Archive for the ‘Intellectual fascism’ Category

If Israel Is The Elected People Why Vote Again? (Thus,) Does the Biblical God Want To Kill The Jews?

July 28, 2018

Israeli philosopher Omri Boehm asks in the New York Times: “Did Israel Just Stop Trying to Be a Democracy”?

I generally do not comment much on Israel. My reasons are deep, tenebrous, far inside the vigorous flames of the circles of hell at the center of my philosophical system, sustaining the whole thing, just as the sun-like molten iron heart of Earth supports the heavenly biosphere… Just as the Dark Side supports the Enlightenment, as the Yin and Yang define each other…

But, as the New York Times itself decides to show some guts, so must I… I will not be outdone by commoners! (A very extended version of my published comment is below; it was approved by just 2 people, whereas comments in the Israel Uber Alles style, were approved by more than 100… Serious Jews are into introspection…)

Satrapies (subordinated plutocracies) were small in the West immense in the east. In any case, the Achaemenid (“Persian”) empire was extremely multiethnic… And extremely advanced: news came from all over the empire to Persepolis in one week with an efficient road network, and a pony express… (The real extent of the empire was even greater than that, going all the way to Ethiopia, and Oman was part of it…)

Dr, Boehm writes:”Last week, Israel’s government pushed through Parliament a new law calling Israel the “nation-state of the Jewish people.” That statement may sound like a truism — and in some respects it is one — but the implications of it officially being made are monumental.

In 1948, the Declaration of Independence, the text that marks the founding of Israel, created a Jewish state that would ensure “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” Since then, the question of how Israel could be both Jewish and democratic has been the object of fierce controversy.

The effort to guarantee equal rights for non-Jews has at times seemed like trying to square a circle. Last week, Israel gave up on even trying.

implicit nod to Palestinian self-determination was driven by an overriding concern for Jewish interests, not Arab rights. In May 1948, there were about 600,000 Jews and some 1.2 million Arabs living within Palestine’s borders. With Jews in the minority, the Jewishness of a democratic Israel could only be ensured if Palestinians had a chance at self-determination. In other words, Israel’s foundational twin pledge (to be both Jewish and democratic) was hypocritical…

The system’s original contradictions are now being laid bare. Of the more than 8.2 million people living in Israel’s recognized borders today, roughly 73 percent are Jewish and 22 percent are Arab. But of the 11.8 million people who live in Israel and the West Bank, roughly 56 percent are Jewish and 40 percent are Arab. And as the prospect of a viable two-state solution has receded, so has Israel’s promise that it would provide full equality to non-Jews.

In keeping with this evolution, last week’s nation-state law says that, “The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”


This picture symbolizes the problem. The two mosques visible (gold Dome of the Rock, etc.) were built on TOP of the Jewish Temple. OK, it may be better than latrines. But when we read that Muhammad, after his death, flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse… a heady mix of Judaism and Hellenism (remember Pegasus?)… one finds itself confronted to a fable for little children having turned lethal, for real… The Star of David is nearly two millennia older than Islam….

The theory that ethnicity commands citizenship was made most famous by the Nazis. However tribalism above anything else is one of the oldest, most primitive, and deleterious, not to say savage, lethal and criminal, ideologies. All great empires triumphed, because they rejected it, wholesale. This is what made them great. For example, the Achaemenid empire, which extended from Greece to India and Ethiopia to Central Asia, was extremely multiethnic. The Greco-Roman empire was extremely multiethnic (and so is its descendant empire, “The West”). China and India were multiethnic.

Multiethnicity is not the end all, be all: it doesn’t prevent intellectual fascism, nor, of course, the political type of fascism, as the Persians obdurately demonstrated in the last three millennia…. However, it is conducive to it…

A multiethnic empire is forced to admit that there are higher principles than origins and appearances.

Those higher principles are well-known: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

These principles are secular, they don’t depend upon the common superstition that the tribe at hand was chosen by “god” to be tops! Or the elected people”, or even the definition of “man” (as happened in many tribes).

The “Elected People” theory backfired spectacularly in the confrontation between the Jews and their mental offspring. First in the Fourth Century, Roman emperor Theodosius I legislated that the Christians were the Elected People, and “heretics” (“those who made a choice”) were to be burned. Finally the “Elected People” theory, reinforced by the Christo-Darwinist mindset led to apply the “selection of the fittest” to Judaism: the Nazis insisted that they were the “Elected People”, elected by their own will, not a “god” scared of shrimps and hogs who insisted on sexual mutilations…

The irony, then, is that the Jewish god is of an inferior sort, scared of hogs and shrimps. Hence the Jewish god favors superstition heavily: doesn’t it favor its “elected people”?  Actually it’s no favor to believe in all the stupidities in the Bible: it makes those who believe in them incredibly dumb. One may argue that they are made dumb on details. No. They are made dumb on the principle that dumbness has to be the ultimate ruler.

Thus, paradoxically, the Jewish god, who defines Israel, is its worse enemy. How did that occur? The vicious tribal fascism and exterminationism found in the Bible was a great help in the dog eat dog world which followed the simultaneous collapse of all the civilizations of the Middle Earth around 1117 BCE and, or, from the “conspiracy of the Sea People” (Pharaoh dixit)… Although versions of desiccated Egypt survived, and Greece would revive, mightier than ever, within three centuries.

The vicious exterminationism found in the Bible provided a justification for the methods Israel had to use, simply to exist. Before the Muslims crow:’We told you so!’, let me point out the original, literal version of Islam has exactly the same problem… And just as with Israel, that was the key to its early success. It’s no coincidence, but causation: in the grander scheme of thing, Islam is just a variant of Judaism, endowed with a similar ultra-violence (the Qur’an quotes approvingly Lot in the Bible on how to treat homosexuals:”with a rain of stones”; the Bible is the constant context of all of Islam, the “Messenger of god” Muhammad’s fundamental theme being that Jews and Christians didn’t abide correctly by the unvarnished Bible).

All this ultra-violence and ultra-discrimination? All the way to the ovens.


So why am I (nevertheless) pro-Israel? (But one should push my patience too far…) It’s not just a question of the enemy of my enemy being my friend. (Moreover, it’s not clear who is friend, who is enemy!) It’s not just a question of historical justice: Judaism is more than twice older than Islam. When the Islamists established mosques on top of THE temple of the Jews, they were symbolically put their feet on Israel’s face.

The Roman emperor Hadrian had kicked the Jews out of Jerusalem after the second Judaic War (135 CE). However, the decision, applauded by the fanatical Saint Augustine after 400 CE, didn’t have to be definitive: Roman emperor Julian had ordered the reconstruction of the Great Temple in 362 CE. Julian in the surviving Fragment of a Letter to a (Pagan) Priest: “I myself…intended to restore it [the Jerusalem Temple], in honor of the god whose name has been associated with it.” (Works, vol. 2., pp. 297–339.) Sixth-century historian Lydus quotes him, “I raise with the utmost zeal the Temple of the Highest God.

