Posts Tagged ‘Censorship’

Silicon Valley Inquisition “Refutes Inaccuracy”

May 28, 2020

New York Times is crowing: OAKLAND, Calif. — Twitter added information to refute the inaccuracies in President Trump’s tweets for the first time on Tuesday… (Trump had said that “No wayMail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent…. “… In most states and nations, mail-in ballots are illegal… But in California they are systematic and now with something really shocking, “vote harvesting“…)

Tell us, New York Times, the “newspaper of record in the USA“, how does one “refute an inaccuracy“? That reminded me of the Catholic Inquisition, an expert in refuting inaccuracies… Now the half intelligent editorialist at the NYT is viewed as an authority of the Silicon Valley, land of the monopolies for which Obama changed the Patent Law to make them even stronger.

I sent the following comment right away, it was of course blocked (by the purely rotten). That was 15 hours ago. My comment should have been the second one. Then more than a thousand comments full of hatred for Trump were published. Hatred is a sacred concept in American politics. This way, the NYT cultivates hatred, and the love of vile, one sided rush to anger.

It’s hilarious to see the pseudo-left glorify weasel language from plutocrats (in this case Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, another of these multibillionaire owner of a company which always lost money… Doesn’t that sound fishy?). [1]

Trump could have expressed himself more accurately by condemning “Vote Harvesting”, which is legal in California [2]. I personally vote my mail, sort of, but I think “Vote Harvesting” should be illegal. Here is my comment:


Depending upon one plutocrat, or even a herd of them, to ascertain truth, is the road to hell, whether paved with the best intentions, or not. Moreover, accusing people of “inaccuracy” is an even deeper moral and mental failure exhibiting an inability to comprehend how mental creativity, and outrageous blindness works. Incompleteness theorems in logic show that, absent deliberate “inaccuracy”, no progress towards truth can be accomplished.  This is a matter of (meta) logic, not “opinion”.

Those who want to castigate “inaccuracy” seem to be saying that their all-seeing eye has determined what is accurate, and what is not. Also construing into moral rectitude the power of one man determining what can be published, or not, is to accept the sort of mental dictatorship human history and the history of infamy, is riddled with, and propelled by.

Unfortunately, we saw it all before: consider the Catholic Inquisition, or the Puritans doing away with those heathens they pretended to be praying for. Too much purity, too much certainty, to much conviction that one defines the truth, while ignoring other perspectives, is the road to extremism, mental racism, alienation, and the deepest error. History is full of these seductive, yet most terrible angels, and the holier than thou mentalities inspiring them. Exciting them further is no way to accomplish spiritual, let alone intellectual, or civilizational progress. It’s high time to understand that progress towards better understanding is intrinsically messy, not something adjudicated by censors, let alone the wealthiest.[3]


Apparently, massive use of VOTE HARVESTING flipped most of Orange County to “Democrats” in 2018. The GOP has noticed.

Now the NYT mixed the story of a multimillionaire in salary, an ex GOP Representative, who runs a rabidly anti-Trump show with his wife, the daughter of the guy who organized secretly the attack on Afghanistan in 1979 (!) I don’t make these things up, they are incredible. Here, a sacred icon of the pseudo-left is the daughter of a “Democrat” guy who organized the death of what… Five millions?  The information was, of course, CENSORED in the USA!

Joe Scarborough laughed approvingly at Imus’s description that he “had sex with an intern so he had to kill her” (listen to the tape, link below). Where do they find such vile people to educate We The People with? Vile Joe calls this “vile”. To report his laughter. Looking very dignified, Joe says: “Delete”.
You want accuracy, Silicon Valley? Until last year, Twitter lost money. Still the head of Twitter, Dorsey, is a great multibillionaire… He just claimed that he will be giving a billion dollars to charity. “Democrats” love this sort of lion of finance. When you go to their parties, you can, literally, I have done it, call it devotion to critical analysis, eat… gold.

Patrice Ayme



[1] Here is an extract from the piece of philosophical trash at the New York Time:

Brad Parscale, a manager of the Trump 2020 campaign, said, “We always knew that Silicon Valley would pull out all the stops to obstruct and interfere with President Trump getting his message through to voters.”

[That part is accurate… The Impeachment Hoax derailed the change in the Patent Law, back where it should be. Right now Chinese citizens have more Patent Rights than US citizens… NYT goes on:]

“A Twitter spokesman said Mr. Trump’s tweets about mail-in ballots “contain potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labeled to provide additional context.”

[All discourse containing potentially misleading information shall be “labeled”? Why not censor it as the NYT does, when it doesn’t like it?]

Disinformation experts said Twitter’s move indicated how social media platforms that had once declared themselves neutral were increasingly having to abandon that stance.

“This is the first time that Twitter has done something that has in some small way attempted to rein in the president,” said Tiffany C. Li, a visiting professor at Boston University School of Law. “There’s been a gradual shift in the way that Twitter has treated content moderation. You see them taking on more of their duty and responsibility to create a healthy online speech environment.”

What’s healthy about censoring others by accusing them of “inaccuracy”? When the NYT censors comments like mine above, is it because I was inaccurate quoting the First and Second Incompleteness theorems in second order logic? Do monkeys understand calculus? Or is it, simply, because the NYT wants a readership which hates?


[2] I have semi-voted by mail myself. I filled in the ballot, then dropped it in person. However, since 2018, some states like California have enabled “VOTE HARVESTING”: paid operators go around with ballots, have them filled and drop them. It’s hard to see why this should be legal. According to the GOP 26 races were they were ahead for weeks were lost after the mail-in ballots came in…

Here are the “inaccurate” tweets. Twitter sent to links to “correct” Trump… Links to the Washington Post and CNN, two media owned or founded by billionaires who hate Trump because they fear his unpredictable anti-monopolistic tendencies… Under Obama, the Patent System was reorganized to make the monopolies much more powerful.

Donald J. Trump


There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone…..
….living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!
Twitter added the link (somehow, it didn’t copy, perhaps because it’s embarrassing that it sends to the WashPo/Bezos and CNN…!)
Get the facts about mail-in ballots
California changed its rules before the 2018 midterm elections to allow persons other than family members to collect and submit ballots. Last-minute submissions of votes in the election delayed results and some argued that it altered the outcome of several elections.[7][8][9] At a Washington Post event[10] in late November 2018[2] (a few weeks after the elections[10]), Republican then-Speaker Paul Ryan said that “California just defies logic to me” and that his party was “only down 26 seats the night of the election and three weeks later, [it] lost basically every California race. This election system they have—I can’t begin to understand what ‘ballot harvesting’ is.”[10][2] Meanwhile, Republicans seek to improve their own use of the practice.[11]
[3] If they do that to Trump, they do way worse to little people such as yours truly, and they have. I am nearly more censored than published… Some media and search engines have blocked me totally, for life… Same story as the Fatwa in Pakistan, but more discrete, thus efficient…

QUORA Wants To Ban Me: I Said The $6.2 T Bipartisan Bill Is Mercantilism

March 30, 2020

Mercantilist economic policies aimed to build up the state, commerce and industry, and Mercantilist theorists charged the state with looking for ways to strengthen the economy… [1]

The Internet is manipulated by the censors which its extremely wealthy owners pay. Many of these geeks have low levels of education, and see offense where there is none. Before getting on Quora today I got a warning that one of my comments violated their policy, and I had to sign an electronic document telling me I was going to be banned, should I do it again. [2]

My comment was entirely technical… and in economy. There were no attack against any member of Quora. There were no insults against people dead or alive. I just sung the praises of “Mercantilism”, an economic theory under which most powers operated for many centuries. I referred to an essay explaining the distinction between “Mercantilism” and “Colbertism”. I cannot imagine why the comment was banned. Actually the 6.2 trillion dollar package just passed is an example of Colbertism… Everybody agrees to save Boeing, that’s Colbertism. I cannot possibly imagine why such a comment would be banned. But it was. We are dealing here with people who micromanage thinking and scholarship. First comic relief:

The Anti-Trumpers are completely insane, but, you know what? It works! As Hitler said, the bigger the lie, the more plausible it sounds. NYT had an article claiming:”Trump to New York: Drop Dead!” The hatred this sort of insanity brings actually makes the anti-Trumpers even more full of righteousness and hatred…

I was answering Peter Malmutt who wrote:

This stimulus was absolutely necessary because as you highlight, no economy no money. While this is structured very differently to the TARP (lessons learned, esp not to trust desperate bankers) and equity positions in some corporates could be an outcome, doesn’t this look like quasi-socialism? Isn’t that something that is taboo for the Republican Party ideology, although they also used to hold strong views on balanced budgets and maximum national debt levels?

In a first comment, I said that, indeed, it was socialism. Then I wrote the following comment, deleted by Quora:
“People who voted Republican in the past wanted to stay wealthy. In a static world, it meant balanced budgets and absolute limits on debt, to insure the value of money. However, the world is not static anymore. Europe is balancing budgets, and getting ever more poor, relatively speaking. The US and UK have been profligate: it works.

