kingdom of Speech”).

Humanity is not just the kingdom of speech, as Sartre and his followers, would have it. Humanity is the kingdom of ideas, concepts, pictures, metaphors and emotions rising above previously given nature. Humanity is the kingdom of mind.

The kingdom of mind has its own rules and ethics, never seen before. For example, far from being an aggression, critique is a gift. Criticizing helps thinking (and self-criticism, thus mental betterment).

Selection of the fittest has meant, for at least two million years, selection of the fittest ideas, and selection of those, and the moods, capable of fostering them. Genetics and epigenetics followed. Human will was involved in all this, over 100,000 generations.

The human principle: I think, therefore I, and my descendants, became better.

Selection of the fittest thinking. Selection of the fittest moods.

Our descendants deliberately created much of what we became, and for the rest, they created us by eliminating what, or whom, was not the fittest, and by setting up an environment conducive to that.

Yes, a terrible message of hope.

We evolve, thus we hope to create ourselves in a better form.

And ever superior technology will help us to become better, because, should we not rise to the occasion, we will disappear.

Patrice Ayme’

Abolition of Nuclear Weapons’ Nobel Not So Noble

December 10, 2017

ICAN got the 2017 Peace Nobel for advocating the abolition of nuclear weapons. Fine. However, not that simple. The world faces a “nuclear crisis” from a “bruised ego”, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) warned in an apparent reference to what is often reductively described as “US-North Korea tensions” (because the entire planet should be concerned by North Korean histrionic ideology).

The nine nuclear weapons states objected. In particular, France, the US and the UK didn’t send their ambassadors to the prize ceremony, something which never happened before.

The case those so-called democracies make is that nuclear weapons enable dissuasion, and thus make war between great, and greatly reasonable, powers unimaginable. That’s an important point: I don’t know of a span of 62 years in the last 3,000 years without war between great powers somewhere. All the wars since 1945 have been anecdotes (although some civil wars killed up to 33% of the population, as in Cambodia).

So France, the USA and the UK are right: paradoxically, nuclear weapons save lives.

A campaign led by ICAN was launched to abolish nuclear weapons. ICAN, a coalition of hundreds of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the Geneva-based group helped pave the way for the introduction of a UN treaty banning the weapons, which was signed this year.

While 122 countries backed the treaty in July, the talks were notably boycotted by the world’s nine known nuclear powers and the only Nato member to discuss it, the Netherlands, voted against. Australia has maintained a longstanding opposition to a nuclear weapons ban treaty. Russia, France, UK, USA opposed the treaty, China abstained.

The most Christian city of Nagasaki was spared not: the bomb was dropped over the cathedral. Two-thirds of the Christians in the region died. However, those 10,000 innocents didn’t die in vain: within 20 hours, Japan decide to surrender.

Only three countries, the fanatics in the Vatican, the so-called Holy See, Guyana (population less than 800,000) and Thailand (a military dictatorship) have so far ratified the treaty, which requires 50 ratifications to come into force (according to UN law).

I am also, of course for the abolition of nuclear weapons. However, first of all, even in the best of possible worlds, nuclear explosives should be at the ready, be it only to bust an interstellar asteroid, a hyperbolic comet, or god knows what else (this utterance does not mean I agree to the existence of god for the purpose of this essay).

The United Nations should have nuclear weapons at its disposal, in the present state of international politics, where nations would engage in significant wars at a distance (consider Syria, Yemen, Hezbollah, etc.). And who has nukes officially at the UN? The five permanent members, countries, which, historically, contributed more to civilization than to its opposite.


When the prize was attributed, a survivor of Hiroshima, Setsuko Thurlow, an 85-year-old survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing and now a Canadian and ICAN campaigner talked. Ms Thurlow was rescued from the rubble of a collapsed building at the time. She said that most of her classmates, who were in the same room, were burned alive. “Processions of ghostly figures shuffled by,” she said, as she received the prize. “Grotesquely wounded people, they were bleeding, burnt, blackened and swollen…This is unacceptable human suffering. No human being should ever experience what we experienced.”

I have myself nearly cried, reading the description of the suffering of little children at Hiroshima. However, probably more than twenty million children died in World War Two, a conflict that killed probably more than 100 million people (5% of humanity then). The Japanese, in particular, should be contrite: the Japanese political system, culture and general Zeitgeist was directly causative of World War Two. To this day, WWII war criminals are honored officially in Japan.

Japan killed at least in a rapport of twenty to one: for one Japanese killed, twenty non-Japanese were killed by the Japanese. Call that high efficiency. Most Japanese killed were Japanese soldiers who died from bad treatment in their own army! They died of disease, and, or, malnutrition. Officially, 3.1 million Japanese citizens died in World War Two, says the Japanese government (others say only 2.5 million).  Number of Japanese civilians killed? 550,000 to 800,000, including the victims of strategic bombing (Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.)

The full Japanese cabinet met on 14:30 on August 9, hours after the Nagasaki bombing. The cabinet spent the day debating surrender. War minister Anami told the cabinet that, under torture, a captured American Mustang fighter pilot had told his interrogators that the United States possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed “in the next few days”. The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. McDilda, who had been shot down off the coast of Japan two days after the Hiroshima bombing, told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear to end the torture. The lie caused him to be classified as a VIP prisoner, probably saving him from beheading. In truth, the United States would not have had the third bomb ready for use until August 19, with a fourth in September 1945 and then approximately three a month thereafter. The third bomb would have probably been used against Sapporo, to demonstrate America’s ability to deliver the weapon all over Japan.

Following a second meeting, Prime Minister Suzuki and foreign minister Tōgō met the Emperor, and proposed an impromptu conference which started just before midnight on the night of August 9–10. Japan’s inability to defend itself was pondered. No consensus emerged. At around 02:00 (August 10), Suzuki finally addressed Emperor Hirohito, asking him to decide. The Emperor stated:

“I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer. …

I was told by those advocating a continuation of hostilities that by June new divisions would be in place in fortified positions [at Kujūkuri Beach, east of Tokyo] ready for the invader when he sought to land. It is now August and the fortifications still have not been completed. …

There are those who say the key to national survival lies in a decisive battle in the homeland. The experiences of the past, however, show that there has always been a discrepancy between plans and performance. I do not believe that the discrepancy in the case of Kujūkuri can be rectified. Since this is also the shape of things, how can we repel the invaders? [Hirohito then made some specific reference to the increased destructiveness of the atomic bomb.]

“It goes without saying that it is unbearable for me to see the brave and loyal fighting men of Japan disarmed. It is equally unbearable that others who have rendered me devoted service should now be punished as instigators of the war. Nevertheless, the time has come to bear the unbearable. …

I swallow my tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister.”

Japanese society, and Hirohito himself was culprit of World War Two. Hiroshima and Nagasaki cured it: within four days of the sun of satan rising over Hiroshima, Japan had decided to capitulate, and nuclear explosions were the main reason.