Some may scoff:’Who cares about a Roman emperor?’ Well, our present regimes are descendants from Rome… As our law is, in its fundamental nature, Roman (extended to women and children). Moreover, morality (the mores) is entangled with law: what we consider legal is moral, and reciprocally.

In the best of possible world, the Middle East would free itself from the Biblical god: Arabic speaking peoples would harness the know-how of the Hebrew speaking people… But the complexity arises when one realizes that (some, many) Israelis, or, at least, Israeli companies, are so smart, precisely because their lives depend upon their smarts. The Dark Side, violence requires, enables and invigorates, higher mental functions. Such is the darkest of the dark.

Abominable are the flowers of infamy, yet beautifully mighty!


Conclusion? Tribalists are worse than fascists, or racists: they are followers of principles which reduce mental diversity, thus intelligence. Hence, in the end, tribalists are those whom much higher principles, which they are busy denying, subjugate. Israel may thrive right now by going solo in the world of decency and common sense. But solo is solo, and that’s dangerous, as all dead solo climbers, my friends, can testify.

Patrice Ayme



Note: The NYT decided the following comment was to be lauded (and it was approved by 100 times more readers than mine!). I reproduce it as it is, complete with its atrocious orthography (the New York Times has to live according to its picks:


PhiladelphiaJuly 26

Times Pick

Why is Israel, a country the relative size of a postage stamp, the Worlds one and only Jewish state always singled out for opprobrium no matter what it does.  The Arabs have 28 plus countries. Is it too much to ask that they can have a law that makes it official that its a Jewish State? Can’t Jews have one little state of their own?

Israel is a Democracy..This law does not change that.  It has a vibrant press, minority represention in its democratically elected legislature, and an independent judicial system that acts as check on the executive and legislative branches. As is typical, If Israel is not perfect the anti-Semites and Anti-zionists will take one element they disagree with and conglate it to portray all of Israel as “a Nazi state” and demonize it as a threat to World peace. Of course they say nothing when the true dictatorships demonize Israel, point out Israel’s flaws as existential threats to “their Palestinian brothers” while ignoring  their own brethrens terrorism, racism, and militirism.

Israel as the only Jewish State will always be outvoted by the far more numerous Arab and Muslim States. The author cites ” Israel’s right wing government” in a pejorative sense. If it can be categorized that way it’s because the People democratically voted it in. If it fails it can be voted out. Thats democracy.


The answer to this sort of logic is that we have seen it before, with Sparta. There was only one Spartan state. Sparta enslaved another city-state: Messene, to its west, a unique case in Greece. It didn’t finish well for Sparta… Although Sparta was an independent state for more than a millenium (longer than Israel), it ultimately disappeared. Athens didn’t: in the middle Middle Ages, Paris was considered to be the “imperial translation” of Athens: many of the best principles of Athens were taken over by Paris, a rebirth of Athens. Sparta though was dead, and stayed dead… Except if Israel takes itself as the new Sparta? Well, Sparta didn’t have the equivalent of Orthodox Jews: they would have been put to death immediately…


Marx As Vituperating Racist, Proto-Nazi

May 6, 2018

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was not joking…

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

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

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


Search the Diamonds in the Mud:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme


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

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

Tribes, Tribute, Attribution, Scapegoat

April 27, 2017

Human beings are fundamentally tribal. Without a tribe, survival was unsustainable. A father baboon, with mummy and the kids, is just food, for a leopard. However, a large male leopard going to drink will be attacked by a mob of baboons, and will have to flee for dear life. The power of the tribe is how baboons survive: they need to get to very dangerous water holes and rivers, every day, in scorching hot Africa. Baboons also learned how to conquer the savannah, and they can do so, only because they are military.

It’s not any different for human beings. True human beings are larger than baboons (but not larger than the giant baboons who used to roam Africa, before humans extinguished them). But human beings’ only defense is weapons, best used as a fighting army, not the giant, lethal canine teeth of baboons. Moreover, human beings have higher metabolic needs than baboons, not just from larger size, but also vertical posture, running and sweating (not just sitting in trees when threatened, waiting for danger to move on). Most importantly, human beings have large brains which are so energy greedy that human had to eat flesh, muscle, animal fat, replenishing marrow and the rich brains of prey.

A tribe of 100 humans, comprising 20 warriors, had supremacy on the savannah. All animals knew this, from hyenas, to buffaloes, down to crocodiles and snakes. Only another tribe could stop it. 

Sacrificing the occasional scapegoat makes the tribe stronger, more unified, better fed, cognitively satiated. By the way, those obsessed by God, may, thanks to God, engage in criminal behavior, and this all the more, the more vicious and violent the so-called “God’ is. Just ask Erdogan.

Thus fascism (obeying the alpha males strictly in case of conflict) and tribal hatred became fundamental in human ethology: they made humans, and even proto-humans possible. That’s why we share these traits with chimpanzees.

So now, here we are. All human endeavors are influenced by the  tribal spirit. Yet we are 8 billions, our tribe comprises eight billion, not just 100 individuals.

Indeed, we have solidarity, whether we like it or not. If one billion died off on the other side of the planet, it’s extremely likely that our own fates, our entire species, would be threatened by the same menace which killed our fellow-men, far away. Far away is not what it used to be. Our ancestors threw a rock 20 meters, now it takes 20 minutes to hit anywhere significant, with the Sun’s own thermonuclear fusion.

Of course, the formation of tribes, and achieving a sense of existence, thanks to tribes, is not the only concept which characterizes humanity. Intelligence is even more so. Searching for truth is formalized as “science”. Now a massive economic activity.

However, science, even science is still informed by the tribal spirit. This is why various tribes, even scientific tribes, can, and will, take violent, aggressive stances. Far from being a secondary characteristic, an anecdote, the aggressivity in science is front and central. One way to do this, is to steal others by attributing tributes falsely. This has real consequences on the evolution of science, and of thinking in general. For example, my misattributing the heliocentric theory, inertia, the theory of relativity and evolution, the subtleties, or depth, of the real creators was forgotten (the real creators being respectively Buridan, not Copernicus and Newton; Jules Henri Poincaré, not Einstein; and finally Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, not Darwin).

Buridan anticipated Riemann’s description of force, the meat of “General” Relativity. Poincaré, creator, with Lorentz of local space and time theory, anticipated it was not the end-all, be-all (as Quantum Physics says). And Lamarck, well, turns out to have been much more right about evolution, than even his most determined supporters anticipated…  

Notice this: the concept of “tribe” brought that of tribute, attributing, even “peer” as in “peer review”. Science is all about tribes… from the very language it uses! (I am aware of “Science Wars”, “Postmodernism”, Popper, Kuhn, etc… But, in some ways, I am going further, and I do know science quite well.)