If the USA had balanced its budget in World War Two, the completely unbalanced Nazis would have won… The USA sent, for free, absolutely gigantic quantities of planes, tanks, trucks, to the USSR… Enough to turn the tide… Similarly the UK got immensely indebted to the USA to stay in the war. At the end of the war, the USSR had no industrial capacity (it was in the USA) and the UK had to surrender to the USA…

The COVID19 is an occasion for the hard sci fi edge of the US economy to get ahead… Firms like Gilead… Republicans have come to realize that one has to stay ahead, if one wants to thrive… Ahead of the virus, but not just the virus, as governor Cuomo said today… Trump is a billionaire entrepreneur who made his fortune inside the USA, and was long an enemy of the Reagan Revolution (he prefered subsidies… ;-))… And thus a left wing Democrat, relative to say, Biden or Clinton…
Trump literally captured the Republican Party and has been able to harness this new way of creating wealth… Just like the old one, ruling all over Europe and the USA, it’s called MERCANTILISM, but one should call it in its most striking version, COLBERTISM…
Colbert Good, Keynes Not So Smart (

Why was the comment deleted?

Probably because some plutocrat saw it, and perceived that it could be viewed as complementary to Trump (in spite of the crack about subsidies… and it’s true Trump harnessed New York construction subsidies, that’s why the NY gov set up subsidies…). Then the plutocrat, or servant thereof signaled to Quora one better terrorize that author, whose entire “answer” could be interpreted as all too favorable to Trump… Never mind that I approved of a BIPARTISAN BILL…


Trump Derangement Syndrome extends even to COVID. Here is what I read among the anti-Trump enraged and deranged:

“President Trump has turned to a French virologist with a history of criticizing climate science to offer the world hope amid the novel coronavirus pandemic.” Actually Raoult criticised poor meteorological predictions… which have gone indeed pretty bad recently, because the climate is changing too fast. But the TDS crowd has no limit:

Last week, Trump tweeted that the combination of two medicines could dramatically alter the often deadly course of COVID-19.

“HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,” Trump wrote. He then cited a study published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents that afforded little time for peer review.

Notice the viciousness: the paper was actually PEER REVIEWED in the most prestigious Journal. And published by said Journal. But now hacks who probably never studied calculus or biology are telling us that the peer review had “little time”. Yeah, guys, thousands of people are dying everyday.

PhD Raoult is the greatest star in his domain… And an MD, so he prescribed his drug, hydroxychloroquine, to more than 4,000 patients: it’s safer than quinine (which I got for years).

The World Wide Web is a treasure. But it’s full of parasites, vermin, viruses… How to distinguish truth from lies is difficult. Over the years I was banned from many Internet outlets, for “fantastic thinking” (the guy who accused me of this was the Harvey Weinstein of philosophy, a serial rapist), or from the European Tribune for having suggested that bankers bankrolled Hitler (they made an Internet search, they said, to prove only me in the entire world had this theory… It’s how the wealth of the Bush family was launched…), or the Daily Kos, for saying Obamacare would make the profit of the healthcare insurance industry greater (it did), or from the Guardian, for being a Jihadist… The fatwa against me from Pakistan Justice (!) Ministry for offending the famous Rophet, a proof, no doubt… Etc.

There should be a law of public utility forbidding censorship… Ah, but as a New York Times subscriber, for decades, I was censored more than 1,000 times… Sanders wanted such a law… But Sanders didn’t want to hurt Biden’s feelings… Thus demonstrating a congenital inability to become US president…

WW Web is Direct Democracy. The political system we have is Democracy through Representatives… Basically, as in China. Direct Democracy has to develop Debate Expertise. This is not a new debate: Socrates was obsessed by the notion of Direct Democracy versus Expertise. What I call “Democratic Institutions” were developed, in the Middle Ages, to answer Socrates. However they turned out to have seen their would-be Expertise been devoured by Will To Power. So now we have anonymous censors without any education telling us “Mercantilism” is an insult.

In any case, Marx, Engels, Proudhon (their inspiration) fustigated the owners of the workers. Now one should fustigate the owners, or more exactly enslavers of thoughts.

Patrice Ayme



[1] The Wikipedia entry on Mercantilism I linked to is extremely bad, and denotes an anti-Mercantilist bias. That’s because Mercantilism is nationalistic, whereas the plutocratic globalization was leveraging internationalism to avoid taxation and legislation… Servants of plutocrats probably wrote the article… I will not bother modifying it: total loss of time, I would get in a fight with arrogant poisonous mice…


[2] Quora is an Internet outfit with intellectual pretense. It covers the full spectrum from unfathomably stupid, to extremely interesting… Depending upon who wrote the article, and what it is about.

Censorship Of Comments By Official Media, Such As The Lying New York Times, Should Be Unlawful

January 7, 2020

I have subscribed to the New York Times for much longer than the Iraq war (1990 to 2003, to… this day?). It reads my comments very carefully for the exact meaning of what I mean. When the comments deviate from the establishment line in a way that threaten the established logic. In the last example, Krugman wrote an editorial on Soleimani, the heir apparent of the Iranian Islamist dictatorship, execution. Krugman claimed the USA was always a force for good, until now, when, under Trump, it has become a self-destroying crime against humanity.

I sent a first mild comment pointing out that the USA was culprit of not having supported the French Republic in a timely manner in World War Two, enabling Hitler’s ascent. Censored. The New York Times calls itself “haunted” by its silence and misbehavior while the Nazis were busy starving and killing millions of Europeans, civilians, Slavs and Jews in the first few years of World War two. A second comment, comparing the impact of Heydrich, the Nazi Dolphin, assassination with the execution of Soleimani, the Shiite Dolphin, was also censored that latter comment I saved and will publish on this site).

This sort of censorship of comments should be made unlawful. Contradictory comments enable to denounce lies. When Krugman says the USA behaved well before Donald Trump, it’s a lie of Stalinist dimension. 

New York Times Building, New Pork Chimes censorship. All the plutocracy that’s fit to print; survival of the fittest. Those guys are afraid of… me. Just because it is profitable to do so, just as it was profitable to ignore Hitler… and massacre dozens of millions. Yes, they did, because had they advertised it, they could have prevented it.

NYT, like Facebook or Twitter, are news media, with an official standing: they have prerogatives, their leaders and agents are received in all, and over all circles of power: they are familiar with presidential, imperial and kingly palaces, all over the world> No plutocrat deny them, all try to steer them. Those official media are, because they are supposed to carry information, feed the debate… in a NEUTRAL way. Right, neutrality in matter of presentation of knowledge is impossible to achieve, so a lot of partiality should be tolerated… However, thus, a lot of contradiction should be tolerated. 

When official media (Facebook, Twitter, New York Times) censor information and steer the debate, by removing comments without good legal reason, they violate the democratic constitution and don’t act any better than the Islamist State of Pakistan (which has a Fatwa against yours truly). Truly, they foster violence. Let me explain.

This lack of contraried debate brings homogeneity of low dimensional thought. In other words, lack of intelligence. 

Lack of (enough) intelligence when facing changing circumstances always leads to violence. Rats don’t kill rats when there is enough water, food, and space. However, when those come short, violence is unavoidable… even among rodents. Let alone super predators such as hominids. 

An excellent explicit example was the Third Reich. Germans came to subscribe to the theory that they lacked Lebensraum (vital space). However, a healthy debate would have shown them that such was not the case. The debate didn’t happen, instead Hitler and company embarked on a war which killed 4% of humanity (and maimed much more).

And violence doesn’t mean just physical destruction, it may simply be cognitive, emotional, or spiritual maiming. Such maiming is a fundamental crime not just against humanity, but also against the biosphere itself… as we have become its caretakers.

Intelligence, thus, debate, can’t be separated from the question of violence. Suppressing debate is seeding the roots of violence.

Patrice Ayme 


P/S: Steven Pinker, from a Pluto university, paid by Plutos, has insisted we live in the most peaceful of all worlds (of all those Plutos can buy). This is both completely true, and completely false. All what matters is energy. The total energy, the sum of kinetic and potential energies, is conserved. Pinker is talking about one alone. He has to look at the whole. This is the mistake the Jews did in the 1930s: they didn’t look at the whole picture and especially its potential aspect.

If we measure the kinetic energy of violence right now, world wide, it’s all potential, or hidden. Take any system: overall energy will be conserved. Right now kinetic energy (of violence) is minimal… Which means potential energy (of violence) is maximal… And this can be checked with what is going on with the biosphere… Thus, the danger form this potential violence is grander than ever. If not persuaded, listen to Putin talking hopefully about deploying 200 megatons fusion bombs…

Patrice Ayme


P/P/S: Ten minutes after this essay above was published, the New York Times published my second comment on Krugman’s ignorant and despicable essay. (The first comment, which was very polite, contrary to what I just wrote was irremediably lost… because I didn’t expect Krugman and his goons to censor it, precisely because it was so civil.)