ICAN should learn history.

Beatrice Fihn, leader of ICAN referred to increasing tensions over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile development. “Nuclear weapons do not prevent conflicts. They caused this conflict”.

She is dissembling and lying: enveloping a lie into a truth, to help swallow it.  

The problem of war is vast. It’s related to our increasing powers. Nuclear weapons are just an aspect. To prevent war, one needs truth. When ICAN lies, it helps war. Truthiness helps war. At all sorts of scale.

Patrice Ayme’




OF MANY MINDS WE ARE, Therefrom Our Volition’s Enormous Inertia

December 6, 2017


Many view the following as smart, deep and wise, what we could call the empty-headed view of wisdom:

“When I dance, I dance; when I sleep, I sleep; yes, and when I walk alone in a beautiful orchard, if my thoughts drift to far-off matters for some part of the time for some other part I lead them back again to the walk, the orchard, to the sweetness of this solitude, to myself.”

Michel de Montaigne

I, myself, and me, Michel, or how to focus on numero uno? Is that the epitome of mountainous wisdom?

This thought of Montaigne reflects a whole current of thought back in Eastern Eurasia. Where is the wisdom in that? Right, sometimes one should confer with oneself, I do it nearly 24/7. But who established scientifically that mono-thinking is superior to multi-tasking?

What is the difference between mono-thinking and Pensée Unique?

“Pensée Unique” is the ultimate instance of intellectual fascism, organizing one’s thinking around few, all too few thoughts, and emotions. “Pensée Unique” goes hand in hand with Political Correctness, the latter being possible only with the former.

Oriental thoughts masters, and Montaigne were, and are, searching for a vacuum, where none is to be had.

In truth, the brain is an intensive, gigantic and ultimate multitasker: giving haphazard orders to the brain is like giving haphazard orders to the ocean. One has to be smarter, and more conniving than barking out orders to billions of entangled neural networks. (Yes, entangled, and probably not just classically so: quantum entanglement has now been demonstrated over 500 nanometers…)

When Montaigne danced, he could do so because many parts of his brains synchronized. OK, right, when a cockroach is looking for food, it probably does not let its thoughts wander. And the species has been around thousands of times longer than ours. Is that why we should imitate them?

In truth longevity of cockroaches has to do with their stupidity: were they more clever, they would have bigger brains, eat more energy, and thus would have been more prone to extinction, like T Rex. However, even coackraches let their thoughts wander: turn the light on, they will notice it, although all they thought about a second before was food. They are therefore multitasking: part of their brain is out to detect the exposition light brings them.

If we are into wisdom, we are into brains, and if we are into brains, we are multitaskers.

Drus, peak of death, Chamonix, Alps. I should have died at the location of the upper dust cloud, more than half way up, in the hidden very steep ice gully on the right. That I didn’t is a mystery (had I kept on falling, after huge rocks hit the ropes in the ice gully, by partner would have died too).

The ability to multitask does not mean that the wise should be incapable of concentrating. Just the opposite. Concentration comes naturally, when the situation requires it. I tend to be a scatterbrain, in the noble sense of the term, yet, I am a mountain climber, an activity which, like mountain running, requires concentration (so does deep-sea diving which I still do when next to a non-freezing sea).

More than once, I found myself in desperate situations when only hyper concentration and resulting superhuman strength and agility were required to bring my survival. However, the way survival was achieved reveals how the brain works. The last time this happened was 15 months ago, when I broke a crucial hold in an overhanging traverse where falling was an option implying death and, or, a very grave injury (and thus helicopter rescue, at best). But I didn’t fall, and i am still mystified by it.

I have faced, at least once, certain death, and I pulled it off. How? I don’t know. In cases like that the brain is so fully concentrated that the short-term memory system ceases to work. Motor neurons all fire together, and the frontal lobes, the strategic thinking is actually employed tactically, 100%.  Yes, it’s addictive. When I mountain run on snow, going down at high-speed, and I have to visualize trajectories carefully, to avoid blatant ice, and finishing in the trees, downslope, at 5 meters per second, I sure have to concentrate. I am not like the presumably half senile Montaigne, proud of being able to dance by only thinking about dancing, an occupation I could engaged in, with a blindfold.

So I don’t know what the admirers of  Pensée unique” hope to achieve. An early death of the mind?

I go the other way:

When I run, I think. When I sleep, I think. In both cases I think, but not in the same way. That’s the trick of superior wisdom acquisition. By not thinking in the same way, I mean not with the same parts of the brain, not with the same neural circuitry, not with the same neurohormones. I try to approach any subject from many different paths, many different neuronal pathways, many different neurohormonal environment. Thinking becomes a sum over all neurohormonal and neurological pathways.

It is indeed amazing how different a subject become, when one is ten miles from the closest human being, running on snow on top of a mountain ridge, much of the brain monitoring the next ten strides, one after the next, besides searching for ice and other indications of various traps.

Of all the things I have thought about, all of them literally got run in the ground at some point. Thinking, when running, is conducted bare boned, as the brain eats oxygen (and I only do mountain running, which demands very high brain activity to select placements and trajectories whereas running around a track can be conducted with a blindfold, holding someone’s hand)

Thus, thinking about a given subject when conducting a brain intense sport forces the brain to consider only the essence of a problem. Similarly, and for the same reason, multitasking forces into concentrating into the essence of any subject, by forcing mental concentration on the bare bones aspects of said subject. Another effect is that reducing by force the usual neurological, and neurohormonal approaches to a subject enables said approaches to rest, and thereupon, reduce themselves to a more concentrated essence, and being approached afresh.

“Free will” or more exactly, volition, is not free: it is a prisoner of our own brain, its neural networks, its experiences, associations, theories and emotions. All those, in turn, were built progressively, over years and even decades, nonlinearly feeding on themselves, and back to the environment they evolved from and modified in turn (in that environment, typically, one’s family).  Volition is a house we helped built, and also a robot we inhabit.

This fits with the rolling cylinder metaphor familiar to the ancient Greco-Romans. Cicero, in De Fato (43), presents Chrysippus’ metaphor of the rolling cylinder as follows: “‘In the same way therefore, as a person who has pushed a roller forward has given it a beginning of motion, but has not given it the capacity to roll, so a sense-presentation when it impinges on the will, it is true impresses and as it were seals its appearance on the mind, but the act of assent will be in our power, and as we said in the case of the roller, though given a push from without, as to the rest will move by its own force and nature.”

Some impulse, say a sensation gets something to roll (or not) according to its nature, inertia does the rest.

The Greco-Romans didn’t have inertia as an explicit concept, they touched it there. Rolling cylinders were used as an important example which Galileo Galilei rolled away with, establishing deep laws thanks to smart experiences involving them. (too bad Greco-Roman society, then, had become adverse to too much thinking, they could have discovered Galileo’s physics)

This distinction between impulse and subsequent evolution, is actually fundamental to differential equation theory: the initial conditions are a different input from the structure of the equation itself. Different initial conditions can give completely different results, from the same differential equation.