So what of the concept scapegoat in all this?

Scapegoatism holds the tribe together by example.Here I will refer to Girard, long a professor at Stanford (a place I graced with my presence too). I have generalized the Scapegoat Theory (which is thousands of years old), by a more general form, Moral Displacement Syndrome. But let me give here Girard’s simple minded description.

René Girard was born on December 25, 1923, in Avignon, France.

Whereas the philosophers of the 18th century would have agreed that communal violence results in a new social contract, Girard believes that, paradoxically, the problem of violence is frequently solved with a lesser dose of violence, a sort of vaccination.

When (Girard’s concept of) mimetic rivalries accumulate, tensions grow until they reach a paroxysm. When violence is on the verge of terminating the community, very frequently a bizarre, but well-known, psychosocial mechanism arises: communal violence is all of a sudden projected upon a single individual (or a group, for example, the Jews in Europe; an example the Catholic-by-avocation Girard would have noticed, is the legend of Jesus, the mythical founder of Christianism, who ends and is reborn and brandished, as the eternal scapegoat).

Thus, individuals who were formerly struggling this way and that, now unite their efforts against someone, or some group, chosen as a scapegoat. Former enemies now become friends, as they communally participate in the commission of violence against a specified enemy.

The scapegoat re-activates the fascist instinct, satisfying the tribal nature. The scapegoat is also cognitively satisfying, as the scapegoat’s alleged crimes provide with a theory of the adversity which unfolded, now supposedly solved with the punishment of the scapegoat.

It can happen in all sorts of weird ways: for example, the “democrats” rule, under Carter, Clinton, Obama (and even G.W. Bush whom the so-called “democrats” supported in his invasion of Iraq) was completely disastrous. Actually under Obama, inequalities reached a new peak, never reached before, and officially 23 millions, under Obamacare, have strictly no health insurance (according to the Obama administration itself), and so on. Whose fault is that? Donald Trump, a racist xenophobe busy marrying foreign women, they explained.

The same happened in France: if all is terrible there, a “Republican Front” will rescue the nation by opposing scapegoat Marine le Pen, and alleged anti-European who is a European Member of Parliament. Similarly, in Great Britain, if the country became so rich, so fast, it’s all the fault of the European Union and its millions of immigrants.

A concept can become a scapegoat: if Germany was bad, the Nazis explained in the 1920s, egged on by plutocrat Keynes, a British economist and propagandist, it was because of the Versailles Treaty.

In North Korea, the entire planet is a scapegoat, thus the necessity to prepare nuclear Armageddon ASAP. 

This being said, there are other ways than finding a scapegoat to unite a people, such as a common project involving the power of the entire group, united (exactly what baboons do, several times a day, foraging together, or marching to and from water, both under military watch).

If one wants to understand people, their ideas, their feelings and their moods, one has to understand tribal effects.

Patrice Ayme’

How Social Media Fosters Intellectual Fascism

February 4, 2017

Social media, as presently practiced, is without appropriate moral guidance: no philosopher has come and established what proper behavior ought to be (here I am, like Zorro!)  First, one should avoid alienation. Instead alienation is presently encouraged.

Social media, as presently practiced, encourages intellectual fascism, from lack of wisdom, education, poor mastery of the participants’ own emotional systems, lack of understanding of how one gets to superior knowledge, etc..

Such is the present state of affairs.

It needs to be rectified, otherwise nukes will fly. Can it be rectified?

29 Year Old Attacker Of The Louvres, Son Of A General. People Become Like This, Because they Have Not Been Taught Alternative Knowledge From The Hatred, Disguised As Coming From The Great Dog In The Sky...

29 Year Old Attacker Of The Louvres, Son Of An Egyptian General. People Become Like This, Because they Have Not Been Taught Alternative Knowledge From The Hatred, Disguised As Coming From The Great Dog In The Sky…

Yes. Studies such as the one in the Guardian have to be advertized, debated. “Twitter accounts really are echo chambers, study finds

As in ancient human cultures, users of the social media site interact most with those who share their political views, Demos report reveals

When it comes to politics and the internet, birds of a feather really do flock together, according to research confirming the existence of online echo chambers among the most politically engaged Twitter users.

A study of 2,000 Twitter users who publicly identified as either Labour, Tory, Ukip or SNP supporters has found they are far more likely to interact with others from the same party and to share articles from publications that match their views. Ukip supporters are also far more engaged with “alternative” media outlets, including Breitbart and Infowars, two US-based sites identified with the alt-right that have been regularly accused of publishing misleading or false stories.

The research was carried out by the thinktank Demos, which looked at the tweets sent between May and August last year by 2,000 people who have publicly stated their political allegiance on their profiles and who had at some point addressed a member of parliament in their tweets.

Report author Krasodomski-Jones said the behaviour was exacerbated by some media outlets using polarised views to attract audiences. “This attention economy, vying for clicks, eyeballs, pushes people into very confirmatory outlets. The rising popularity of this sort of alternative news is something that caters specifically to a specific group. It’s more than just news – it’s ideologically driven.

…Tom Stafford, a cognitive scientist at Sheffield University, said that those who had already shared their political allegiance in their Twitter profile could be even more likely to use the articles they shared to reinforce that identity… Stafford added: “Homophily, where we hang out with people like us, is an ancient human trait, resulting from our basic psychology. That applies to segmentation of media as well.”

It’s not just in the matter of politics: after I exposed letters of Marcus Aurelius, showing his burning hatred of Christians, a philosopher in New York, Massimo P. banned and blocked me angrily from diverse sites he commands. (Marcus Aurelius is the Muhammad of “stoics”.)

Another name for homophily (loving the same) is tribalism.

I have observed the social media madness as a personal victim of it in the last six months. I saw individuals who I long considered to be friends engage in public campaigns against me, calling me a lot of things they admitted (even then!) that I was not (such as a “racist troll”). One of them who has a significant management position in New York (plutocratic) media confided he had to do so, because his employers read his Twitter and Facebook accounts! “Nice” excuse. Meanwhile, thousands of people who don’t know me, nor what I write, were told I am a racist, and that’s all they know about me. Those thousands in the public who don’t know me were also informed I am anti-Muslim (I am anti-Literal Islam, and that’s just the opposite! I have at least a dozen very close “Muslim” friends… all of them, like me, critical about the Islamist ideology! Ironically, I share housing with them, especially on vacation. I was educated in “Muslim” countries…)

The result of the campaign of hatred against me was that several social media contacts I had in Academia “blocked” me (some were physicists, other philosophers). Thus my alternative version of reality, which would otherwise have added dimensions to their minds, has been annihilated. I am also now deprived of their views, which, however silly, I often found interesting.