How F***book Censors Civilization

October 5, 2019

Facebook Censors ME, When I talk About Elizabeth Warren! Example of Facebook censorship:

There are two F words: the one alluding to the act which brings procreation, and the one alluding to Fac*book. Senator Warren has called for the dismantlement of the large tech monopolies, and that should be done. Even more urgent is to revert Patent Law to the pre-Obama state. Nowadays, small inventors have to prove that they have been injured economically, not just that their Intellectual Property has been stolen, by the giant tech monopolies. (Those who promoted that are now super wealthy…)

I was exchanging ideas with some far left groups involving many thousands of people, when I discovered (indirectly) that some of my comments had been removed from others to view. I could write and send them, but my interlocutors had not seen them, so the conversations were disjointed.

Finally Facebook fessed up,

Picasso Pablo (dit), Ruiz Picasso Pablo (1881-1973). Paris, musée Picasso. MP210.
The Montreal Museum Of Fine Arts was censored by Facebook for this painting. Paintings ordered by the Popes in the Middle ages have been censored by the savages at Facebook. Civilization should be removed from their brutal, greedy, uneducated hands, while it’s still alive!

…and Facebook admitted the following about comments linking to my own site (which is non-commercial, and to which I have linked thousands of times): 

“This comment goes against our Community Standards on spam. Learn more about this comment and see what you can do


About your comment Today No one else can see your comment. @ [687765402:2048:Rowan Campbell Millar] If you try to evoke Marine Le Pen, for some obscure reason, you have obviously not read…”

It gets better than that. 

Among the comments blocked and censored by Facebook, unbeknownst to me (because I could see them but others couldn’t) were several containing the word “Warren”, as in “Elizabeth Warren”:

Example, this essay of mine comparing favorably Warren to Biden from last May 2019 (5 months ago) was actively censored multiple times by Facebook:  

So while the treacherous “Democratic” leadership is all in huff and puff about whether the US president can talk BS to foreign leaders, and threaten them a bit for the good of justice (as is his prerogative, and I hope the same for Warren), the Facebook monopoly is trying to bar my approval of Senator Warren to be disseminated further… even among far left groups. (I was long ago barred from other US far left groups, some founded by… the CIA, like the Daily Kos… Leftists writing at the Daily Kos do not realize they have been railroaded carefully where they can be controlled by the CIA and the like… apparently it’s the same with Facebook left groups) 

I support Warren (known to Trump as Pocahontas) because she plans to enact many ideas which I have championed for decades. 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Thursday that the company will be impartial toward Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign despite his pledge to fight her plan to break up the company if she takes the White House.

Zuckerberg in an audio recording surfaced from the swamp to predict Facebook would challenge and beat back efforts by a would-be Warren administration to split up the company. Now I know one way they do it already: censoring me.

Zuckerberg quipped that the company would “try not to antagonize her [Warren] further.

Absolute power is absolute hell. Facebook should be dismantled and a service like it turned into a public utility of some sort (especially as it’s sucking up most advertising media).

Power is great, but only if it is provided to us all equally enough that the right of equal speech is respected. The Ancient Greeks called the right to equal speech in the public forum as isegoria (which means equal public speech, related to “agora” the public forum). Zuck thinks he owns the public forum. Well, sure, in the plutocracy he dreams to lead some more, all the way to hell.

Trump was supposed to break the tech monopolies, we are still waiting.

Time to vote right (which means left).

Patrice Ayme



P/S 1: Warren fired back at Zuckerberg after his earlier remarks surfaced, writing later: “We have to fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy…. Elizabeth is committed to protecting our democracy from Silicon Valley overreach — but she needs your help to do it. Can you chip in for the first time today to help break up Big Tech?”


P/S 2: “Community Standards. Facebook. We work hard to limit the spread of commercial spam to prevent false advertising, fraud, and security breaches, all of which detract from people’s ability to share and connect. We do not allow people to use misleading or inaccurate information to collect likes, followers, or shares.” 

But we do allow ourselves to have a world monopoly of hyper power.


P/S 3: Ukraine named a new general prosecutor today (October 4) and reopened the inquiries that Biden as VP had closed by having the prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold US aid. As Biden said on tape talking about his firing of the general prosecutor, by giving the Ukrainians just 6 hours:”... son of a bitch!” Biden’s son got more than three million dollars from Burisma, an Ukrainian energy company ($83,000/month). The son of Biden Jr. had no experience in energy, nor did he in finance when he organized a giant financial transaction in China… by dealing with a government company… The Biden-Obama administration loved Facebook… And Zuck loved them back. At civilizational distance, Facebook, as installed, is just a spy agency.


[1] before the ridiculous impeachment madness, several committees and efforts had been launched against the tech monopolies by White House and Congress. No doubt that was a factor in the launch of the presidential impeachment! Trump will NOT be impeached, obviously (not enough votes in Senate), but the inquiries against the tech monopolies already are impeached! I know so many good insider stories about Zucks and Goo…




Philosophy Censorship; About Socrates The Basic Truth Shall Not Be Told, Pluto Enforced By “Aeon”, A Magazine Promoting Philosophical Fascism

April 3, 2019

Owners of the pseudo-philosophical magazine “Aeon” enforce a particularly strict vision of Socrates. Straying out of it “violates their community guidelines”. This is pure censorship in the domain of the most esoteric ideas (demonstrating those are crucial to the Pluto. order!)

The gist of my comment was that the trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are pro-plutocratic philosophers, and that’s why their thoughts were so well preserved. This is intolerable to… plutocrats. And guess who is financing “Aeon”? Same as all over the world media: plutocrats!

For Aeon’s abuse, see the note. Here is my censored comment, with a picture added.



Socrates should not be considered to be the founding figure of Western philosophy:

that Socrates is the greatest philosopher is a widely held opinion that is indeed deeply flawed, considering the gigantic heritage of thought and thus philosophy, which preceded the Athenian Age of Pericles.

General on the left, great philosopher, his spouse, on the right. Aspasia (right) invented the so-called “Socrates” method (“inductio”) and the Open Society, and all great things Pericles said. All the bad policies of Pericles were his own, he admitted, begging forgiveness.

Actually, let’s hammer it again, Pericles’ second wife, Aspasia of Miletus, was arguably a better thinker than Socrates: she invented the concept of the Open Society, which K. Popper parroted recently; the Open Society is more important a notion than anything Socrates allegedly did. 

Consider the many pharaohs who were women, and discoveries such as “Pythagoras” theorem, one of many discoveries which the Greeks themselves said came from Egypt (with steam power).  Truth was revered in Ancient Egypt, and the ideal feminine, when not actual women, propelled it.

Suspicion wants to ask why, among all great thinkers of Greece only the trio of Socrates Plato and Aristotle was viewed as worth preserving so extensively? Was it because their thinking was so compatible with, and useful to, the 2,000 years of dictatorship and plutocracy which followed them? And which Aristotle personally contributed so much to install? Indeed! It’s no coincidence that Roman Catholicism was made compatible with the “Neo-Platonism” which dominated the empire (and not reciprocally).

Contemplate the many colossal thinkers of Classical Greece, such as the inventors of NON Euclidean geometry (Yes, non-Euclidean), and the engineers of mechanical computers, algebra, and of the all important atomic theory, complete with vacuum and perpetual (“Brownian”) motion. Presocratic philosopher Democritus, his teacher Leucippus, and Epicurus, over two centuries, wrote more than 100 books, mostly on the atomic theory, science, and a rational approach to the entire universe. Why were all their work deliberately destroyed?

Because Roman Catholic fascism was not compatible with rational explanations.

Whereas, of course, Socrates, with his voices in his head, Joan of Arc style, Plato, in love with tyrants of Syracuse, and Aristotle being all things to the Macedonian gangsters, were compatible with Catholicism, to the point they promoted many of its themes, five centuries before Roman emperors adopted them, that is, adopted the intellectual fascism Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were oozing with.

Athenian democracy knew so much about its incompatibility with Socrates and Aristotle, it wanted to execute both (Aristotle fled).

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were deeply entangled, in the most intimate ways, with some of the most famous and bloodiest dictators in history. It is telling that most philosophers have not noticed that horrendous, yet very loquacious, fact. So no wonder the dictators, tyrants and so-called monarchs of the next two millennia esteemed that philosophical trio from thinking hell, so much. But should we? Socrates hated real democracy, and Aristotle was, literally, the father of “Hellenistic” dictatorships which  buried free thinking and inspired Roman plutocracy to take over the Republic, and then the world.

Socrates had means, a stock inheritance from his father, which he admitted to have dilapidated, and a busy wife. In any case, he could afford the expensive equipment of a upper class hoplite, and he kept the most intimate company with Athens’ topmost golden youth. That made him tight with the dictators who ruled Athens, when they did.    

That Socrates was married early in his life with an aristocrat called Myrto explains readily why he was hanging around the uppermost echelon of Athenian society, insisted to attack democracy, and why the democratic authorities viewed him with such hostility. That Plato hid that from view is explained by Plato’s general adoration of dictators, and those who love them.

Diotima of Mantinea is presented in Plato’s Symposium as a philosopher of love, teacher of a youthful Socrates, who defer to her expertise, and she is the inventor of the concept of Platonic love.  