The nidopallium in birds is involved in executive functions, and higher cognitive functions. One intricate behavioural process governed by the nidopallium in birds is migration. There is significant neuronal recruitment to this region of the avian brain during migratory flight. It enhances cognitive potency in the nidopallium.

Thus birds benefit from improved navigational capabilities during migration, prompted by the significant changes in spatial sensory stimuli. This illustrates that neuroplasticity in the brain, avian, or not, depends upon the mission. We build the cylinder we are going to roll, depending upon what we do, and, or, plan to be doing. But, once it’s mostly built, our existing neural networks, and the neurohormonal machinery bathing them, presenting enormous inertia, is how volition rolls.

The great masters wanted concentration? Well, the best way to get it is through deconcentration, and subsequent recreation.

One may wonder why so many sages insisted so heavily that “Pensée Unique” is the way of wisdom. The reason is always the same: the elite, the establishment is plutocratic in nature. That means it rules, fully using the Dark Side. That works best when the people’s operating system is a sort of sheep mentality, transforming them into the placid “sheeple” (sheep + people). This is a generalization of Nietzsche’s dual morality model of European civilization: Christianism for the masses, lion (“blonde beast”) for the aristocracy.

It goes without saying that all and any wisdom propagandized to the masses for more than a generation or two was sustained and amplified by the aristocracy (power of the best), truly a plutocracy (power of evil). By telling the masses they should concentrate on the task at hand with one and only one thought, “Pensée Unique” at any given moment, the elite told the masses they worked best as robots, and made sure no wandering thoughts would compromise the established order.

Montaigne was the first of his very wealthy family to achieve nobility status. That implied that Montaigne didn’t have to pay taxes (just like today’s plutocrats). He could just live off the considerable revenue of his immense domain, making wine (the domain still does).

Montaigne knew higher-ups intimately: not only his friends forced him to become mayor of Bordeaux, but he was a personal friend of the King of Navarre, selected and elevated later to King of France, Henri IV (and one of the best leaders civilization had).

Montaigne was a sage, one of the best groundbreaking thinker ever. He broke free of some of the stranglehold of wisdom, Greco-Roman style. He was not always right. For example Montaigne was against the colonization of America, whereas the Greeks’ spirit was to colonize away… And it’s easy to argue Montaigne was wrong on colonization: it’s impossible to pretend, that, in the fullness of time, we are not all descendants of colonizers, because, we are. Even inside Africa, colonization started long before Neanderthal genes made it all the way to South Africa.

Science can, and always does, beat back received wisdom, make it much more nuanced. Yes, the world is local, as field theory has it, but not really, as Quantum Physics, and the dismayed Einstein himself, established, and now confirmed with countless experiments. Truth is true, but in a certain context, thus will always surprise us, as contexts change. Thus so it should be with minds, especially when they think anew..

Montaigne objected to colonization. It was not really original: the first to object to colonization were the Native Americans Jacques Cartier debated with on ther Saint Laurent, in 1534.

So France bungled the colonization of America. Philip II of Spain, himself the son of a wise emperor native French speaker, didn’t have this pangs of conscience: he sent an armada, exterminated the French in the Carolinas, who left only a name behind (and maybe some genes among the Natives). To be a saint, when confronting evil, does not destroy evil, it helps it out.  

Montaigne objected to colonization on moral ground, he wanted the savages to be free and prosper. But, actually, the French “mission civilisatrice” and trade colonizing model, would have saved the Native Americans from the holocausts which lay in their future as they were left to the tender mercy of the English “West Country Men” and other Bible, holocaust stomping colonizers of the enslaving and scalping sort.

Montaigne would have discovered that possibility, had he debated all the possibilities. He wanted to save the savages, he insured their ruin.

Of many minds we are. And the more minds of which we are, and cultivate, the more human we get.

Patrice Aymé

The Means Don’t Justify The Ends: PC Eviscerated

November 24, 2017

THE MEANS DON’T JUSTIFY THE LOGIC. Logic is more than deduction, it’s also context. Thinking needs to be more protected than these “groups” which divide us for our masters’ convenience.

It’s a well-known proverb: the ends don’t justify the means. However, the  means do not justify the ends either. Yet, that the means justify the ends is one of the most pervasive logics out there.

It is, in particular, the foundation of Political Correctness, and that makes it into Perfect Cretinism.

The term “political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Ironically, PC offends thinking itself. By saying thinking should be offended rather than an ethnic, superstitious religious, skin color, sex and games group, PC is saying that ethnicity, superstition, skin color, sex and games, are more important than thinking itself.  

Thinking is the hardest, but most specifically human activity. Putting a clamp on it is inhuman, a call to barbarity.

Political Correctness in the very context it uses to exist, is an aggression against what, or whom, it pretends to protect, and care about. Political Correctness’ essence is “Divide Et Impera”: it assumes there are “groups” in society. So this absolute good, Political Correctness, rests on an absolute potential evil, the existence of “groups” in society. It admits division as  a legitimate basis of society, thus to be mastered by rulers (our beloved plutocrats and their even more admired enablers, such as the elected political representatives).

The very foundation of PC is to be afraid to “offend”. But what is offensive? Anything worth doing will always offend, and that starts with complacency. Being offensive offends complacency.

Personal example: I planned to go on a big mountain run yesterday, offending many people in my environment, who naturally worry about my shenanigans, including running in tank top on the snow for a marathonic distance, out of phone range, where 25% of the oxygen is missing, while a storm is incoming, the bears are desperately looking for a last few juicy morsels to share with the ravenous mountain lions, and there is not enough snow at low elevations for long-range skiers to venture. They in turn offended me by trying to resist this glorious flight of fancy of the human spirit, doing in winter conditions what is already a very serious mountain run, in summer conditions.

I also offended myself, because nobody can sincerely like running with frozen feet in tank top when the wind is beginning to howl, on a mountain top where not even a helicopter could get, because of the incoming storm and night. However, it went well: the mind was appropriately concentrated, gliding over snow was achieved, and the feet got warm enough, much lower. I was able to sustain snow running in often sinking snow for twenty miles (no choice: the night and the snowfall were looming ever more). So here I am, enriched and fiercer than ever from this appropriately apocalyptic experience (forget books, get to know the real thing). Not seeing anyone for twenty snowy miles, in the total wilderness, made me more cognizant of the true place of Homo Sapiens in the universe, and the human spirit which gives it sense. The universe was suitably gloomy, when the azure sky was replaced by black clouds (I hope I offended plenty of people by using the word “black” in the context of a cloud) The universe was gloomy, but the spirit was indomitable, as it should!

The means don’t justify the logic: a logic is made of means (from the axioms), but also from a context, a universe. And the ends can be part of that. Yet the means, as yesterday’s run, can bring new logic to bear. (And not just on the bears.)