I am not a racist. My family is multi-racial from three continents and Pacific islands. Many pseudo-leftists call people they don’t like “racist”, these days, using the word for whatever, including the weather.

So why is the insult “racist” hurled at me so often these days? Their excuse, beside plain rage? As I said above, some cynically some told me:’my job depends upon it!‘ My superiors, bemoaned the art director in New York, watch my social web activity, so I had to publicly hate you, renounce you, condemn you… I have been told this, and was supposed, me the hated one, to show empathy… to my haters. It sounds straight out of a passage in the Bible, the Last Supper…

Another cause of the rage is plain incomprehension. Not only they do not understand what I say, but when they start to understand a bit, the first thing they understand, is that there are very important things they did not even know existed. These huge gaps in understanding have to do with their (mostly self-imposed) tribalism and their closely related alienation (to reality in this case). Tribalism is an addiction, it probably excites the same rewarding circuits in the brain as other drugs.

If one wants to make war to people, the first step is to alienate them. This is French for cutting “Liens” (bounds, relationships).

The present mentality to insult, block, & not reflectively debate, contradictors on the Internet boosts & teaches alienation, violence, war.

Real damage is done when real debate is made impossible. Worse: alienation is presently viewed as glorious. The damage is not just to individuals, but to the collective. Tribalism makes the collective stupid, aggressive. 

Intellectual fascism consists in being led by only a few ideas. The best way is to tweet like a bird, exclusively among one’s flock.

The arch-typical leading fascist idea is that of Judeo-Christo-Islamist metaprinciple: “God is great, Allahu Akbar”. A friend of his being: “Dieu le veut, God wills it, Inch Allah”.Those are traditionally uttered, while committing the greatest infamies. They excuse them all.

The attacker of the Louvres in Paris tweeted less than 20 minutes before attack:…His last tweet posted before the attack, shows on the account a smiling El-Hamahmy leaning against a wall, a number of angry messages, including: ‘No negotiation, no compromise, no letting up, certainly no climb down, relentless war.’

His father is an Egyptian general. The enthusiastic Islamist rented a $2000/week apartment in the center of Paris. He went to the French Republic from Dubai, to attack the world’s most visited museum (justly so!) Hamahmy was following the most glorified mood of Muhammad, made explicit in the Qur’an, of hatred for the Republic and secular law. Yes, Islamism has to be eradicated, and it’s, first, a philosophical problem: one cannot put soldiers everywhere. All the more as such individuals are not just Islamists, or terrorists, they are TWITTERRORISTS.

Patrice Ayme’

Crazy Physics Helps With Overall Madness?

April 27, 2016

Quantum Physics has long been a circus. When De Broglie proposed his thesis, his  thesis jury (which comprised top physicists, including a Nobel Laureate) did not know what to make of it, and consulted Einstein. Einstein was enthusiastic, saying de Broglie “lifted a piece of the veil”. Three years later, de Broglie got the Nobel and proposed his pilot wave theory. Pauli made an objection, de Broglie replied to it with the consummate politeness of the Prince he was, and thus the reply was not noticed. Five years after, the great mathematician Von Neumann asserted a “proof” that there was no Quantum Mechanics but for the one elaborated in Copenhagen. De Broglie’s objections were not listened to. Another two decades later, David Bohm presented de Broglie theory at the Institute for Advanced Physics in Princeton. But Bohm was drowned by question about why he had refused to testify at the Committee on Anti-American Activities in Congress (the American born Bohm promptly lost his job at Princeton University and his US passport, and would leave the US forever).

The usual interpretation of Quantum Physics consider that the De Broglie Matter Waves therein are only probability waves. This idea of Nobel Laureate Born has eschewed controversy. However Einstein sourly remarked: “God does not play with dice.” To which Nobel Laureate Bohr smartly replied:”Stop telling God what to do!

Qubits Are Real. But The Multiverse Is Madness

Qubits Are Real. But The Multiverse Is Madness. And Madness Is Contagious.

De Broglie suggested a “Double Solution” theory, which was promptly forgotten as Dirac launched Quantum ElectroDynamics by starting from the simplest relativistic wave, and building the (spinor) space he needed to have said wave wave in it.  Bohm revived (some of) De Broglie’s ideas by proposing to guide an always well defined particle with a (nonlocal) “quantum potential”.


And The Madness Set In:

Nowadays, descriptions of Quantum Physics are keen to assert that something can be in two places at the same time, that there are many worlds, or universes, created each time something happen, that cats are dead and alive, that the observer creates reality, etc…

All this derangement affecting physicists has something to do with a collective madness similar to the pseudo-scientific theories behind the Slave Trade, Stalinism, or Nazism.

No, I am not exaggerating. The theory behind enslaving Black Africans (going all the way back to the Middle Ages) was that Black Africans were, somehow, the missing link between man and ape. That’s why the Pope allowed the slave trade.

Neither am I exaggerating about fascism: the Nazis were actually obsessed by the new physics, a world where everything seemed possible. They called it “Jewish Physics”, and several Nobel laureates (Lenard, etc.), top mathematicians (say Teichmuller, who died on the Eastern Front in combat) were its opponents.

It contributed to suggest an overall mood:’if anything is possible, why not surrealism, fascism, Stalinism, Nazism?’

Germany has long led, intellectually (not to say France did not lead too, but it was the great opponent). Thus when top physicists became Nazis even before Hitler did, they no doubt impressed the latter by their attacks on “Jewish Science”.

The madness was not confined to the Nazis, stricto sensu. An excellent example is Max Planck, discoverer of the Quantum.

Planck accepted Einstein’s paper on “The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” without references… When it was sure that Planck knew about the work of Poincare’, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Michelson-Morley, etc. on Relativity. Poincaré  was a star, and had toured the USA, delivering lectures on “Relativity” the year prior.

So what was Planck up to? Promoting the German arriviste to the cost of the most accomplished mathematician and physicist, because the latter was a Frenchman. (Poincaré , who was as elevated a character as can be found, nevertheless complained about Einstein plagiarism later.) Not only was  Poincaré French, but his family was refugee from the occupation of Lorraine by the Prussians. Raymond Poincaré, who was prime minister of France several times and president of the French Republic during World War I, was Henri’s cousin.