Thus one can see that some of the most prominent durable notions of the infernal Socrates-Plato-Aristotle trio were actually elaborated by women… So why all the reverence to the guys? Is that another case of delirious sexism?

Some British philosopher claimed that Western philosophy, the way he knew it, was just “footnotes to Plato”. Indeed: sitting in the middle of his glorious British empire, he only knew Western fascist philosophy of the plutocratic type.

To get out of this inequality trance, one needs to realize the truth: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were just theoreticians and advocates of the exploitation of We The People by the principle of oligarchy. Socrates hated democracy, Plato lauded tyrants, and Aristotle put in place Antipater, the bloody tyrant, executor of Aristotle’s will, who made Athens, after defeating her twice in naval battles, into an official plutocracy.

No philosophical education should be complete without realizing that this infernal trio are fathers to plutocratic philosophy. And, in particular, Roman Catholicism.


Conclusion (not part of my comment, which was above): Is Aeon is a magazine promoting philosophical fascism? You judge!

The sort of censorship I was subjected to reminds me of The Inquisition. Actually, it is exactly this sort of censorship which brought plutocratic rule, when the non-Roman Catholic literature was systematically destroyed by the “Men In Black” (monks).

This sort of censorship prevents people to realize that Socratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophies have been the backbone of plutocracy, for 24 centuries… and that so-called Christianism (and thus then its child, Islamism).

Interesting too, the no-good Socrates stole women. And who are women except nobody? The Socratic method is Aspasia’s. Aspasia understood what made civilization strong, the Open Society, exactly what Socrates detested (in the guise of detesting Direct Democracy). Socrates (Plato admits) got his (“Platonic”) philosophy of love from another woman philosopher:    

This is another indication that sexism and plutocracy are deeply entangled. I am honored to be censored for this insight.

But this is a warning: the techno fascist who rule the world now are, in some ways worse than the Inquisition. Facebook censors for obscenity works of art ordered by popes during the Middle Ages. We have sunk low, and are sinking lower.

Patrice Ayme



Note: Plato or Pluto? Is there a difference? My comment was using not one word of foul language, or slang, and couldn’t be considered abusive to anyone alive since the dictator Antipater became the executor of the will of Aristotle. My comment was polite, and highly informed at a much higher level than the author of the article (who I didn’t criticize, neither directly, nor implicitly; I actually went further in his general direction, bringing new elements).

Aeon send me this message:

Aeon Magazine

Dear Patrice Ayme,

Your comment to the article ‘Was the real Socrates more worldly and amorous than we knew?’ has been deleted because it contravened our community guidelines.

Users who repeatedly violate our community guidelines will have their membership deleted.

Unfortunately we cannot give individual feedback on moderation. Please consult our community guidelines.

Aeon calls itself a “world of ideas…Aeon is a magazine of ideas and culture. We publish in-depth essays, incisive articles…” The article I commented up was by a Oxford professor (who, let it be said in passing didn’t know much about Socrates; apparently he didn’t know how Socrates learned of the theory of love… although it’s extensively described in Plato…)



UK philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica with B. Russell,  wrote in his Process and Reality (Free Press, 1979, p. 39): “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.

How To Alleviate Fake Media Censorship Through Public Utility Legislation

February 28, 2018

The problem of “fake news” cannot be disjointed from censorship and propaganda… Censoring the truth, or replacing it by lies is not very different. The solution to this steering of the public mind into subjugation is to recognize quality thinking and information as “PUBLIC UTILITY”… From the Google-Facebook duopoly, to the most modest websites, as yours truly (legislatively enforced). That means, dear New York Times, and various university professor sites, no more censorship… 

In a few hours, I was censored three times, twice related to Nobel, not so noble, Paul Krugman, the self-described “Conscience of a Liberal”, and his network. More sad than infuriating. 

I had sent to Paul Krugman a pretty neutral piece for his  post “The Force of Decency Awakens”. Krugman claimed that the same emotion, decency, waking up, was the root cause for the renewed fight against sexism, and against guns. Decency comes from the present participle of decereto be fitting or suitable“. Krugman apparently found my comment unsuitable and inappropriate. However that comment was purely about how and why plutocracy grew and how that related to indecency. My comment actually supported what Krugman said, it understood it, it stood under it. Krugman should have been happy to be understood, with not one word against him. But, no, he censored my comment nevertheless (someone at the NYT told me Krugman censors me personally). When Krugman does this, I am always baffled: does he really not understand, or does he censors me because he is afraid of the shareholders of his employers (some of the world’s wealthiest men), or is he simply jealous like the wicked queen was of Snow White?

In his post, Krugman pontificated that:”Political scientists have a term and a theory for what we’re seeing on #MeToo, guns and perhaps more: “regime change cascades.””

 The link was looking at only four revolutions, and asked for big money to go beyond the abstract. I smelled a rotten fish. I looked at that site.  It claims: “REMARQ is a collaboration network from RedLink, designed for researchers and qualified users.” “Qualified users?” I sent a comment. The “Remarq Team” looked at the title of my Aristotle Destroyed Democracy essay (I was electronically informed) and, within minutes, sent me something that got plastered on  my browser: The Remarq team rejected your qualified user request and comment on article Regime Change Cascades: What We Have Learned from the 1848 Revolutions to the 2011 Arab Uprisings. 2018-02-27 14:37”. To be “rejected” by a “team” sounds more abusive than polite.

The theme of ADD is that the respect for Aristotle’s political work is the respect for monarchy, the rule of one. Aristotle’ s main political idea constitutes the bottom principles of today’s political “science”: a few individuals (generally male) should lead We The People, as if we were sheep. This is not idle talk, and a claim Aristotle was a bad influence: Aristotle was actually the leader and mentor of the small group of vicious men who launched the Hellenistic Regimes (which later encouraged the destruction of the Republican spirit in Rome).

The idea of the rule of one, monarchy, defended at the highest intellectual level, is, of course, also the main idea of Judeo-Christo-Islamism, with its big boss, God (which not coincidentally grew with the Hellenistic regimes). Attacking Aristotle, for those who believe in the Guide Principle (Deutsch: Führerprinzip) is like attacking Allah for the worst Jihadists.  Most intellectual professionals paid for their mental work are there to enforce the established order, they do now what the church used to do in the Middle Ages. To rule over minds, one will find more efficient to rule the souls, rather than to wield chains. Here the opinion of Paul Nizan about paid intellectuals, paid to have the correct thoughts and feelings, the watchdogs:

Those whom the establishment feeds wear a chain around their necks, a fable of Aesop already

One difference between someone like me or Nizan (who lived in the Middle East, Europe, Africa) and the political scientists at the “Remarq Team” (who presumably didn’t grew up nor lived in such places) is that I am not paid to tell lies, lies are not what Nizan or I, profess… As paid condottiere of things intellectuals presumably are (why else would they think it is important that others do NOT see my thoughts? If they are so bad, why don’t they rot by themselves?) This observation is not new: since ever, intellectuals have been paid as “watchdogs” (to use Paul Nizan’s expression; Nizan, a friend of Sartre, enlisted in the French army to fight Nazism. Nizan died in combat at Dunkirk, 23 May 1940, part of the enormous French army protecting the evacuation of 330,000 elite soldiers, including most of the professional British army (future instructors to the mass army they would teach), against the entire, vengeful Nazi army

What is clear is that a lot of people are spending a lot of efforts censoring the Internet. The NYT censored my comment on the Krugman essay referred above.  

A physicist specialized in Dark Matter censored my comment on Dark Matter, on her site (not the first time!) although the idea I have been pushing is incredibly simple (thus potentially revolutionary). Whereas people like that physicist are pushing MOND, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, I am pushing MOQ (MOdified Quantum; which I also call Sub Quantum Patrice Reality, an allusion to the fact that the Copenhagen Interpretation, and its ilk are NOT real…).

A good reason for not having MOND is that, modifying gravitational mass, as MOND de facto does, opens the can of worms of having to modify inertial mass, and, if not, why not… Whereas MOQ/SQPR fills in a gap in the usual Copenhagen Interpretation and its ilk (the other way to solve the gap is the Many Worlds/Multiverse, in other words, angels on a pin, with no limits, whatsoever…) As an exchange on the comments of the Dwarf Galaxy disk problem (predicted by MOQ/SQPR, not by MOND, nor LambdaCDM…) shows, my comment was finally published. It made an analogy between the present situation and the epicycles (an old point of view of mine now adopted by many physicists)… But I am going in much more details. The epicycles’ theory was a consequence of the wrong, ridiculously wrong, Aristotelian physics, at the root, and it may well be what is going on now… Buridan resuscitated heliocentrism, because, first, he got the physics right (also heliocentrism was obvious…)

Delaying comments destroy the debate: the New York Times delayed my comments, by several days, systematically, for years: that allowed the NYT to claim it practiced no censorship (in correspondence with me)… although nobody would read them, then… and then the NYT decided to just censor ALL of my comments, for years. My point is that this sort of steering of public opinion should be illegal, in a public utility (see below)…

I am used to something paradoxical for whom has never been employed by academia (I have ONLY been employed by academia), the scholar as a thief. I was, bad luck, next to some of the greatest, most decorated thieves ever, one of them was one of my best friends (until I discoverer to my horror and depression that he was a thief… There were pages on his thievery at some point in the New York Times; not only he helped then to demolish my career, but he demolished the career of the famous G. Perelman… Perelman got the top prizes in mathematics, refused to accept them, as he said that, then, he would have to tell the truth, and the world of top math would be revealed as the BS it is. Then an angry and discouraged Perelman gave up math (contrarily to repute, math is a social activity; can’t do it when the people you talk to are, you know, thieves, among other problems…).