So not offending people? Give me a break: being human in full is about being offensive, since there are humans and they think. Thinking itself is an offense. Offend yourself, and learn something.

Patrice Ayme’

Science and Philosophy: two aspects of the same thing. Why they are separated.

November 22, 2017


Separating philosophy from science is like separating breathing in, from breathing out.

Philosophy is how one guesses, science is how one makes sure.

To this “Jan Sand” retorted: ‘Science is how one attempts to make sure.’

Well, no. Attempting is no science. Hope enables one to live, but it’s not life. “One makes sure” comes with a context, the context enabling to express the problem and the answer attached to it.

Science is both a method, and a field of knowledge. Both are relative to the context at hand. The method consists in using only elements of reality one is sure of.

In their context, for example, classical optics, mechanics, electromagnetism and thermodynamics are all appropriate and correct. Yet, they don’t work next to a Black Hole: a Black Hole is the wrong context for them.

The first interstellar asteroid is a shard, probably a metallic one. It was observed to cover the Earth-Moon distance in less than three hours. With the nes telescopes being built, it is the first of many.

Consider the first Interstellar Asteroid was observed passing by the sun, on a highly hyperbolic trajectory. Speed: 139,000 kilometer per hour. Color: the deep red of the severely irradiated material (an orange like picture was obtained). No water or other volatile element. Albedo (reflectivity) varies from one to ten. Making an absolute hypothesis of what the albedo is, its size would one hundred meters across, a kilometer long. Found first by an Hawaiian telescope, its name is 1I ‘Oumuamua (Reach out first first; “1I for First Interstellar”)

This is all science, because many telescope, including Europe’s VLT (Very Large Telescope) in Chile, observed the object, and science dating more than 4 centuries has made telescope highly reliable (although cardinals initially demurred).

Rubbing sticks vigorously just so will enable to bring in such high temperature, as to start a fire: that’s science. (The fundamental science of humanity, 1.3 million years old.)

But not all “attempts” at “making sure” turn out to be science. Philosophy is what organizes these attempts.

For “superstrings”, it was felt that, instead of supposing point-particles, one could suppose strings, and some problems would disappear. Other problems would disappear if one supposed a symmetry between fermions and bosons. Thus “superstrings” came to be.

Superstrings is certainly a sort of logic, but not science. In particular, it makes no peculiar predictions, aside from the hypotheses it started with!

Similarly, Euclidean geometry pushed all the way, is unending logic, not science (because it has nothing to do with reality, it says nothing relevant to reality, once pushed far enough).

Most famously, epicycle theory was a sort-of logic, with some truths mixed in, but not science: it turned out to be 100% false (although the Fourier analysis hidden therein gave it some respectability, because parts of a lie can be true).

I have my own proposal for Sub Quantum Reality (“SQPR”). It is an attempt. It is astoundingly smart. It does make predictions, and explains some significant phenomena, for example Dark Matter, Dark Energy. So it looks good. However, it is not science.


Because my theory makes extraordinary claims giving a completely different picture of physics, extremely far from the facts and moods which give meaning to both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

So SQPR would need extraordinary proofs.

One could be simply that all other explanations for Dark Matter fail, and only SQPR is left standing.

A more direct proof would be that SQPR predicts a measurable difference in energy distribution during the famous 2-slit experiment from the prediction Albert Einstein explicitly made. If it turned out to be true that my prediction is correct on this, pretty much all of existing physics becomes false, or, let’s say more precisely, it becomes a very good approximation to a deeper theory.

And then SQPR would become a science (if all other testable predictions turn out to be in accord with it).

Elements of science have to be certain, within a particular context, or “universe” (in the logic sense of “universe”) which, itself, is part of the real world.

For example Quantum Field Theory makes probabilistic predictions which can boil down in very precise numbers which can be measured. Quantum Computers will also make probabilistic predictions (about the real world, even the world of numbers).

In the latter case, it’s just a guess. In other words, philosophy.

Those who claim science does not depend upon philosophy, just as those who claim philosophy does not depend upon science are, at best, trivially correct: they have got to be looking at small subfields of these activities, cleaning the corners.  

In the grand scheme of things, science and philosophy are roughly the same activity: twisting logic any which way, to get testable consequences. Thus discovering new logics on the way, not just new facts


One may ask: why did philosophy and science get separated?

Because our masters, the plutocrats want to keep on ruling. That means they don’t want us to understand what they are doing. Thus, smarts are their enemy. Hence people have to be kept in little mental boxes, so stupid, just so.

This is nothing new. When Rome was at its apogee, very learned Greek slaves educated the youth of the elite. As they were slaves, they knew their place. This helps to explain why Rome stagnated intellectually, and thus was unable to solves its pressing strategic, technological, economic, health and ecological problems. Stupidly educated youth makes stupid, and obedient adults.  

Specialization is a way for plutocrats to keep on ruling. After all, to run a civilization, one needs special capabilities. The ultimate specialization is to pretend that certain knowledge, that is science, is independent from guessing new sure knowledge, that is, philosophy.

Actually the latter is intrinsically bad, since, if it was thoroughly applied, it would allow We The People to understand how plutocracy works. Thus philosophy was strongly encouraged to degenerate, by being cut from knowledge, be it sure, or historical, etc.

If society wants to survive, it will have to forge ahead in the way of understanding. Failing to comprehend or to implement this, has led many civilizations or states  to collapse (Maya, Sumer, Egypt, Abbasid Caliphate, Jin dynasty, Western Xia, the Dali Kingdom , Southern Song, Aztecs,.etc.).

Thus sustainable plutocracy is a balancing act between understanding and obedience. This time, though, understanding has to be maximized, be it only to solve the climate crisis (there are many other crises). Thus plutocracy has foster understanding (quite a bit as Jeff Bezos is doing with Amazon, hence his success)..

We may be unable to get rid of plutocracy, because We The Sheep People out there are so supine. The next best thing, which is also the necessary thing, is that it is in the interest of everybody to let philosophy roll, and thus get reacquainted with science. And reciprocally.

Patrice Ayme

Science True, Popper False

November 15, 2017

Abstract: Philosopher Karl Popper put out in 1934 a nonsensical theory of what science was. Unfortunately, that nonsense has ruled science ever since. And it shows!


Truth is contained in what’s left after the rest has been proven false.

Human beings think with theories, which are digital depictions or even chains of emotions, of an underlying neuronal reality.

It is better for the elite in power to have a much less understandable vision of the world posing as ultimate wisdom. Enter Karl Popper, an establishment philosopher.

Popper: “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

This upside down masterpiece makes much more sense than Popper view of science, or reality!

How does Popper falsify reality? By being God? Did Popper believe he was God? Is a lion non falsifiable? Does lack of falsiability make a lion’s claw unreal? With a philosophy of relity like that, one can’t do anything, and that suits the establishement just fine.

