Posts Tagged ‘Discrimination’

Racism Starts With Discrimination

August 22, 2016

Official philosophers, paid to philosophize by institutions of advanced learning, tend to hopelessly small thoughts, most rewarding to their employers, who are always looking for ever more efficient ways to make us all stupid and divided. Indeed, those employers profit from great propaganda, and the best propaganda is the one setting the concept, universe, parameters, of the debate. A Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale, profits from the New York Times’ soapbox. Says he in “My Parents Mixed Message On The Holocaust”:

I am a philosopher. My calling, at its very basic level, obligates me to question the beliefs with which I was raised. But on this topic — how to live — I was given two answers. Which view do evidence and reason command?

Plutocrats Prefer We The People To Sink Rather Than Think. Well Paid Pseudo-Philosophers Are Best For That.

Plutocrats Prefer We The People To Sink Rather Than Think. Well Paid Pseudo-Philosophers Are Best For That.

Jason-the-philosopher pursues:

“I accept the legacy of my father. But it is impossible for me to shut out my mother’s concerns. Maybe the reality is that all groups are at war for power, and that to adopt an ethic of common humanity is a grave disadvantage. Maybe we should do what we can, but prioritize the safety of our families.

History speaks strongly on my mother’s side. So does my anecdotal evidence. I am white Jewish-American; my sons and wife are black Americans. I cannot retreat from my commitment to these groups. Being interested in the equal dignity of other groups is an additional burden.

It takes work to feel the suffering of Palestinians when I hear of the anger they bear toward my fellow Jews, even though I recognize its clearly justifiable source. It takes much more work to feel the suffering of poor white Americans when I hear it coupled with a thoroughly unjustifiable racism directed against my children. Is it work that I should be doing? Or should I be doing the work of attending primarily to the flourishing of my children?”

I sent a comment to the New York Times. It was censored. Of course. Here it is:

You call your sons “black Americans”. This makes them into what you call a “group”, and others call a “race” or a “tribe”.

Therefore you racialize and tribalize your own sons.

This is most strange, as your sons are actually, at the very least, half white Jewish-Americans. So why not call them “white Americans”?

But there is more. As most “black Americans”, even Michelle Obama, have already some “white American” ancestry, your sons are most probably more white than black. So why not call them what they are? White Americans?

Because racists anti-”black Americans” would call your sons “black Americans”? So you adopt the racist discourse to conceptualize your own sons?

To be a racist, one needs to discriminate AGAINST a “group”. To do so, one needs first to discriminate BETWEEN “groups”. Indeed, first, the “group” has to exist. Thus, to define a group by exerting enough discrimination to distinguish it is, by itself, discriminatory.

[End of comment censored by NYT. By the way, Jason the Philosopher, above, is author of “How propaganda works”]

This hostility to “racially” based discrimination is highly practical: all French Jews were not officially classified as “Jewish” by the state in France, as French law prevents the official establishment of religion or race, thus polls thereof. Thus, in France, there cannot be “groups” based on “race’, “religion”, etc. Consequence: during the Occupation of France by the Nazis, most French Jews escaped “the holocaust” (“only”, 75,000 were assassinated by the Nazis, most of them foreign Jews who had escaped to France, and whom the USA had refused to accept as refugees).

By contrast, The Netherlands required Dutch subjects who were Jewish to register as such. Conclusion: it was very easy for the Nazis to find them. Most Dutch Jews died. 125,000 of them.

In a broad perspective, classifying people under “religious” or “racial” appurtenance perpetuates religious discrimination and “racial” strife. As the USA is extremely mixed


Oh, last but not least, there was more than just one holocaust in the history of humanity. And some were more thorough. For example, the Cathars were fully (holo) burned (caust). Literally (once, in a particular mass assassination, 2,000 Cathars were burned, alive, together!) Judaism does not have the right to own the concept of “holocaust”, and to refuse to share it with any other “group”.