I had this problem with Black Holes: I suggested, long ago, that the standard reasoning was insufficient because it neglected Quantum effects (say Quark stars, etc.) Now this point of view is standard wisdom.

Thievery is a general problem in research, in a time of insufficient budgets. I have known the detailed case of junior researchers (not just yours truly) seeing their papers rejected, and then senior “peer reviewers” running away with the ideas… which they had just rejected for publication. Greed is not just a plutocratic problem, nor does plutocracy necessarily have to do with making billions. Verily, the power (kratos) of evil (Pluto) is great… especially when directed at honest to goodness thinkers.

Strange world. A tweet of mine, relating to the Bernie Sanders’ Twitter account, was also “made unavailable”. What did my tweet say? Here it is: Problem: Democrats view as too left-wing the taxes advocated by Carnegie, the USA’s first billionaire (19th Century)! Carnegie explained in detail why it was necessary to tax enormous wealth enormously. The only deep reason for taxation is to prevent hyper wealth accumulation!” …

Am I too left-wing for Bernie? Or, more to the point, is Carnegie now too left-wing for the Democrats and US “Socialists”? Anyway, my tweet was removed by the powers that be (such a dangerous tweet, I agree!) At least Senator Bernie Sanders just changed his position on some guns… Tweeted Bernie, 2/28/2018:

We should not be selling assault weapons in this country. These weapons are not for hunting. They are military weapons for killing human beings.” I replied @BernieSanders:

Hillary Clinton used to complain that Bernie Sanders sided with the NRA. Glad to see the clear statement against military assault weapons..(See? Even Hillary can be right sometimes…)

The Internet is big money nowadays: 73% of the advertising revenue in media goes to the duopoly of Google and Facebook (up from 63% in 2015… and 85% of the growth in said revenue). So, we have, de facto, a monopoly of two! By itself, this should impel governments to act (well, OK, they are acting by doing nothing…)

And what do many Internet agents do? Steer, censor and contrive. Indeed, neither Google nor Facebook create content, they are content to steer We The Sheeple towards their idea of decency. They are electronic leeches. 

It is clear that none of this is innocent. what is happening on the Internet is exactly, on a much grander scale, what Putin is accused of doing: a few individuals and their obsequious servants, manipulating public opinion. So what to do?


Remedy: The Notion Of Public Utility Medium:

Public utilities provide an infrastructure necessary to society. They are subject to public control, beyond that of standard private industry. In the case of media on the Internet, the infrastructure would be the most important infrastructure of all, the infrastructure of truth!

As it is, there is a serious problem. As David Chavern has it in the WSJ in “Protect the News From Google and Facebook“: “A partial exemption from antitrust laws would help publishers and readers (Feb. 25, 2018):  The news business is suffering, but not because people don’t want news. They do—more than ever. The problem is that the money generated by news audiences flows mostly to Google and Facebook , not to the reporters and publishers who produce excellent journalism… newspaper advertising revenue fell from $22 billion in 2014 to $18 billion in 2016 even as web traffic for the top 50 U.S. newspapers increased 42%.

Local news is most at risk. As print circulation declines, community news publishers have the hardest time adapting to the ever-changing demands of Facebook and Google algorithms… Tech savvy, digital-only publishers are also struggling. BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti said in December that Google and Facebook are “paying content creators far too little for the value they deliver to users,” and that “this puts high-quality creators at a financial disadvantage, and favors publishers of cheap media.”

And the Wall Street Journal to pursue:Google and Facebook have become the primary and de facto regulators of the news business, and governments around the world are starting to recognize the danger. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced earlier this month that her government would review the economics of internet news consumption. Regulators in Germany, Israel and South Korea are investigating how Google’s business practices have disrupted the media market and harmed publishers and consumers. U.S. regulators, on the other hand, have rarely looked into Google or Facebook—and never at their influence in the news marketplace.

Some voices on the left and right are calling for Google and Facebook to be regulated as utilities. But there is an easier solution: exempt news publishers from certain aspects of antitrust regulation.

U.S. antitrust laws, designed to promote fair competition and prevent consolidation, actually make it harder for traditional news outlets to compete with Silicon Valley giants. Under current law, for instance, news publishers cannot get together and agree to withhold their product unless they receive a return on their investment.”

YouTube (owned by Google) warned some accounts which had reported that the latest school mass shooting in Florida was a “hoax” and the victims were “actors”. Nice, but those sort of “fake news” are not really worse than decades of lies from the Main Stream Media. Lies, or non-saids (French magazines reports that US president Jimmy Carter started the war in Afghanistan, which killed many millions, from his own administration, were censored, so US Americans really don’t know that! By the way, my point of view that Carter, Clinton and Obama were fake, not to say evil, is spreading. In the case of Obama, that depressed me….) For Carter, July 3, 1979 attack against Afghanistan, please consider:


What to do is that there should legal recourse against any medium declared a public utility, and yet, practicing censorship:    

To become a medium of public utility, there should be, and could be, two ways:

  1. Being declared to be so, by legislative decision, and Google and Facebook, and all the major media, certainly should be.
  2. Applying to become so (for example this site would).

Any medium of public utility would have to satisfy some requirements, such as trying to tell the truth when claiming to do so (poetry and fiction would be allowed, but under those labels). Public utility media would also have to avoid censorship, and be ready to justify it (that mean be ready to justify when censorship is applied; for example, the NYT would be required to justify why it censored me systematically when I comment Krugman’s posts…)

More than a decade ago, a philosophy site banned me for life for “fantastic logic” and stealing (from myself) my own (!) intellectual property (which I had made the mistake to put on their site as comments; so they viewed my ideas as their own thereafter, and forbid me to publish said ideas of mine on my old, Tyranosopher, site…) Ridiculous, but at least they provided some reason (last year I learned that the main, very famous philosopher behind that site, an old enemy of mine, called Searle, has been accused of sexual harassment by many girls and women, and was suspended from his prestigious university position; that didn’t surprise me, as I considered him a thief already… Sexual harassment is a form of thievery, and assault.)

When a medium is unwilling to give any reason for the censorship it applies, it should not be given the privileges associated to journalism, the respect of implied scholarship, nor the prestigious aura of “public utility”.  

Your devoted servant, glad to be, hopefully, of some public use,

Patrice Aymé

Search Engines Censorship & Defamation

May 28, 2017

On The Fascists Who Own And Dominate Us, And What We Read, And Want to Crank It Up.

When Google Plots to Make Patrice Ayme’ Disappear:

One of my readers was struck by the fact that I claimed that “extravagant wealth was outlawed in Rome”. This was indeed the law under the Republic. When, thanks to globalization, some of the wealthiest Romans were able to invest overseas, they build giant fortunes (the philosopher Seneca, who taught Nero, and died from it, used to joke that he didn’t know how many latifundia, absolutely gigantic farms with armies of slaves, he owned and on how many lands). When the Gracchi brothers saw this, they tried to reinforce the wealth limitation laws.

By then the wealthiest could afford private armies, not just private ships. Those armies were used to kill the Gracchi (although they . Their laws had been passed though, and for the following generations the “Populares” would try to have them enacted. This all ended with the assassination of Iulius Caesar, who was the most famous and most capable leader the “Populares” ever had. Now we have a situation arising which potentially equals the worst. Socrates had been condemned for “corrupting the youth”. Google apparently suggests users of its search engine to find the same about my work:

Patrice Ayme wants to limit wealth absolutely? Google suggests you find this hateful, violent, harmful to children, sexually explicit, etc…

How did I find this? To help my reader, I did a search under the key words Rome Absolute Wealth Limit”. (As can be seen in two places, up and down, on the screen.) It produced thousands of hits all of them headed by my own:

So far, so good, and not surprising.

Google, in its generosity, let me appear on their search engine. That’s not a given. It used to be a given. Long time ago, so did Yahoo let me appear on their search engine. I would search “Athens direct democracy” on Yahoo search engine, and proudly find myself at the head of the list. Then, one day, I disappeared from Yahoo. Completely. (Now it’s Yahoo which will disappear!) It is as if someone had decided to ban me. I told some people in the Silicon Valley about it. Including employees of Yahoo. They told me I was paranoid. Even a San Francisco Bay Area homeless bum told me so. (At that point, I knew how deep the search engine propaganda was!)