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder in How Popper killed Particle Physics rightly explodes the Popper falsification obsession:

Popper is dead. Has been dead since 1994 to be precise. But also his philosophy, that a scientific idea needs to be falsifiable, is dead.

And luckily so, because it was utterly impractical. In practice, scientists can’t falsify theories. That’s because any theory can be amended in hindsight so that it fits new data. Don’t roll your eyes – updating your knowledge in response to new information is scientifically entirely sound procedure.

So, no, you can’t falsify theories. Never could.”

In 1934, Popper said that science is what can be shown to be potentially false. This.has impressed physicists, ever since.Let me disintegrate Popper falsification a bit further from the logical viewpoint.

After proposing the heliocentric theory, using his concept of inertia, circa 1350 CE, Buridan observed that the heliocentric theory could not be experimentally distinguished (yet) from the geocentric theory, and thus, one may as well believe the latter, as “Scripture” said so.

It was definitively proven that Venus turned around the Sun (Sol) more than three centuries after Buridan wrote, when telescopes became powerful enough to observe the phases of Venus (how the Sun illuminated Venus). So the question of falsifiability is not new.

Even earlier, 14 centuries ago, the ancient Greeks demonstrated the atomic theory by observing perpetual motion of small particles (what we call now according to an Englishman, Brownian motion, because nearly everything was discovered by Englishmen say the English).

Popper believed that a scientific theory should be “falsifiable”. As he wrote: “A theory is falsifiable, as we saw in section 23, if there exists at least one non-empty class of homotypic basic statements which are forbidden by it; that is, if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.”

Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 95

Pure mumbo-jumbo. (Popper’s mumbo-jumbo would make the epicycles theory “scientific”… as it was false in some computational consequences, as Tycho found; epicycles partisans could have fixed that with more cycles…)

Popper’s mumbo-jumbo enabled Popper to speak of science, while avoiding the concept of truth. Under the cover of  sounding scientific (thus honorable). If science itself was not about truth, nor induction, neither was society in need to be about truth… or induction (so no revolution). That could only please an establishment put in place by the history of privilege. So Popper became Sir Karl, got plenty of honors, and part of the elite. That was good for Sir Karl. After all, if there is no truth, there is still the Queen.

On the face of it, believing, as Popper affected to, that one should be able to prove that a theory could be false, to make it true enable us to make zombies “scientific” (they could be false!) To be true something just has to potentially be false.

God is not falsifiable, because God can’t “conceivably” be false (at least to the believer in said God). Thus, if God exists, that makes God true, yet unfalsifiable. So we would have the problem of a God which is true, yet non-scientific.

The more general problem is that, how could something which is true be falsifiable?

Popper was a good physicist: he corresponded as early as 1934 about nonlocality with Einstein. Out of it came what’s known as the Popper nonlocality experiment. Although he himself said his early nonlocal ideas were not correct, it’s highly likely that he put Einstein on the track of the EPR nonlocal paper of 1935. However, on science, his own theory is self-contradictory ( and for the “Open Society” Popper is famous for, the basic ideas come straight from the philosophers behind Pericles).

Popper himself threw the science as falsifiability theory under the bus in his later years:  Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification — the art of discerning what we may with advantage omit.” The Open Universe : An Argument for Indeterminism (1992), p. 44

“Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.” Ch. 1 “Science : Conjectures and Refutations”, Section VII

Physicist Lisa Randall made a profitable scientific discovery, and proved it experimentally: she found that Dark Matter sells book. According to Lisa, her nonsensical theory, that Dark Matter annihilated dinosaurs, makes sense, because it can be proven to be false. I should sell her a bridge on Mars, or a zombie for a lover.

In truth, the dinosaurs were in bad trouble for millions of years (the fossil record about the number of species shows), because the Dekkan Traps hyper-volcanism had been acting up for millions of years, smothering the planet, perniciously heating from CO2, between brutal bursts of cooling, from sulfate aerosols, while acidifying the oceans with all that volcanic CO2 (and having all those pesky mammals and birds around didn’t help!) Warm blooded animals and those who burrow survived. Such hyper-volcanism cools the planet’s radioactive core, and happens every 200 million years or so.

Popper’s insane view of reality has long dominated. Thus physics headed the wrong way. And biology too (as the fanatical attacks against Lamarck, and thus epigenetics, showed; an English (of course!) professor, Medawar, was even given in the 1950s the Nobel for proving Lamarck wrong, as if a single experiment on rats could disqualify all of epigenetics, now a gigantic field steering genetics itself, as Lamarck guessed cogently) .

That was the good news. The bad news about Popper? His adversaries fostered a depiction of reality which was even more insane! So I used to be popperian, before I realized that poppy Popper was all poppycock…

Patrice Ayme’



November 12, 2017

I preach and teach you transhumanism. Not just because that’s what we wish for, but because that’s what we are. Man, the genus Homo, is something which, not only  shall be overcome, but whose very nature is to be continuously overcome, to be continuously transcended. We call that evolution, and that very smart force is strongest with us. (Says Quantum Physics, no less!)

What have our leaders done to overcome Homo? Nothing new. Instead they cling to the past, because that’s where the money is. And that’s the only thing they understand. Elected “representatives” forced on us the return of ever more grotesque plutocracy, now made global, an attempt to reduce us to a huge, worldwide chimpanzee society, with alpha males doing whatever they want, even murder, while brandishing nukes to impress us. As the ever more acidic sea rises, cannibals brandish nukes, overcoming man has turned from choice, to necessity. (Yes, that’s also an allusion to sustained violence against females, something weakening considerably our species’ mental capability, our core.)

Living beings on Earth have created something beyond what they themselves evolved into. This is what life has done for billions of years, even changing the atmosphere of the planet from methane to its antagonist, oxygen.

And do you want to be the chrysalis left by this great metamorphosis, going back to the beasts, as Nazis, Khmer Rouges, Jihadists, and worst of all, global plutocrats tried, and persist… Rather than to be human in full, and overcome man?

What is ape to man? A laughingstock or painful embarrassment. A reminder of what we truly are. And yesterday’s humanism shall only be that, a painful embarrassment, to the sort of transhumanism we need. Ape should be a lesson of what to avoid, in more ways than one. Despising yesterday’s humanism long has been the way to further humanism. Despising yesterday’s ways has long been the essence of sustainable civilization. Watch the Romans heap contempt on Celtic and Punic civilizations, for practicing human sacrifices (of prisoners for the former, their own children for the latter). That’s how wars are won, and empires built.

A laughingstock or painful embarrassment, this is what representative democracy, truly a reprehensible oligarchy of the lowest passions, has become. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Thus you aspire to be led by worms obsessed by “power”. And, even more embarrassingly, you deny it.

Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape… Only in man, the old-fashioned way, is violence against one’s own species, the fundamental religion. Even chimpanzees don’t go that far. Yet, only then, by massacring each other, could Homo evolve into us. Transcending our species could only be achieved in the bloodiest way.