Doing so, monopolizing the concept and usage of “holocaust” would be an offense against countless groups, reason, and knowledge. Not a good way to avoid a repeat, or, at the very least, hostility.

As Voltaire pointed out ironically, official philosophers are not there to find the truth, but to comfort power. One does not find wisdom by following the money. Racism starts with discrimination, and, apparently, Yale philosophy professors are paid to discriminate between human groups. Not coincidentally, the famous “Skull and Bones” society was founded in Yale in the early Nineteenth Century. It inspired the Nazis, and even some of the most dreadful  SS propaganda.

Patrice Ayme’    


Long Live The Euro: 3) Exiting By The Top

December 28, 2015


The Euro is one of the elements necessary to unify France and Germany. Fully constructing the supporting apparatus the Euro needs, entails, by itself, an entire hierarchy of unification projects subordinated to it.

So the problems the Euro creates are supposed to appear, and being solved, thereafter. How? By “coming out on top”. Division and bitterness, is coming on the bottom. Coming out on top means higher ideas, unification, harmony.

To reconstruct a European state is as if one were constructing a cathedral: one has to do the following. One decides to build it, and then make it so. Cathedral construction was modified, as needed. Arches were progressively added, and, when problems were found, they were fixed. When it was discovered that the gigantic Amiens cathedral was bulging out, and was going to collapse, and enormous iron belt was added to its waist. It survived the world wars.

Paris had an enormous Roman cathedral for nearly a millennium. However, in the Twelfth Century, Parisians decided that, instead of refurbishing it once again, and expanding it, it would be better to build an entire new cathedral in what was known then as the “Frankish style”. The church leaders explicitly stated this as a technological project to awe the masses, and instruct the plutocrats as to the new possibilities technology offered. So the old cathedral was demolished, and the present one built. (There are no picture of the previous building, it stood fifty meters west of the present one.)

What present day, patritotic Europeans do not want to see again:

By 1200 CE, The Renovated Roman Empire of the Franks Had Become A Big Disunited Mess. Wars Blossomed All Over

By 1200 CE, The Renovated Roman Empire of the Franks Had Become A Big Disunited Mess. Wars Blossomed All Over

One thing can be picked up from the map: it is the French themselves, the Western Franks, those based around Paris, who created the mess, by insisting on going their own way, and that everybody had the right to go their own way.

Charlemagne himself had launched the way towards that mess: he let Venice stay sort-of independent (although the Frankish empire needed Venice’s fleet), and then Charlemagne outright created the Papal States (by giving territories to the Pope upon which he could exert material power).

It is finally Francois I who understood that France and Germany had to be unified again. But, although he had been elected king of France (by the kingdom’s council), he failed in the 1519 CE election as Roman-German emperor.

Instead, Spain, Germany and Italy (plus the Americas) got united. The result was nearly 200 years of war between France and Spain, which created the independent, tolerant, somewhat republican Netherlands, while finishing with still another world war, the War of the Spanish Succession, which France barely won (losing territory in the process, and fostering British and Dutch power).

By then the Netherlands, Britain and France, the former two created by the latter, and long the same polity, were at each other’s throats. To win, Britain heavily financed Prussia, while France enjoyed a succession of ill advised dictators (Louis XIV, Louis XV, Napoleon).

Clearly one should go back to basic principles:

Europe Was A Creation Of The Franks, Not Just As A State, But As A Concept:

The power, and vision, of the Franks created Europe. It was originally mostly motivated by survival, and the will to set right was Late Romans had set wrong.

We actually know enough about the rise of Frankish power to discern the philosophies at work. Aetius, a Roman commander-in-chief who had been brought up (from an exchange/hostage program) among the Huns all too long, naturally used the Huns all too much. After Aetius was assassinated in one of these conspiracies Late Rome was rife with, his closest collaborators took over. They switched back to the 150 year old alliance with the Federated Franks, the fiercest enemy of the Huns (who thereafter disappear from history).