But I was still on BING and Google. Then, one day only my essays older than ten years survived in BING. All others disappeared, even when typed in full. I interpreted this as being banned from BING. Just as I am banned from the New York Times. Such bans are highly successful. I am especially banned from outwardly left sites (Daily Kos, etc.) The plutos who own or hold them are afraid that what John Lennon called the “fu…ing peasants” find out that, instead of being free and master of their destinies, they are just the opposite… And all their ideas are precisely those their masters wanted them to have.

The surprise came from reading on the right of my essay title as produced by Google something new:


With a down arrow.
I clicked on the arrow and found that readers were given the following choices to evaluate my work:


Sexually Explicit


Dangerous and harmful activity



Only my essay was thus adorned (out terns of thousands).

By the way, Google “Legal Department” wants you to request “content change”.

It is my (frequently repeated) observation that it is Western plutocrats who make Islamist propaganda possible, with their optical fibers, satellites, and software.  That, no doubt is a  hateful, violent, dangerous and a harmful activity. Many plutocrats could be hurt while shooting that movies…

The questionnaire above leads readers to identify “limits to wealth” to “limit to growth” and the latter to hatred, sex, violence, harm, and the cause of “poor schooling”. It is clearly oriented to censor any suggestion that extreme wealth should be limited. Indeed the title of my essay was unambiguous: “LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY”.

To all the preceding, search engines will reply that they are private companies, they do what they want. No, twice wrong: private moral persons, including companies have to respect the law. Now those technologies are news, Justinian refurbishment of the law, 15 centuries ago didn’t anticipate them. Yet, as Montesquieu pointed out, there is a “spirit of the laws” (“Esprit des Lois”).

All and any private company which becomes a global social utility, has, since Roman times, and Athenian times, be the object of special laws requiring special social duties. If search engines exert bias of no social utility (a fortiori if they are self-serving), they should be constrained to do so.

In other news, Prince Harry received Barack Obama at Kensington Palace. They discussed, we are told, mental health and the Manchester attack. The implication being that one is related to the other. In other words, there is no Islamism hostile to civilization, just crazy people out there. Those crazed people justify the police state, including finding those who think there should be limits to wealth crazy and harmful. This is disinformation: the Internet and TV, let alone hordes of career semi-intellectuals, have vigorously pushed Islamism, in the last 80 years, throughout the West.

Prince Harry was famous for running around naked in Las Vegas, while high on drugs. (This was immortalized in many pictures. Hard to deny.) Now in the British plutocracy, he disposes of historical palace, to pose next to Obama’s eternally plastic grin of bon banania… Nothing changed since the vague revolt of the punk wave, 40 years ago (the Sex Pistols attacked the Queen, but, in the end, the insults didn’t work. What works is to detail the exact nature of the subjugation mechanisms. And this the plutos understand perfectly, that’s what they want to block.).

The aim was to divide We The People and put civilization itself, and its spirit, under suspicion. Now we are reaching higher heights: saying that we should limit wealth absolutely, Google suggest, is hateful, harmful, violent, sexually explicit, and endangers schooling itself.

Sometimes dictatorship comes in stealthily. There is nothing stealthy about forbidding to read advanced materials (if one is not found in search engines, one does not exist). The Catholic Church did this for six centuries during the Middle Ages, by putting books at the “index”, and extended its rule, and the plutocrats (“aristocrats”) who were  along for the ride, by just as much (it finished with a number of extremely bloody wars and revolutions in Britain, Germany, France, among others…).

Meanwhile Merkel just came out storming from her meetings with Trump. Merkel is a physicist, she is usually careful, and always rational. However, Merkel was firm, not to say Hitler style, making great gestures with a closed fist:We Europeans MUST take our destiny in our own hands…” Zehr gut (just what Trump said…).  German rebellion against the USA plutocracy, at last. OK, so now the obvious ally in this endeavor is just west: Frankreich, France. The European Union has been clear (but so far rather impotent) about the abuses of US search engines (tweaking searches for self-service, and tax evasion). Time to do something about it. I already contacted two lawyers…

Life is a war, or it’s not worth living?

Patrice Ayme’

Internet & Academic Morality Not Yet Here

April 21, 2016

Internet Etiquette Is Not Internet Morality. Academia, Tribes Fighting Like Rats:

Morality is technology dependent. Always has been, always will be. Indeed, morality, the mores, are the behaviors which have proven sustainable. As technology varies, so does sustainability.

Having a rapacious attitude can also be sustained for centuries. Many said that about Rome. It was viewed to be the case of the Assyrian civilization, around 27 centuries ago. The Aztecs similarly had made moral, even divine to cut their enemies in pieces and eat them.

Right, Yet Order Zero Approach, Because, In the Next Step, Righteousness Itself Has to Be Interrogated, Though

Right, Yet Order Zero Approach, Because, In the Next Step, Righteousness Itself Has to Be Interrogated, Though

The USA’s morality is founded not just on “Jesus” and his “Bible”, but also on the most sacred “philosophers” of the so-called (Anglo-Saxon!) Enlightenment. In the USA, to be “enlightened” traditionally means to believe in the established order, racist, enslaving, and the so-called “free market” with its “invisible hand” (Pluto!). One has to be an “empiricist”, following “pragmatism” (and that means having no moral principles, but for those of the Bible).

So, naturally enough, having defied the philosophical foundation of the USA, I was immediately “banned” from a “philosophy” site.

This is not the first time this happens. Once a site where Searle, a “philosopher” famous for his “Chinese Room” thought experiment, banned me. Searle’s site claimed I was culprit of “intellectual property theft”, because the site claimed it owned all and any of my ideas, once they were published there. I was also accused of “fantastic Logic”. Part of the truth, of course is that the Chinese Room is itself a duplication of the so-called “Turing Test” which (idiotically) claims a computer to be intelligent if it can pass for a human in a conversation. Searle, a professor at a university where I taught, use to force his students to buy his fantastically overpriced tiny and worthless books. The same university is now involved into a tidal wave of sexual harassment cases: a professor forcing students to buy his fantastically overpriced books is also a rapist, methinks.

Another of my crime, yesterday was to claim that Kuhn, author of “The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions”, a revered figure of American philosophy of science, never said anything special.

Instead I was told that  philosophy is “Discursive Rational Argumentation”. This is highly redundant: ratio (from which reason comes), comes from “logic”, which itself means discourse, which is not different from “argumentation”.

Instead I hold that philosophy is “Disruptive Rational Art”

Insults themselves can be an art: Obama flew to Saudi Arabia, flying 12,000 kilometers. He was welcomed by the governor of Riyadh. No minister, no king.

Saudi ire is mostly caused by the US rapprochement with Iran, although Obama’s artful inefficiency is also a legitimate cause of irritation. (Not to say Iran is innocent: Iranian psychology is a study in the deepest contradictions imaginable, due to the rape of Iranian civilization by much beloved Arabian engineered Islam; a classical case of the Stockholm syndrome, which should be re-baptized as the Iranian syndrome…)

The alliance between the US presidency and the king of Saudi Arabia dates from 1945. It has proven quite sustainable, although it’s a spiral descending as a co-dependency with hell.  In a way, the USA did with Saudi Arabia what it did with Hitler: encourage the worst, and milk it (the argument that Britain, Germany and France have done the same is entirely valid… but they followed the US lead, and their reward is Wahhabist terror all over Europe).

The Internet is a new technology. It empowers completely new behaviors: potentially all can communicate with all, and talk about anything. Thus it requires, and will evolve, a new morality. But there are many possibilities. Some good, some evil.

The Internet allows intellectual exchanges, gifts we make to each other called ideas. The wisest behavior, among intellectuals, in tentative debate, consist in getting inspired by the best ideas others have to offer, and forget the rest. This is the best first order approach.

However when the most impactful ideas are deleterious, such as a stealth advocacy of slavery or greed, it is another matter entirely. When John Locke teaches hypocrisy as the highest mood (condemning slavery in his writing, while investing in it and fostering it, in his actions), he deserves strident condemnation.

I am banned from many sites, from the Huffington Post, to the Guardian (for the unexpected sin of “blogging the Qur’an!”). I view “banning” and censoring unwise. The New York Times, since before the invasion of Iraq, has literally censored thousands of my comments (I have been a full subscriber for decades). Said comments’ positions were later embraced by the New York Times.

I have never banned anybody from my site (including Jihadists, Fundamentalists, and the occasional Nazi). I put just one crazed maniac in moderation, and he gave up. I systematically contradict offensive material, though, in appropriate, thus scathing, terms (it’s generally enough to make miscreants give up).

I don’t “make things up”. Except for the occasional rare joke. I don’t make things up, to the best of my knowledge, I never do, and never did, because reality, my way, always beats fiction (especially fiction the way others have it, which puts me to sleep).

Mary Beard, a professional Roman historian, in her SPQR, brazenly claims the Common Wisdom that Marcus Aurelius was the first emperor in a long while to have a live official son, but a cursory research reveals that Hadrian (likely), and Antoninus Pius (certainly) had two official sons. I did not make it up.