The transcendence of blossoming intelligence is the meaning of the Earth. Let your will say: the transcendence of intelligence shall be the meaning of the Earth… Man is a rope, tied between beast and spiritual transcendence —a rope over an abyss … what is the greatest in Homo is being a bridge to somewhere hoped for, and not an end to the mud we come from.

The means can’t justify the ends. But better ends have always justified stronger means.

Only by overcoming us, are we ourselves.


Aristotle scoffed that we needed slaves, because we didn’t have machines. Thus Aristotle tied technology to ethics. The myth Athenian philosophers, in the greatest Greek age, imposed, all too brutally, was the “Open Society”, and total democracy. Western Europe has been more subtle, and much more rich in myths. The fundamental myth of the west is not Christianism, as Nietzsche himself pointed out. Nor is it just the “blonde beast”, the no-holds-barred aristocracy, as Nietzsche claimed. No, the fundamental myth of the West is the secular, Republican law, up to 25 centuries old. But this is exactly what global plutocracy presently violates (complete with its Jihadist attack dogs).


Notes on the preceding: “Transhumanism” is fashionable in the Silicon Valley. The preceding gives it some scientifico-poetic metaphysical backup.

The first loud transhumanist was Nietzsche, something rather ironical. My own contribution above is a modification of one of Nietzsche’s most famous passages. Below is Nietzsche’s original from Also Spracht Zarathustra. There are significant differences between my version and Nietzsche’s. First the notion of Superman of Nietzsche (Ubermensch) is vague. It seems to be mostly a wished-for change of mentality, in Nietzsche’s parlance, sometimes, although at other times, he refers explicitly to biological evolution (worm, ape, etc.)

I refer explicitly to evolution. We have become masters of evolution, ever since we evolved goats, and saw the devil in them. Nietzsche professed to detest Darwin, as he did most “Englishmen”, for their lack of humor, a dearth of laughter, among other things, he said. In truth, strict Darwinism, the selection of the fittest, established by rolling the dice, robbed the universe of meaning. (And makes little scientific sense, when one looks at numbers with an open mind!)

Nietzsche could be very Lamarckian: Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny. Such erroneous articles of faith, which were continually inherited, until they became almost part of the basic endowment of the species.” [Gay Science, Origins of Knowledge, # 110.]

I am more Nietzschean than Nietzsche, as I believe that what works is true. Truth does not need to be corrected, I embrace it, be it only to smother it to death. If a species is tried and true about some ways, how could it be in error?

More generally, Nietzsche’s metaphysics was borderline self-contradictory (Nietzsche’s “superman” in the end, is supposed to use his super mental powers to embraces “amor fati”, the love of one’s fate, something a mussel already does to perfection! Why is the superman indispensable to achieve the status of walrus’ food?)

My metaphysics is simpler: I believe understanding should be privileged, and that means love of, and for, those who generate and embrace it.

From my point of view, Homo evolved a succession of biological supermen (with the possible degeneracy from Homo Neanderthalis to a significantly inferior Homo Sapiens hybridized a bit with Neanderthal: Neanderthal genes were probably overcrowded and displaced for purely mathematical reasons, as I discovered, and some academic scientists recently confirmed by running computer models demonstrating my acumen without acknowledging it, as those in the rat race are wont to do).

Technology, which hindered our recent biological evolution, can now accelerate it enormously (thanks to gene editing, and various implementable devices).

So we can deliberately evolve really super supermen, guided by our super ethics and super smarts.

But there is even more tantalizing: Quantum Computing will bring, I boldly prophesize, Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Sentiensizing (Self Conscious Quantum Computing). Creating Artificial Consciousness, thanks to our mastery of Quantum Physics, will erase the frontier between man and machine.

Transcending the human species will then leave even supermen behind…


Before exposing Nietzsche’s famous discourse on the overman/superman, let me insist that Nietzsche’s superman has nothing to do with the Nazi supermen, quite the opposite. Indeed, Nietzsche hated the Prussianized Germany he saw created under his aghast eyes. Throughout his works, Nietzsche made a formidable campaign against Germany, the German state unified under Prussian hegemony at Versailles (France!) in 1871, complete with a thought system dominated by military superiority and racism (verily, trojan Horses for plutocracy). Prussia constitutionally hated, exploited and discriminated against Poles and Jews, whom Nietzsche made a show to judge to be vastly superior to Germans.  The thinker whom they claimed, inspired their ideas, actually explicitly hated most of what the Nazis stood for! One can’t be more misinterpreted than being taken as an icon by a system of thought when one thoroughly contradicted it.


Nietzsche’s overcoming in his own words:

“I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?… All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughingstock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape… The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth… Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”

As we tinker with the entire biosphere, this has all become very practical…

Don’t underestimate poetical metaphysics: had the Germans read and understood Nietzsche, there would not have been the savage Prussian inspired racist, fascist and demented assaults German plutocracy unleashed in 1914 and 1939 (yes, I know, Great Britain financed Prussian racism and furious militarism as early as 1757).

Nietzsche was certain that the Germans would cause massive wars in the Twentieth Century, he wrote this explicitly, and he was, unfortunately 100% right (thus showing that the German catastrophe was predictable, thus avoidable; Nietzsche’s critique was similar to Einstein’s). History would have been different, if Germans had condescended to understand in 1912 what their descendants understand now. And even then, what they understand now is not history in full, which is even more dreadful and humiliating (in particular the stealthy, but decisive, role of US plutocracy, scrupulously ignored by the powers that be, as they were put in place by that very process they condemn with the tips of their forked tongues!)

Patrice Ayme’

Blade Runner 2049: Deep, Yet Practical Philosophy of Evil

November 4, 2017

Evil is everywhere, don’t leave home without it.

It looks intellectual to read Greek tragedy written 25 centuries ago. It has looked intellectual, all too long. The son gets born, and the more he tries to avoid his fate, the more he sinks into it, raping and murdering all without rhyme or reason (“Oedipus”). For some reason, such twisted tales are viewed as instructive. Just like the mistranslated, moderated Shakespeare now prevalent, they are not twisted enough. By a long shot. And they give too much space to what is pre-ordained. Now, nothing is preordained.

The famed “long view of history” (Braudel) has become a toy in the hands of unhinged humanity modifying the climate, as the Trump (!) administration. “Long view” has become tomorrow. The US  government is now aligned with me, and predicts a possible global rise of temperature of 4.7 Celsius (ten Fahrenheit). In other words, the apocalypse. In “Blade Runner 2049” strong countermeasures have been apparently taken, so the temperatures have plummeted, and it snows all the time… In Los Angeles. (Such measures are imaginable, and feared, precisely because they could backfire…) 

Classical literature is viewed as deep. Yet think again: what is Greek tragedy overall message? That it’s folly to resist  the rule of fate, and hubristic to try to escape it. In other words, submission is best. However, the Greeks were great because they were full of hubris and were escape artists. Greek fiction is less deep than what real history and contemporary thinking is capable of.