Europe is a modern concept created by the Franks anew in the Eighth Century; the original Europe, in the Eighth Century BCE, 16 centuries earlier, designated continental Greece. But that name, itself, the name of a Princess, was an older myth which acknowledged the debt Greece had to Phoenicia (nowadays Lebanon, and, more generally, the Middle East).

If one wants to build something great, one has to start somewhere. A European currency exists, and France and Germany constitute an “optimal currency area”, all by themselves. They have very similar republics. Both have a very high minimum wage, German police can pursue thugs inside France at will (and reciprocally). Both consult continually, Germany has agreed to help France’s wars in a supportive role.

In truth, Germany has become France, after around two centuries of error under Prussian misguidance.

So what are the problems with the common currency? Well, all these problems it was supposed to bring. A first one, of course, is the problem of making a Banking Union. The situation there is quite complex, yet unification is under way: the 200 largest banks are supposed to be inspected (smaller banks are crucial to the German economy, but they tend to be bankrupt, so they have been spared the present inspection regime).

What is there not to like? Well, don’t ask American plutocrats and their obsequious servants; they will stat to recite again Friedman’s hare-brained, shallow and disingenuous arguments.

Finally all what the American plutocrats and their butlers have to stay is that, never, ever, could France and Germany get unified again, so they could not possibly share a common currency (aside from the dollar, which American plutocrats control, through their rogue financial system). What they should stay, if the truth was their goal, is that they dread an ever greater unification of France and Germany.

First, because they won’t control it as readily. Secondly, because of the tradition of revolution, for which France, in particular, is known.

Civilization means revolutions, plutocracy, its obsequious servants and greedy opportunists, hate both. Thus they hate European Unification.

Why is the USA different? Simple: countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia are gigantic, and full of recent immigrants. Recent immigrants in a giant country can always go somewhere else, where construction, expansion, conquest, fracking, tar sands, coal and iron ore, lithium, what-not, is going on. No such possibilities in Europe, or then tightly regulated.

Recent immigrants are also anxious not to be seen whining, complaining, talking back, agitating, rebelling, lest they be not trusted anymore. In countries such as France, or Greece, if you do NOT whine, complain, talk back, argue, rebel, it is the exact way around: it is a servile, anxious to please, fit and conform attitude, which is not trusted.

One could see this with Obama: for years, it was said by his opponents that he was not a genuine American. Actually, he was not even an American, they asserted. The American Constitution invites this: it distinguishes American-born Americans, and immigrants (the French and now German Constitutions do not). An immigrant American cannot be elected president.

Discrimination is more American than mother or apple pie. Anxious to conform, American Jews, such as Milton Friedman, who could not even bother to express concern on behalf of their brethren while they were in danger of being exterminated, now have the infuriating impudence to teach us about strife being hindered by division. Verily, some people learned nothing, and are the lowest of the low.

So should the French and the Germans have a common currency? Well, in a sense, they used to have one, what was called “Euro-dollars”. The dollar, was, de facto, Europe’s common currency.

France and Germany do not discriminate against their citizens on ground of their origins. This is one of many ways in which France and Germany are similar. Why so similar? Well, they spend a lot of thinking finding out which French, or German qualities, laws, regulations, habits, appreciations, they should adopt.

France and Germany are now closer in spirit with each other than they are with the USA. So they should have rejected the dollar as a common currency, and get their own, according to the very argument the Euro haters have been using. And that’s exactly what they did.

Patrice Ayme’

Pantheon Pathos

May 27, 2015


Today, the French government inducted another four resistance fighters to the Pantheon. Good point: they could keep on doing this for a million years. Bad point: Why should most resistance fighters and their descendants would have to wait thousands of years to be recognized as equally worthy?

Worse: this shows that the French republic is (mis)guided, to this day, by (what I call) celebritism and arbitrariness (what makes those four resistance fighters more valuable than others? That they were connected to a general, De Gaulle, one of them by genes)? And even worse: but I better reserve this for the punch line.