The devil starts with getting the details wrong… and learning to live with that.

Long ago at Stanford I was scolded by the finest and brightest, for “meditating” on Black Hole theory. My “meditation” became standard lore only recently. I had a somewhat similar experience in pure mathematics. Ultimately, what motivates academics and scientists, and philosophers the most, is their own advancement, and that means the advancement of their tribe. Richard Feynman discovered this, he said, after being elected to the American Academy of Sciences. He decided that was not acceptable, and resigned.

My answer to these academic shenanigans? Do more of what I always did, and damn the torpedoes. I am not writing for a career, but for the issues themselves. My career belongs to the future, after I am gone.

The greatest, oldest, most human, and most noble trading, is that of ideas.

And where do ideas come from? Not just the pulling of oxen, but the spur of the moment. This is why Internet spontaneity is sacred. Academia was a grove Plato liked. With the Internet, the grove is the world.

Patrice Ayme’

How Was Auschwitz Possible? Ignorance!

December 17, 2015

Secrecy Is Atrocity’s Best Friend:

By this question I do not mean how it was technically possible for the Nazis to massacre deliberately more than fifteen million innocent civilians whom they had arrested for no reason but hatred. Modern technology is the obvious answer: government propaganda to mislead people, firearms to herd the innocent, trains to transport them, gas to kill them efficiently.

What I mean is how come the Holocaust of millions of “Jews”, and an even greater number of millions of other innocent civilians falling under other categories, was possible, in the name of the German nation? How come the Germans went along? Was not Germany the country in the world which was the most literate, the one with the most readers in 1900? How could such a country sink so low?

"Children, What Do You Want From the Guide?" The Guide Loved Children, Children Loved the Guide

“Children, What Do You Want From the Guide?” The Guide Loved Children, Children Loved the Guide

Obviously, reading is not everything: one has to read Philosophically Correct material (PhC material). The Germans read a lot of materialistic, fascist, imperialistic, militaristic and hyper nationalistic propaganda. That brought their wisdom in the gutter, made them forget the human nature of humanity, and made them much less human than even a simple illiterate fisherman in any other country (say). One thing Germans were not short of, was kolossal naivety.

Still, how come the German nation went so rabid? The answer is simple. Another technology was at work: propaganda, combined with modern means to achieve secrecy and disinformation. One can see this by a closer look at history, a page in the history of moods.

By early 1945, the Great Reich still existed, and fought for survival, attacked on all fronts by all its enemies, including Poles, French, Brits, Canadians, Soviets, Americans, etc. As the Soviets penetrated old Prussia, they submitted cities to horrendous bombardment, and when they found Germans alive, chances were that those Germans were women and children (as the men had died in combat). I am not aware of mass exactions against children (so many were dead already), but certain women were put to what Soviet troops saw as very good use, hundreds of times a day.

The Nazis related with relish to their own population, the total, and barbarous extermination of the German East, the murdering of centuries of civilization, and warned the masses that so would be the fate of all of Germany. Therefore, the German population had to fight with the energy of despair, and the natural enmity between Soviets and democracies would do the rest.

The fanatical discourses and orders of the hysterically vicious Nazi leadership was not heeded. Instead, many Germans and local authorities produced white flags, and tried to surrender. In spite of the fact the Nazis viewed that as treason, and the penalty for this was immediate execution.

Most Germans knew Germany was being destroyed in the East, civilians were submitted to unspeakable treatment, tens of thousands of german civilians were dying every few days, and still, deep down, they felt it was deserved.

Now remember that in May 1940, the German Panzer army had been able to break through the French fortifications on the Meuse by using suicide bombers.

So why were Germans so much less keen to die for the Great Reich in 1945 than in 1940?

Why did the the mood change in Germany?

Auschwitz, the Holocaust.

By 1945, average Germans knew intimately that the Nazis, we the Germans, had did a terrible thing, the most terrible thing to “those poor people”, the Jews.

The mood in Germany was that Germany had sinned, and was punished for the unspeakable horror it had visited on the Jews. (Among others.)

Why did that revelation not happen earlier?

Because the Nazis kept the Holocaust secret enough to be able to deny it.

What would have had happened if, by January 1941, say, when the Holocaust had already been launched, average Germans had known what was going on? That the Great Reich had deliberately killed millions of Poles?

Well, quickly enough, the military would have revolted and decapitated the Nazi power structure (as it is there was a huge conspiracy to do so, but it mostly failed because not enough in the military were in the know of the extent of the exactions, or suffering from pressure at home condemning said exactions). The German military had the means to kill the Nazis, but lacked enough motivation. Only the exhibition of enough Nazi atrocities atrocious enough, would have provided that motivation.

If average Germans had known how atrocious their government was, how much atrocities they had visited on innocent civilians, if they had know their government bombed flour mills to starve millions of Poles to death, in 1939, let alone create an extermination camp at Auschwitz, to kill Polish civilians, and then started to kill innocent Jews, even innocent German Jews, then average Germans would have been revolted by Nazism… As most of them were by 1945.

So it is secrecy which made the Holocaust possible. And this has important lessons for today, and the freedom and wisdom of the Internet.

Fast Forward To France 2015:

Poor Marine Le Pen! My heart swells for her, and not just just a bit of self-interested worry, too. Marine just thought she could do like yours truly, and post on the Internet some of the Islamist State propaganda (just to show the horror, and condemn it! However, the French State has now decided that the messenger was culprit of the message).

Last August, the Islamist State released a video of its assassination of James Foley, a journalist who went missing in Syria in 2012. Ms. Le Pen posted images of his killing, and those of others, in reply to a well known French pundit who had compared her party, the Front National, to the Islamist State. Bourdin the Cretin, paid propagandist on RMC et BFMTV, Wednesday 16 December evoked a “une communauté d’esprit” between two “formes de repli identitaire” (identity grouping), the rise of the National Front and the rise of Jihadism. Bourdin’s guest insisted that the Islamist State and the Front National “resemble each other” (by the same token, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are also Islamist State! And actually so are all those who prefer the natives to strangers: patriotism has become an absolute evil, according to anti-“populist” propaganda!)

This was weird in many ways: first there are only 4,000 Jihadists in France, whereas nearly seven millions voted for the National Front last Sunday. Second, the National Front, and Marine le Pen in particular, are precisely against all what the Islamist State stands for. But the “French Theory” sort of “philosophy” has induced a mood of sheer madness where everything is mashed up: call black, white, white, black, and then chuckle all is grey, so it does not matter.

Naturally enough, Ms. Le Pen put on her twitter accounts pictures of Islamist State executions, pointing out that the National Front did not do that, and had always been against that.

The Foley family whined that: “We are deeply disturbed by the unsolicited use of Jim for le Pen’s political gain… the tweets “add to the family’s pain”. Really? Is it this, or are you feeling the urge to milk your fame? Why would that disturb you that someone remind us of your son’s martyrdom? Because your son is best forgotten?

I guess we better forget that Jim Foley was assassinated atrociously, according to his parents, that’s the best way to ignore honor him. Those foolish follies seem to show a healthy disregard for Jim Foley’s calling. Jim’s calling was to inform people. Inform them of what? The most significant events. And what’s more significant than atrocities committed in the name of a religion? (The Foley family added Le Pen’s “actions” were against what their son stood for, that’s why they were indignant. So I guess, according to them, their son was all for Islamism, since Marine Le Pen is against it?)

Le Pen said she did not know it was a picture of James Foley, and took it down immediately after she became aware of the foolish family disingenuous protest (as the family’s little PC political plug against Le Pen demonstrates). (Notas Bene: if terrorists kill me, as extreme right wing terrorists tried this once already, I am for putting on the Internet pictures of my gory assassination, which will thence demonstrate further one of my points, post mortem.)

Plutocratic media immediately jumped on the occasion to scream after Marine Le Pen. One propagandist went on Le Pen’s twitter account to report her indignation, feeling “deeply violated” by the “grotesque pictures”… As if Le Pen herself had cut the throats of the victims of Islamism.

I guess, the same person would have been “deeply violated” by being shown “grotesques pictures” of Nazi assassinations, and would have asked authorities to hide them, and justice to strike those who showed pictures of Nazi atrocities. Actually, this is exactly what is presently happening in France.

The French Interior Minister went further. At the National Assembly, Bernard Cazeneuve, reacted to the tweets of Marine Le Pen : “They are the photos of Islamist State propaganda, and, thus, an abjection, an abomination, and a real insult for all victims of terrorism, for all those who fell under the fire and barbarity of the Islamist State” [“Elles sont les photos de la propagande de Daech et ces photos sont, à ce titre, une abjection, une abomination et une véritable insulte pour toutes les victimes du terrorisme, pour toutes celles et tous ceux qui sont tombés sous le feu et la barbarie de Daech. (…) J’ai demandé que la plate-forme Pharos puisse se saisir de cette affaire.”]

In other words, all those who published pictures of the collapsing World Trade Center are abominable, abject accomplices of Al Qaeda, and those who published pictures of Nazi mass executions are abominable, abject accomplices of Nazism, and so on.