This is of some import, in the understanding of ideas, to this day: Poincaré  discovered the idea of gravitational waves, and explained why all interactions should go at the speed of light. Scientists who published (stole) the same ideas later could not copy all of  Poincaré ’s arguments, it would have been too obvious (that they stole the ideas), so those important details of  Poincaré  have been forgotten… And this haunts physics to this day

I believe that this is how the extremely all too relative, theory of Relativity a la Einstein appeared: Einstein could not duplicate all of  Poincaré’s details, so he omitted (some of) them… Resulting in a (slick) theory with a glaring defect: all classes of frames in uniform motion are supposed to be equivalent, a blatant absurdity (as even the Big Bang theory imposes a unique class of comoving frames). This brought a lot of (on-going) confusion (say about “rest” mass).

Planck did not stop with stealing Relativity from  Poincaré, and offering it to the Great German empire.

Planck endorsed the general excitement of the German public, when Germany attacked the world on August 1, 1914. He wrote that, “Besides much that is horrible, there is also much that is unexpectedly great and beautiful: the smooth solution of the most difficult domestic political problems by the unification of all parties (and) … the extolling of everything good and noble.”

Planck also signed the infamous Manifesto of the 93 intellectuals“, a pamphlet of war propaganda (while Einstein at the academy in Berlin, retained a pacifistic attitude which almost led to his imprisonment, although he was saved by his Swiss citizenship). The Manifesto, ironically enough, enumerated German war crimes, while denying (‘not true’) that they had happened. It did not occur to the idiots who had signed it, that just denying this long litany of crimes was itself a proof that they had occurred… And it’s telling they had to deny them: the German population obviously was debating whether those crimes had happened, now that the war was not doing well.

Planck got punished for his nationalism: his second son Erwin was taken prisoner by the French in 1914. His eldest son Karl died at Verdun (along with another 305,000 soldiers). When he saw Hitler was destroying Germany, Planck went to see the dictator, to try to change his mind, bringing to his attention that he was demolishing German universities. But to no avail. In January 1945, Erwin, to whom he had been particularly close, was sentenced to death by the obscene and delirious Nazi “people” court, the Volksgerichtshof. Because Erwin participated in the failed attempt to make a coup against the criminal Hitler in July 1944. Erwin was executed on 23 January 1945 (along with around 5,000 German army officers, all the way to Feldmarshal).

So what to think of the “Multiverse”, “Dead and Alive Cats”, Things which are in different places at the same time, etc.? Do they have to do with suggesting, even promoting, a global reign of unreason?

I think they do. I think the top mood contaminate lesser  intellectuals, political advisers, even politicians themselves. Thus political and social leaders feel anything goes, so, next thing you know, they suggest crazy things, like self-regulating finance, trade treaties where plutocrats can sue states (apparently one of the features of TPP and TTIP), or a world which keeps on piling CO2, because everything is relative, dead, thus alive, and everywhere is the same, here, there and everywhere, since at the same place, in space, time, or whatever.

Physics, historically, was not just a model of knowledge, but of rational rectitude. This has been lost. And it was lost from technical reasons, discarding other approaches, in part because of sheer nationalism.

In the 1960s John Bell, the Irishman who was director of theory at CERN, published a book with his famous theorem on nonlocality inside:”Speakables and Unspeakables in Quantum Mechanics”. A title full of hidden sense.

Patrice Ayme

Military Industrial Complex: A Necessary Danger To Civilization

April 16, 2016

Military Industrial Complexes are necessary, and have existed since cities came to be, 10,000 years ago. President Eisenhower warned against the danger the US Military Industrial Complex presented to the USA, and the world, in all sorts of ways. Now we can say we are right in the midst of what Ike was afraid of. However, there is another face to that coin.

Great Military Industrial Complexes (“MIC”) are characteristic of great civilizations. One can argue, that’s what civilizations are all about. Rome, the Franks and the Chinese had MICs. So did Japan. The Japanese Military Industrial Complex was able to confine behind walls the invading Mongols (who already had captured China). The Samurai, and their excellent steel, destroyed the Mongol beachheads, and Japan stayed Japan.

In The USA, The Military Industrial Complex, With The Exception Of WWI and WWII, Has long Been At The Service Of Plutocracy, and Its Corporations

In The USA, The Military Industrial Complex, With The Exception Of WWI and WWII, Has long Been At The Service Of Plutocracy, and Its Corporations

Interesting cases of Military Industrial Complexes were entangled with Greek civilization: Greece would not have existed without MICs.

The importance of war during the rise of Western Civilization was colossal. It could never have risen without it.

For example Sparta intervened and threw out Athens’ tyranny, establishing the great age of Athens’ direct democracy. The first thing the newly liberated Athenians did, was to establish a powerful MIC. Themistocles ran for office on a massive MIC program, to establish a powerful war fleet (after the first Persian invasion this grew to a 200 warships fleet). In the process the Athenian state ran a massive debt, and devastated the forests of Attica (to build the triremes). Themistocles’ argument was that Persia was going to attack. It did attack, twice, and was defeated, twice, in a number of battles, including the one at Marathon.

If anything, not enough violence was applied against plutocrats, early enough. Especially against the enemies of the Athenian and Roman empires. This is something peaceniks understand not at all, making them dedicated enemies of what they pretend to defend.

Twelve (12) centuries later, the Muslim invaders, having suffered grievous defeats from the Roman fleet and its Grecian fire, decided to use their military superiority on land: take Constantinople from behind, by invading Europe from West to East. The Islamists invaded Spain, and then attacked Francia (thrice). The Franks replied by boosting the size of their already considerable MIC. Propelled by a nationalization of the church, the Franks established the greatest army since the heydays of the Roman Republic, and mobilized all of Francia.

Ever since, France has been at war with Literal Islam. It was, it is, hard work: just in the second week of April 2016, three French soldiers died in combat in the middle of the Sahara. Frankish armies delivered Rome in 846 CE. The Islamists landed by surprise several armies in several places, and converged on Rome. The outskirts of the imperial capital were sacked, including the Vatican, but the formidable, 16 metres tall, 19 kilometer long Aurelian Wall held the invaders out of the city’s most sacred core. The Aurelian Wall is a beautiful example of MIC: it was used as a military asset, and involved in combat, for 17 centuries. The Aurelian Wall gave enough time for the Frankish Dux, Guy, grandson of Charlemagne, to arrive, and throw the Islamists out of the Latium.

When Genghis Khan and his Mongols invaded Northern China, some of his generals suggested to kill all the Chinese, and also kill the Chinese ecology (by destroying forests, etc.), and make Northern China like Mongolia. Genghis Khan refused to do so. However, notice that China came very close to extermination. Exterminated civilizations have existed before: Genghis Khan exterminated two, including the largest Buddhist empire, ever. The Hittites, and others, were exterminated during the invasion of the “People of the Sea”.

So civilization needs MICs. No MIC, no civilization.

However, a mighty MIC implies a deep militarization of society. The fundamental principle of militarization is the Fascist Principle: obey your superior as if s/he were god.