Science Fiction movies are capable of depth previously unknown. In a way, nothing new: it’s exactly what Homer was. Sci Fi, with his Medusas, Cyclops, Sirens, etc. So was the entire Greek Pantheon with its officially crazy gods. Virgil, and much “classical” literature can also be viewed as Sci Fi.

What is love? What is a memory?What is fear? What is a soul? Is there a difference between being born and being programmed? Will one day “replicants” machines made to replicate humans be not just possible, but reproducing, and then what? What is it, to be human?

Such are some of the questions in “Blade Runner 2049”, starring a futuristic version of the LAPD, the Los Angeles Police Department (not drastically improved, I am afraid…). A lot of these questions are central to philosophy in general (and this site in particular). It’s soothing to see how practical they have become… Yes several of these questions were already in the original “Blade Runner”, but here they are contemplated in greater depth, and new ones are added.

Indeed, how do we know what we know? For most people, it means they read it in their not so smart phone. All too many “normal” people don’t know why they know what they know. Normal people find normal to have become abnormal. Worse: eight times more US citizens got news from Russian disinformation professionals than from the traditional TV news. On Facebook alone, at least 150 million people are addicted to Russian fake news.

The degree of international, historical corruption eating the West is civilization threatening (watch the latest, involving Pluto Russia, corrupt universities, Brexit, and a 30-year-old master of the universe, now indicted by US) . As I have long explained, Nazism itself is chapter, verse and consequence of the increasing mind massaging and brain washing, festering in the West for a century.

Everywhere fake news roam, from the “multiverse” to the Obama, Clinton & Trump machines. Obamacare itself misinformed: to improve the health of destitute people, one shouldn’t send more tax money to some of the richest monopolies in the world.

The lady on the left has a very ambiguous role in Blade Runner 2049. I wanted a picture of her kicking higher than her head, as in “Bladerunner”, but, thanks to ambient sexism, couldn’t find any (She did kick, for real, as high as Gosling’s 6 foot face).  The establishment does not like ladies who kick as high as a male soccer player. She is a “replicant”, and kills with gusto for aims which are rather obscure, but include the dawn of replicant super-humanity, she feels passionately for. She proves very hard to kill (I hope she didn’t die so we see her character reappear, and lift some ambiguities, She clearly steals the show in the movie, by adding considerable emotional depth and complexity. So the argument that the movie is anti-woman is just plain idiotic. On the right is director Villeneuve, who predicts “Peugeot” flying cars soon. (After all the French company Peugeot is more than 3 centuries old.)

I had to block several individuals on Facebook defaming me during the Clinton campaign (sorry I didn’t fancy anymore a scoundrel I used to support). Those organized liars transformed some of my ideas in their opposite, enticing lethal (!) threats by others. Interestingly some were people I knew in the past, but, meanwhile, they had read about me on the Internet… and believed all they read there, including the forked tongue, the flaming breath, clawed wings, raw flesh diet, and the prehensile tail. Well, OK, for the forked tongue, and the raw flesh diet.

Dawn of replicant super-humanity? We are certainly not just going towards this, but we have arrived. Genetically modified pigs, which could be used for transplants, have been created, thanks to CRISP R, an invention of a trio of US and French ladies who kick ass (they were immediately spoiled of their patents, thanks to an assorted plot of male character infused with “Old Money”). Personally, if a CRISP R engineer came to offer me 10,000 years of young life, by modifying me a bit, I would immediately assent. After all, when I put my super trail running shoes, or mountain boots, I also modify myself.

Pondering Artificial Intelligence is practical. AI systems to drive cars have to be equipped with serious ethical sense, for example to solve the “Trolley Problem” (a practical version of having to choose between crushing two old ladies and a mother with her baby, chose the former).

Worse: nuclear “Deterrence” (truly a form of madness) depends upon Artificial Intelligence all too much. Interpreting a solar flare as a missile strike is just around the corner… We don’t have replicants who kick faces yet, but we have AI which can finish humanity (the theme in the movie “Terminator”, another excellent movie). 

Don’t pay attention to the number “2049” in the movie title: the technology looks more like 2149 than 2049… According to the story, there was a “blackout” when all electronic data was erased, so only paper memories are supposed to have survived. The blackout was engineered to fight back the “replicants” who took themselves for human beings, or superhuman beings, more exactly. Since then, systematically obedient “replicants” were engineered (and use to find and destroy the more “Free Will” capable preceding generation of replicants).

When one speaks of “soul”, the hard-core classical mechanists who haunt all too many halls of science, chuckle in derision. However, “soul” can be viewed as a synonym for “consciousness”, something we all have, but science does not.

What are the connections with reality?

First, in my opinion, Quantum Computers will develop consciousness. So any miniaturized Quantum Computer with a number of Q-Bits comparable to those found in a human beings (don’t ask, I don’t know how many, nor does anyone else; however I promise to ponder the problem…) Many approaches to Quantum Computers use very low absolute temperatures, but others (Quantum Hall effect approach from MFST Station Q) use room temperature.

By then all the questions broached in “Blade Runner” will have long been confronted, and solved. My position is simple: any advanced intelligence, on a par with human intelligence, endowed with consciousness should have full human rights.

Example: an advanced AI entangled with a Quantum Computer with billions of qubits.

For example crows, parrots and raptors, although they are conscious, and although, with their 2 billion neurons or so, they have great intelligence, are not quite intelligent enough for full human rights, but they should get the same rights as dogs and cats, or better.

Another thing not to pay attention to in “Blade Runner 2049” is the PC allegation that the work is anti-woman, because the story features 5 women, 4 of them edible by genuine male rapists. Yes the women there have great sex appeal (but so do the guys, including the big brute in the beginning). However, all the women characters are tougher than diamond: death is just a collateral. If all women were thus, rapists would be much fewer.

True, the main female character seems deeply flawed. But appearances will be misleading with the truly human, that is, the most Machiavellian. “Luv”, is extremely domineering, and succeeds even to dominate the male hero, “K”, while losing a long, gutsy and gory fight with him: all bloodied up, and more or less eviscerated, “Luv” forcefully full mouth kiss the main hero out of spite, showing him there is another dimension to all this, than this horrific fight to death. The male hero just stands there, dumbfounded by this revelation. And that’s the highest point in the movies.

It invites a sequel, as “Luv” combatted both humans and replicants, while seeming to view more than suspiciously her boss and lover, for reasons which are no doubt complex.


In any case, that female character dominates the movies with her intriguing mind. Right, one can and should say:  Sometimes it seems that the best we can hope for in this universe, is to be a ray of sunshine to those we touch. It should be enough.

Affirm the good, and don’t demand any applause, that’s the way of the wise

This is a message of mine quite opposite to Camus’ obscene considerations on the “absurd”.

Camus’ obscene considerations on the “absurd” confused his own absurdity with the human condition.