What is clear is that the French Interior minister is such an idiot, that he makes even Dr, Goebbels sound like a genius. Or then the French Interior Minister is keen to go beyond the worst caricature of dictatorship and misinformation found in Orwell’s “1984”. Even the minutes of Joan of Arc’s trial don’t exhibit a similar madness on the part of her obviously biased accusers (and no, I am not in love with Joan of Arc).

I reacted to this by deciding to follow Joan of Arc Marine Le Pen on Twitter (she has 10,000 more followers than 12 hours ago).

The real problem is that the French Socialist government machine has decided to attack what feeds reason itself. Information, data, knowledge, cognition. (Why? The polls are so bad for the Socialists, they are going to be wiped out in the next elections, in 18 months. As they deserved, since they are Socialist in name only: remember Hitler’s “National-Socialists”)

So you want no more Auschwitz? Let knowledge flow. “Social networks” should not ban violence for the sake of banning violence.

Indeed, as we saw with the Nazis, banning the knowledge of the true extent of abominable, abject violence is what made the Holocaust of 2% of humanity in the Second World (because the Nazis and their imperial Jap allies did not stop with killing more than 60 million innocent civilian; they also conducted official wars of aggressions).

So, if one wants morality, one has to exhibit violence, be it only to condemn and eliminate it.

Those who claim to not understand that, as the French Interior Minister, are just abject, abominable cretins.

Then “Social Networks” should consider why the violence is shown. If I show an execution by the Islamist State to condemn it, that is not only OK, it is morally perfect. If the Islamist State shows the same picture for its propaganda, it’s an abject abomination, and it should be censored.

It’s not difficult. One has to exert judgment in light of absolute morality, the one given by 100 million years of evolution, human ethology. Apparently, Twitter is already doing this (Facebook is another matter: it views the female breast as an abject abomination, and blocks it fiercely; it seems the leadership of Facebook hate mammals: “mamma” means breast in Latin).

We humans have to exert meta-judgments. Both on moods and ideas. If Germans had realized how vicious and atrocious the real mood of the Nazi leadership was, they would have recoiled in horror, and withdraw support, as they finally did in 1945. French government’s Foleys follies misrepresenting the State of Islamism, to the point of accusing the national front of Islamism, are of a related vein, and explain the rise of Islamism there.

Ignorance is not just a matter of ignoring some data points. Ignorance is also ignoring shocks to the emotional systems which are intrinsic to the situation being ignored. This is what the leadership of a country like France has ignored all too long. And here, by leadership, I do not mean lesser minds such as the present clowns who gather every week at the presidential palace in Paris to plot the dismal course for 70 millions and most of Europe.

By “leadership” I mean mostly what passes for the intellectual class, those who thought the Eurosterity (= Euro + Austerity) would be a good regime, and Islamophobiaphobia all the philosophy they needed, by praying to the mighty gods of the “markets”, those who thought colonialism was terrible, if from Europe, but the way to go, if from any other power, and so on.

Civilization without information is only malformation of reason.

Patrice Ayme’

Media Manipulations

November 25, 2015

More than ten years ago, I pointed in comments that President Wilson was a racist, and that this had a dominant effect on policy, in the USA, and worldwide. To this day. The New York Times blocked all such comments. The New York Times thus gained more than years in the public revelation that president Wilson was an extreme racist, who implemented racist policies, from inside the USA, onto the world stage, on the grandest scale. Not just this, but racism was, arguably the most important effect of the Wilson presidency. When that policy was not anti-black, it was anti-French. It was also extremely crucial in supporting exterminationist racist oligarchy in Germany, which peaked with World War Two and exterminationist policies. The intimate conviction of exterminationist Germans, thanks to Wilson, was that the USA was on their side. And indeed it was, in many ways.

The New York Times is considered to be the USA’s “Newspaper of Record”, so one would think it is below its dignity to censor its subscribers (other “newspapers of record” in some other countries do not censor me).

Americans Think, and Feel, What They Are Told To Think, and Feel. NYT Led Attack On Iraq, Thus To Islamist State

Americans Think, and Feel, What They Are Told To Think, and Feel. NYT Led Attack On Iraq, Thus To Islamist State

[New York Times’ articles are reproduced by several hundreds of newspapers in the USA, including most of the major ones… With the exception of WSJ, to which I also subscribe, BTW. .]

Readers of the New York Times were not appraised of the fact that Wilson was a racist, because the New York Times blocked me. This has happened on many subjects, and still happens to this day: if I point out that Quantitative Easing favors Big Banks (“Too Big To Fail”), they block me. The New York Times, and similar pseudo “left” publications are mostly interested that I stay out of sight and out of mind of all and any readers. Even WordPress does this actively (removing my comments on other blogs).

Why so much aggressivity? Because the New York Times actively directs its readers towards brain-killing “blogs” from insipid, ill-informed writers out there. Those “blogs”, one should say “blobs” typically gloat that “Republicans are bad and stupid, Obamacare is the greatest thing ever, Democrats saved the economy, elect Clinton, it will get even better”.

A friend of mine who works in an executive position in the media in New York called my attention to the fact the New York Times ran a long article about its “top commenters”, and that they forgot to mention me (that was tongue in cheek, as he knows the NYT deliberately censors me). Actually the top commentator in the New York Times is probably your truly, if judged by the depth of the contributions, and that is why my comments on the war in Iraq were blocked in 2003, as I exposed the lies of Bush, and its parrot, Judith Miller, a New York Times (then) star journalist, about Iraq (although the NYT supported the destruction of Iraq, neither Obama nor Krugman did).

The NYT enabled comments on its (rather insipid) commentators, and I chimed in with (knowing it would be censored, as usual, I avoided any incendiary adjective):

The New York Times censors me systematically. It has admitted in emails to have blocked thousands of my comments for no reason whatsoever (except that the computer blocked unusual words, I was told).

None of my recent comments were published. Many, in the past, were delayed days. I found increasingly most comments published by the New York Times uninteresting: they support what the New York Times wants to be said.

As I have been systematically censored, I do not bother reading any (all too predictable) official comments anymore. I feel completely excluded, and a bit like a criminal: how do I dare to still send comments to the New York Times, after thousands of my comments were censored? Don’t I get the message?

Don’t I get the message that I do not deserve the little green marker: all what the New York Times wants from me is money (lots of it, over the decades), and not give me a green light.

I will probably end up, after decades of full subscription, cancelling my financial contribution to a paper whose censorship I despise ever more. Indeed, I spent my time searching for truth, and the New York Times declares that what I think is unworthy of publication, a danger, or bore, to society.

Thus, it is becoming ever more painful to read the Times. Let alone insulting, considering the platitudes most of the authorized commentators roll out. Full contributors to the NYT should have comments published right away, except if they exceed bounds defined by law. One day, manipulation of comments will unlawful.

Patrice Ayme

The preceding comment was, of course, censored. As were all my comments on the connection of the policies of the USA and the rise of the Islamist State, all my comments on Islam, or comments pointing out factual lies by the New York Times. Reading the New York Times is, increasingly, taking part into a fraudulent scheme, where correct ideas are diluted into ineffectiveness, or outright blocked (my comments on carbon taxation were also blocked, just as those on how to remedy inequality, and Delaware as the ultimate tax haven, etc.)

The New York Times is not the only Main Stream Media doing this: most do. It is the functional equivalent of search engines biasing searches for profit. It is a form of secret advertising, and should be unlawful for the same reasons as secret advertising is. It should be completely illegal, except if the MSM announces that it is biased, with an agenda, and actively misrepresenting public opinion. The “Daily Kos” has such a warning.

However, like the New York Times, the Daily Kos is lying, but at a higher level. Whereas the Times pretends to be the “Newspaper of Record”, the Daily Kos pretends to be on the “Left”. In truth, it’s not. Otherwise why do they have a skull and crossbones next to my name? In truth the Daily Kos was founded by a CIA employee of Greek origin (that’s where the “Kos” comes from). However all the American “Left” has fallen in the trap, and really feel the “Daily Kos” in on their side, when, in truth, it was just a mercenary for American for profit health insurers, and the like. As most “Left” people are addicted to the Daily Kos, my representation there as skull and crossbones has made me an object of repulsion for most would-be American “progressives”, as intended.

So who does not censor? The Wall Street Journal , and The Economist do not (it pains me to point this out).

That there would be more lying on the “Left” is no surprise, as the “Left” is where all the propaganda is, to persuade “progressives” to support regressive policies. Whereas more right-wing media don’t mind to be exposed to, or even adopt, “progressive” points of view: it shows, to themselves, how open-minded they are.

By supporting president Wilson with an intense cover-up of his racism and manipulations, the New York Times, while mellifluous, that is, sugar-coated, made itself an ally of the Ku Klux Klan. And such was its deepest effect.

As long as “progressives” do not realize they are being played, and how, there is little hope of real progress, it’s going to be Obama Care all over: lots of the correct talk, to hide ever more efficient plutocratic policies.

Patrice Ayme’