The fascist principle has long been an instinct with primates. Or at least those who invaded the savannah: baboons are intrinsically military, they move in armies, and the alpha males, the baboons are zoological equivalents to Roman generals. Complete with the right of death inflicted, whenever contradicted severely.

The fascist principle allows a social animal to behave as if it were a super-organism, with just one coordinated mind.

That principle is explicitly stated in the Qur’an. It was also the fundamental principle of organization of the Roman army, and, later, under the empire, of all of Roman society: the superior Roman officer had right of life and death on its subordinates, and would inflict it to encourage the others.

O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and Obey Those Of You Who Are In Power.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Sura 4; verse 59).

The principal drawback of a fascist society is that intellectual progress comes only from contradicting what was known before, hence, from contradicting one’s superiors. Thus, a society organized around the fascist principle will stagnate intellectually. And, in particular scientifically and, thus, technologically. Hence, being ruled by a MIC brings lethal stupidity (and a very inegalitarian society).

Thus the Barbarians will catch up in technological military prowess. This is exactly what happened to the Romans: under the Republic, buying the best military metallurgy from the (highly divided) Gauls, the Romans dominated in the quality of their weapons (Hannibal defeated the Romans many times, but, arguably, his best troops were Gallic). Under the empire, the savages, such as the Franks, had better weapons than the standard Roman army (so they were co-opted into it!)

However, by the time of Marcus Aurelius, that wind bag, a certified intellectual fascist with a sugar-coating still mesmerizing the naive, the barbarians caught up with Roman military technology… In no small measure because Roman emperors, those professional fascists, paid inventors not to invent.

Nowadays we can observe similar phenomena: US corruption has brought the reign of the F35, an obsolete, but extremely expensive weapon. Meanwhile, the Barbarians, including Kim of Korea, are catching up technologically, at a torrid space.

Civilization has to keep a balance between MIC and innovation in all ways, lest imagination collapses, bringing a weaker MIC.

Reciprocally, though, a MIC is a friend of fascist rule, and thus of oligarchy. But oligarchy is sustainable only in a satanic form, known as the rule of Satan (an older name of which being Pluto). So uncontrolled MICs bring plutocracy: Rome was the paradigm there.

We are in the process of creating another such example, because we did not heed general-president Eisenhower’s warning, that the Military Industrial Complex:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.”

Eisenhower stays modern to this day. He saw the rise of plutocratic universities coming, with their fake thinkers, all dedicated to the power of money:

Eisenhower: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

A few days before democrats are going to surrender democracy to the power of money, once again, let me remind them, that this can happen only so many times.

Democracy needs to be defended, but, first, some will say that it needs to be worthy of a defense. Right.

However, democracy needs a strong enough Military Industrial Complex. The Athenians and other Greek democrats were initially successful at defeating Antipater. But then Krateros, hyper dangerous with his hardened troops arrived from the Orient, and the Athenian fleet, of 170 triremes, the largest since the wars against Persia, was defeated. Twice.

As I explained in “Aristotle Destroyed Democracy” the friendliness of Aristotle to Alexander, Antipater and Krateros, and thus, to the idea of monarchy, goes a long way to explain that the Greek MIC came short of the Macedonian MIC. The philosopher Demosthenes was not heard enough, in his strident, fully justified, prescient warnings against the savage, tyrannical Macedonians.

So here we are: pretty much 23 centuries of trampling of direct democracy, the one and only, by the forces of oligarchy, and, or, when oligarchy is not enough to rule, plutocracy. Ever since official plutocracy was installed in Athens by Antipater.

All this because the direct democratic military industrial complex came short to the one of the Macedonians. So let’s not despise the MIC. It can save the best. But now, we don’t have to worry about foreign enemies first: the plutocrats are already in power.

Patrice Ayme’

Marcus Aurelius, INTELLECTUAL FASCIST: Why Rome Fell (Part VIII)

February 16, 2016

Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (“Marcus Aurelius”) is generally revered both as emperor and philosopher. Both attitudes are grievously erroneous, and have a bearing to what very serious people have considered, ever since, as the highest wisdom to be embraced when trying to lead civilization, or the individual lives which sustain it. I will presently roll out some (new) reasons why the Marcus Aurelius’ cult is so wrong.

What endangered the Roman State? The question has been considered since the Third Century’s turmoil, the time of the “Barrack Emperors”, which started with the elimination of young emperor Alexander Severus, for buying the Germans, instead of crushing them.

In 360 CE emperor Julian explained why Christianism was bringing Romanitas down. Christians worshipped a secondary and “evil God” (and that the Serpent, bringing knowledge, was “good”!). Julian removed Christianism’s extravagant privileges (such as the right to execute heretics). However, Julian ruled only three years as Augustus (after 5 years as “Caesar”, subordinate emperor). Immediately thereafter, the Christians came back with great vengeance, burning libraries to the ground.

Inventor Of Intellectual Fascism Catches Flies With Philosophical Honey

Inventor Of Intellectual Fascism Catches Flies With Philosophical Honey

The thesis that Christianism nearly destroyed civilization is obviously true, and was supported in detail by Gibbon in the Decline and Fall of Rome (eighteenth century). However, it’s not the whole story. In truth, it’s plutocracy which brought Rome down, through a succession of ever more dreadful instruments to insure its reign. Christianism was only plutocracy’s latest weapon of civilizational destruction. Political and intellectual fascisms had arrived centuries earlier, rabid theocracy was only a twist therefrom.

Marcus Aurelius, emperor from 161 to 180 was the last of theFive Good Emperors” (his abominable son succeeded Marcus at the grand old age of nineteen). Marcus is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. Generally revered, he will be condemned here as a stealthy, sneaky, subterraneous yet explicit proponent of INTELLECTUAL FASCISM. Marcus’ elevation of Intellectual Fascism to a virtue explains a lot of things, from the “Fall of Rome” to the present sorry state of world governance.

I agree that this is shocking, and all the little ones will run for cover, squealing: Marcus Aurelius has a saintly, superficially justified reputation (and that, per se, is revealing: Marcus is a bit to philosophy what Einstein is to physics: a naked emperor whom the commons imagine fully dressed; critters prefer to have 140 characters anchored by a few celebrities they adore, like simple baboons adore the alpha females and males).

Even more shocking, Stoicism is supposed to be the behavior one adopts when a victim of fascism. Thus Stoicism is a behavior one would not expect from a proponent of fascism…. Until one realizes that, precisely, stoicism is, par excellence, the behavior in the masses which makes fascism possible. So Marcus fed what made him possible.