Camus’ absurdity was passion killing. We need formidable passion to think anew (most formidable thinkers are formidable fighters, historically speaking).

Right, “Luv” seems evil, indeed. An important point. Just like the female mind is underestimated, so is evil. Indeed, Evil, sometimes, is at the service of goodness, and it is even irreplaceable in the service of goodness, nothing else would do, and this is exactly how humanity transcended, and still transcends, itself. A warning to those, a la John Lennon, who would claim to desire an indigestion of the all too sweet syrup of overwhelming goodness. 

The irreplaceability of evil is why all significant religions pay their respect to evil. With an unmovable Satan (=Pluto, Hades, Devil), and cruel sacrifices to go with it

So I pay my respects to Blade Runner 2049. And wish “Luv” happy trails. Meanwhile, back to our regular programming, ferocious greenhouse, and unhinged nuclear dictators (for example Kim of the DPRK), both, all too human, and unanticipated by the Greeks 

Patrice Ayme’   

Way Too Polite: ”Your Leaders Are Crazy!”

October 26, 2017

Contrarily to what old PC behavior inculcates, insults have their, irreplaceable, use. An immense occasion was missed, before World War Two. The war could have been avoided by properly insulting (and threatening) the Germans and Japanese leaders and threatening them with annihilation.

In the case of the Germans, it is certain that it would have avoided the war (as I have explained many times with excruciating details). And remember that the Japanese were following the Nazis and Italian fascists. By insulting the leaders, the populations would have realized they were going down the abyss.

In 1942, Professor Frederick Lindemann (later Lord Cherwell) was appointed the British government’s leading scientific adviser (with a seat in the Cabinet) by his friend, the very scientifically minded Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Lindemann presented a paper to the Cabinet advocating the area bombing of German cities. That was accepted by Cabinet and Air Marshall Harris was directed to carry out the task (Area bombing directive). It became a crucial part of the total war against Germany, as it deprived the country of fuel, and forced the Nazis to mobilize 30% as much soldiers in ground air defense as they had, fighting in the USSR.

At the start of the bombing campaign, Harris said, quoting the Bible’s Old Testament: “The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.”

Harris, head of the British bomber command dropped a leaflet on Nazi Germany in 1942. Important notions are absent; the mass massacre, the holocaust, of civilians, in particular Poles and Jews (something that was well-known by 1942). An occasion was missed to tell the Germans that their crimes would not be forgiven, until they threw the Nazis out and capitulated to the United Nations. It would have stiffen the spines of German generals who thought the Nazis were nuts.

Here is the leaflet penned by Sir Arthur Harris and dropped over Nazi Europe in the late Spring of 1942:

First Page of Leaflet Dropped by Bomber Harris on German Cities in 1942, translate below:


“We in Britain know quite enough about air raids. For ten months your Luftwaffe bombed us. First you bombed us by day. When we made this impossible, they came by night. Then you had a big fleet of bombers. Your airmen fought well. They bombed London for ninety-two nights running. They made heavy raids on Coventry, Plymouth, Liverpool, and other British cities. They did a lot of damage. Forty-three thousand British men, women and children lost their lives; Many of our most cherished historical buildings were destroyed.

You thought, and Goering promised you, that you would be safe from bombs. And indeed, during all that time we could only send over a small number of aircraft in return. But now it is just the other way. Now you send only a few aircraft against us. And we are bombing Germany heavily.

Why are we doing so? It is not revenge — though we do not forget Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam, London, Plymouth and Coventry. We are bombing Germany, city by city, and even more terribly, in order to make it impossible for you to go on with the war. That is our object. We shall pursue it remorselessly. City by city; Liibeck, Rostock, Cologne, Emden, Bremen; Wilhelmshaven, Duisburg, Hamburg — and the list will grow longer and longer. Let the Nazis drag you down to disaster with them if you will. That is for you to decide.It is true that your defenses inflict losses on our bombers. Your leaders try to comfort you by telling you that our losses are so heavy that we shall not be able to go on bombing you very much longer. Whoever believes that will be bitterly disappointed.

America has only just entered the fight in Europe. The squadrons, forerunners of a whole air fleet, have arrived in England from the United States of America. Do you realize what it will mean to you when they bomb Germany also? In one American factory alone, the new Ford plant at Willow Run, Detroit, they are already turning out one four-engined bomber able to carry four tons of bombs to any part of the Reich every two hours. There are scores of other such factories in the United States of America. You cannot bomb those factories. Your submarines cannot even try to prevent those Atlantic bombers from getting here; for they fly across the Atlantic.

Soon we shall be coming every night and every day, rain, blow or snow — we and the Americans. I have just spent eight months in America, so I know exactly what is coming. We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end, if you make it necessary for us to do so. You cannot stop it, and you know it.

You have no chance. You could not defeat us in 1940, when we were almost unarmed and stood alone. Your leaders were crazy to attack Russia as well as America (but then your leaders are crazy; the whole world thinks so except Italy).

How can you hope to win now that we are getting even stronger, having both Russia and America as allies, while you are getting more and more exhausted?

Remember this: no matter how far your armies march they can never get to England. They could not get here when we were unarmed. Whatever their victories, you will still have to settle the air war with us and America. You can never win that. But we are doing so already now.

One final thing: it is up to you to end the war and the bombing. You can overthrow the Nazis and make peace. It is not true that we plan a peace of revenge. That is a German propaganda lie. But we shall certainly make it impossible for any German Government to start a total war again. And is not that as necessary in your own interests as in ours?”


So what happened? By 1943, the Germans were widely talking about the fact that the holocaust of the Jews had brought the calamity of aerial bombing of German cities, that it was deserved, in a sense. Later, encouraged by a Nazi crack-down, the feeling passed, and the Germans fought to the bitter end.


Leaflets Over Japan:

General Curtiss LeMay craftily and morally warned the Japanese to evacuate their cities. It was crafty because most of Japanese war production was within cities. (This was the justification for the massive bombings of Tokyo, which killed more than the bombing of Hiroshima.)

Long range B-29s US bombers dropped 10 million propaganda leaflets in May, 20 million in June and 30 million in July. The Japanese government implemented harsh penalties against civilians who kept copies of these leaflets:

“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or a friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories, which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique that they are using to prolong this useless war. Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s well-known humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.

America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique, which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace, which America will bring, will free the people from the oppression of the Japanese military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan.

You can restore peace by demanding new and better leaders who will end the War.

We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked, but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

To dare say that the fascist leaders which brought World War Two were crazy was way too polite, and it was done way too late.

True enough, thus rough enough propaganda could have done much more in World War Two. It could have prevented the entire world war and its holocausts. But of course the Anglo-Saxons would have had to want to prevent the disaster in a timely manner. They didn’t. Or, at least, their leaders didn’t want to. As simple as that. But, if the measly JFK files can’t be all released, one should not expect to examine what really happened with fascism before World War Two.

Patrice Ayme’