So let me severely criticize, as deserved, the following passage of Marcus Aurelius kindly provided by Massimo Pigliucci:

There are four principal aberrations of the superior faculty against which you should be constantly on your guard, and when you have detected them, you should wipe them out and say on each occasion thus: this thought is not necessary; this tends to destroy social union; this which you are going to say comes not from the real thoughts — for you should consider it among the most absurd of things for a man not to speak from his real thoughts. But the fourth is when you shall reproach yourself for anything, for this is an evidence of the diviner part within you being overpowered and yielding to the less honorable and to the perishable part, the body, and to its gross pleasures. (Meditations XI.19)”

[I don’t understand Marcus’ last sentence, he seems to take himself for god, but that’s besides the points I will make, so I will ignore this obscure sentence. I will address the two “principal aberrations” accented above. They define what wrecked the Roman State, what will wreck any state, and any civilization: intellectual fascism in its purest form for the first one, and even explicit political fascismo for the second.]

This thought is not necessary.” Says Marcus Aurelius. The emperor calls the apparition of ‘unnecessary thought’ one of the “four principal aberrations”. Sorry, Your Highness. When is a thought not necessary? When it’s not necessary to Your Excellency? And if a thought is necessary, what is it necessary for? Necessary to worship you and your kind, such as your five year old son, Commodus, whom you made a Caesar then, such a genius he was? No Roman emperor had been that grotesque, prior to you. Is that a non-necessary thought?

Is a thought then necessary when it embraces the desire of been guided by only a few thoughts reigning over the entire mind, just as Marcus Aurelius reigned over all men? In other words, is a thought necessary, and only then, when it embraces intellectual fascism? Or is that the big “stoic” philosopher thinks like the general of an army (something he was)..

Another of the Marcus’ “four principal aberrations” is lying… or more exactly “you should consider it among the most absurd of things for a man not to speak from his real thoughts”. In other words, the idea of “bad faith”. To trash and condemn Bad Faith is good. Many philosophers have done it, all the way up to Sartre. But then notice that Marcus Aurelius puts ‘unnecessary thoughts’ in the same category as “Bad Faith”.

Marcus also frowns on as a ‘principal aberration’: Any “thought [which] destroys social union”. Thus “social union” is part of the leading intellectual principles which should rule on the realm of ideas, just as Marcus Aurelius rules on men.

Now, any mental progress will disrupt brains, thus the “social union”. A society which knows “social union” and no revolution is condemned to stagnate mentality until the situation becomes uncontrollable. And this is exactly what happened to Rome the day Marcus died and his teenage son succeeded to him. A spectacular fall, driven by his son Commodus’ fateful decisions, in a matter of days, from which the Roman State never recovered.

Marcus Aurelius had decided that embracing intellectual fascism was the highest behavior, and imposed for more than two decades on 25% of humanity. I would suggest removing that element, that drive to mental shrinkage, from modern stoicism.

Those who know the history of the period with enough detail will not be surprised by my scathing critique. Instead they will realize that this was the missing piece to the logic of the disaster which befell civilization.

Indeed, immediately after Marcus Aurelius’ death Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus (“Commodus”), at the grand old age of 19, inverted all his father’s decisions (after saying he won’t).

Where did Commodus’ madness come from? Commodus, had been named “Caesar” at age 5… by his father, the great stoic parrot. How wise is that? It would feed megalomania, and indeed, Commodus was much more megalomaniac than the present leader of North Korea.

Commodus was accused of being a megalomaniac, in his lifetime. Commodus renamed Rome Colonia Commodiana, the “Colony of Commodus”. He renamed the months of the year after titles held in his honour, namely, Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, Exsuperatorius, Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, and Pius. Commodus renamed the Roman Senate the Commodian Fortunate Senate, and the Roman people were given the name Commodianus.

Cassius Dio, a senator and historian who lived during the reign of both Commodus and his father wrote that, with the accession of Commodus, “our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day.” Soon, it would descend even lower, in part because Marcus’ poisonous ideas would be revered so much.

It is probable that Marcus Aurelius was assassinated by his 19 year old son (officially Marcus died suddenly of the “plague”; but sophisticated poisons were well known, and had been used before in imperial affairs: Tiberius, the second Roman emperor, did not realize, for more than 15 years, that his two own adult sons, both of the most famous generals, had been poisoned to death by Rome’s prefect Sejanus: that was revealed after Sejanus tried a coup, and his accomplices talked). Commodus would kill his own sister shortly after his accession (she had opposed him).

In a way, Marcus’ assassination was well deserved. His superficially noble, but deeply despicable stoicism, and his brazen advocacy of political and intellectual fascism enabled Roman plutocracy to own the entire empire as if it were its own colony.

Whereas imperator Trajan had brought up taxes on the wealthiest to make education free for poor children, Marcus Aurelius went the other way: he did not have enough money to pay the army, when savage German tribes were trying to cut the empire, civilization, in two.

Some may sneer that I am condemning Marcus Aurelius for an unfortunate passage or two. Not so. Marcus’ entire work, both in philosophy, and as imperator, is an extension of his fundamental view that thinking should be restricted to what was useful. As if one could know in advance what thinking will be useful for. In his context, to boot, what Marcus meant by “useful” was what was useful to him, the one who proffered the thought.

Thought reduced to what was useful to just One, the One? How much more stupid and immoral can one be?

Nowadays, we face the fast rise of colossal inequalities which foster impoverishment, be it material, intellectual, or even cognitive. We have to realize that some of the apparently wisest, most respected and ancient philosophy is fully compatible with, and an engine of, this lamentable development.

Philosophy, poorly done, is the ultimate propaganda for the demise of the many by the self-chosen few.

Patrice Ayme’

Political Correctness, Philosophical Correctness, & The “Miniature Nuclear Attack In London”

January 21, 2016

How The Rise Of Political Correctness, So Hostile To Philosophical Correctness, Led To The Mood That Brought Us The “Miniature Nuclear Attack In London”:

Nearly ten years after, a British judge, Sir Robert Owen, looking as grave, serious, gloomy and ponderous as a human being can ever be, formally accused Vladimir Putin to have ‘probably’ ordered what a British Parliamentary committee called “a miniature nuclear attack in London”.

Meanwhile the second largest lake in Bolivia, lake Pupo, is fully dry. This has to do with the fact, announced simultaneously by the highest scientific authorities in the USA and the European Union, that 2015 was, BY FAR, much warmer than 2014, previously the warmest year ever.

How did we get there? Political Correctness has a lot to do with it. Political Correctness was always the Trojan Horse of evil. Plutocracy cannot do without Political Correctness. PC is a notion which implies its own demise. In contrast to its opposite, PhC, Philosophical Correctness.

Putin At Work. Putin Loves the Fresh Bellies Of Boys. And Dead Rivals. Alexander Litvinenko Dying From Nuclear Poisoning In London.

Putin At Work. Putin Loves the Fresh Bellies Of Boys. And Dead Rivals. Alexander Litvinenko Dying From Nuclear Poisoning In London.

What is Political Correctness? The history of the term is revealing. “PC” in Latin derived grammar is for “Parti Communiste”. It is indeed how the term “Political Correctness” started, in the first half of the Twentieth Century: as “Party Correctness”. The Communist Party required to toe the “Party” line. And that meant, in practice, to obey Stalin (not his real name), the “Man of Steel”, who was often allied with evil preaching the exact opposite of real communism, for all to see. Stalin was born from an alliance with German fascists for decades, culminating in an official military alliance with Hitler against France and Poland (August 1939). In the 1950s, the Moscow “Communists” allied themselves, for all to see, with president Eisenhower and Nazi collaborator Allan Dulles’ USA against France, Britain and Israel.

Following the Communist Party’s doctrine thus became an exercise in Intellectual Fascism in its purest form: follow the Leader, not matter what. Intellectual Fascism uses the principle of “Pensée unique“. An example is Margaret Thatcher’s slogan “There is no alternative”, parroted later by German Kanzler Gerhard Schröder’s “Es gibt keine Alternative”.

In recent usage, the term was introduced in the USA by the Supreme Court, and came to the fore with debates on books such as Allan Bloom‘s The Closing of the American Mind (1987), Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990), and Dinesh D’Souza’s book Illiberal Education (1991). None of this sharp criticism stopped the Political Correctness movement. It has blossomed further recently with “Safe-spacers”, a new sort of anti-intellectual critters infesting Anglo-Saxon campuses.

Safe-spacers” believe they need space free from all and any debate adverse to their beliefs.

I have myself advocated that some forms of propaganda should be unlawful. The archetype is the Wahhabist propaganda from Saudi Arabia, which has perverted the practice of Islam, worldwide. Instead of having ever more modern Islam (which used to exist), we got a completely enraged, horrendously obsolete Islam… Which goes hand in hand with the Politically Correct mood.

In both cases, radical Islam and radical Political Correctness, youth has been oriented towards frantically loud protests about completely unreal, if not surreal issues, turning into completely useless protests of no bearing whatsoever. And not just youth: watch the British Parliament debate about banning Trump for banning some (Muslim) visitors, although that is not as outrageous as Britain’s proposed banning of other Europeans. Trump’s proposed ban is perfectly legal, what Britain proposes is perfectly illegal (in light of European law).

Compare today’s youth with that of the 1960s. Then youth was protesting stridently to force the governments in the West to do the exact opposite of what they were doing. Be in France, Czechoslovakia, the USA, etc. Where is youth now? With few exceptions, nowhere, youth is too busy with inconsequential matters. (When Bush decided to attack, invade and occupy Iraq, only San Francisco erupted seriously in the USA: there were 5,000 arrests, all discreetly amnestied later, to criminal Bush’s rage.)

Vladimir Putin apparently ordered the murder of Alexander Litvinenko after the latter claimed the Russian President was a practising paedophile, and claiming a film of him abusing young boys existed. Litvinenko had made many shocking allegations against Putin and the nasty ways of the FSB, many with long tendrils all over the West. In short, the holocaust in Chechnya  was organized in Moscow (with real Muslim Fundamentalist attacks in Russia, organized by the FSB, to feed the mood for a mighty counter-attack).

Mr Litvinenko accused his KGB rival of abusing children just weeks before two assassins slipped radioactive polonium 210 into his cup of tea in a London hotel in October 2006: “He (Putin) was a paedophile”.

Former High Court Judge Robert Owen started the inquiry on Litvinenko’s assassination as a coroner. His 320 page report ignited a war of words between Britain and Russia with his conclusion President Putin had ‘probably’ personally ordered the killing of Alexander Litvinenko.

  • The report found Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun. (One is a businessman, the other a Russian MP.)
  • It is a strong probability that Mr Lugovoi poisoned Mr Litvinenko under the direction of Moscow’s FSB intelligence service. Mr Kovtun was also acting under FSB direction.
  • The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by then-FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev and also by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The accusations were confirmed by the British Interior Minister.

Putin made his miniature nuclear attack in London in 2007, after years of G. W. Bush’s strong approval (Bush had “looked into Putin’s eyes, and seen his soul”). Both Putin and Bush used similar methods.

So the lack of protest against G. W. Bush in the West fed a mood which led Mr. Putin to believe he could get away with anything.

The rise of plutocracy in the 1990s, in the USA, Russia, Britain and the world was related. And related to the rise of Bush and Putin. Advisers to Russian president Yeltsin were rabid free marketers from Harvard. At the same time, the same mood that the allegedly free market was all the brain, mind, soul and guide we needed, affected other countries: in France, Prime Minister Balladur was privatizing along the same lines as Yeltsin in Russia (with the same result: collapse).

This friendliness to plutocracy boosted the wealth of London (maybe not Londoners). by selling its soul, and, it turned out, its security.

Political Correctness is anti-ethical, because the only correctness which is truly human, is correctness itself. Either things are true, or they are false, or still undetermined. Philosophical Correctness admits this, and, thus, that the world, including morality itself, is immensely complex. We have to engage that complexity by seriating problems and values. We can’t just whine, put our head in the sand, each time something is not pretty, according to the little priests of Political Correctness.

British Prime Minister David Cameron today, in Davos, said that what had happened with Litvinenko was ‘absolutely appalling’ and called it a “murder commanded by a state”. But Cameron admitted the Syrian crisis meant Britain had to cooperate with Russia. Albeit with ‘clear eyes and a cold heart’.

In the book “The Martian”, the astronauts risk getting out of food, so they devise the plan to leave resources for the youngest of them, by putting an end to their lives. Let’s not smirk. It’s not just that Earth’s life probably originated on Mars, and perilously travelled over. We are all Martians from spaceship Earth. And if spaceship Earth gets in too much trouble, desperate solutions.

The French and British Prime Ministers met in Davos. Valls, the Catalan born and educated French Prime Minister from Ticino, Switzerland (!) called the possible “Brexit” the exit of Britain from Europe, a “drama” (“drame”).

Let’s not get overexcited. Political Correctness, ultimately, is a loss of nerves, a failure to consider all the possibilities, and, thus, an implosion of imagination and thus, paradoxically, of precaution. Just as the failure of Western protests against Bush made Putin believe he could get away with everything, Political Correctness is plutocracy’s best friend. Plutocracy reigns through complex structures, its best friend is a simplistic mood.

Political correctness is also meek: instead of envisioning that a country such as Russia can fall under the spell of an evil man, PC just focuses on appearances. It is similar to the Victorian mood of dressing the feet of tables with textile, out of prudery, worrying strongly about that, and about that alone, while, and because, it allowed to live unaware of the reality that imperial powers, out there, were carving giant empires in blood and bullets.

Patrice Ayme’