Diminishing French President Dwarfed By Pantheon

Diminishing French President Dwarfed By Pantheon

Pan-Theon: All Gods. Choose your gods well, don’t just pick up a few, and make others angry.  Yes, silly and erroneous decisions diminish civilization. Be it indirectly giving weapons to the so-called Islamist State (as Obama worried he would, and then did!), or just pointing at a few, as they were Muhammad, worthy of a discriminatory cult.

Why to worry so much about France, some will sneer? One of my USA friends recently, slightly infuriated as she was (thanks, in no small measure to my finely tuned devilish ways), told me “Nobody cares about France anymore, the place has become so irrelevant. Look at me, I learned French, and my children are learning Spanish.”

Most people do not know why France is so important, but a hint is that France gave birth to both England as we know it, and gave enough of a shove to England in America, to give birth to the USA (something finalized at Yorktown, when the three French commanders, La Fayette, Rochambeau, De Grasse, and the American commander, Washington brought the rendition of the British Army and its German troops). The USA itself, at this point, is just an addendum to Frankish history. That’s not just a slight, but a heavy duty.

The truth, and the French are the first to forget it, is that the Imperium Francorum (“Empire of the Franks”) was the successor state of the Roman Empire, SPQR, the Senātus PopulusQue Rōmānus, or more directly, of the Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire). After four centuries of Frankish recovery (including stopping and reversing the Islamist invasion), the Roman Empire was officially re-launched at Christmas 800 CE, when Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope one and only Roman Emperor in Rome (to Constantinople’s rage).

So all of Western Europe is actually the set of Frankish successor states.

Thus it matters what France is doing today. It was good that the Frankish Franco-German leaders, Hollande (because, as the Franks, is ancestors came from there) and Merkel proposed greater unification for the Eurozone. (Ahead, and because of, Cameron hair brained des-unifying proposals.)

So today, the French government decided to install four resistance fighters to the Pantheon.

Coffins representing the two women and two men — Genevieve de Gaulle-Anthonioz, Germaine Tillion, Pierre Brossolette and Jean Zay — were escorted through Paris streets to be interred Thursday after a sound-and-light show Wednesday night.

The women’s coffins contain only soil from their gravesites: their families didn’t want the bodies exhumed. Maybe they knew, deep down inside, that the ceremony is unfair, and that it is just political exploitation.

Indeed, why not to honor all resistance fighters? And these two women did not die under torture, actually, they did not die at all. Others died under torture from the Gestapo and its minions. At the very least, those who died under torture ought to get to the Pantheon too. The point is that, although these two women resisted, they did not resist to such a degree that they would have been worth of the torture chambers, right away.

Many others were; including British female agents, parachuted in France to conduct sabotage; many were tortured to death by the Nazis. We know this, for example from SS Commander Barbie’s Memoirs. Those girls who parachuted over France knew the risk: to be caught, and tortured to death. But why are they not parachuted, as they deserve, in the Pantheon? And don’t try to tell me they were not French: the moment they parachuted into Nazi occupied France with weapons, they became French, as far as I am concerned.

Hollande apologists will point at rising anti-Judaism (euphemistically, and grotesquely called “anti-Semitism”), and that celebrating resistance to Nazism helps to fight it. Yes, agreed, but my objection stands: why those four, and only those four. Because they were favored? De Gaulle’s niece was carefully not killed, because Heinrich Himmler thought she could be exchanged. She was also from some small French nobility.

So what’s truly celebrated here? Celebritism? At least, in part, and, as far as I am concerned, too much. Celebritism ought to be condemned, it’s something for civilization to leave behind. Celebritism is exactly why we have to choose between Clinton and Bush, as usual. And why Bush’s grandfather was one of Hitler’s most precious collaborators. Celebritism is also why income and wealth inequality has reached much higher level than during the Late Imperium Romanum (which did die, fundamentally, from said inequality… Or, at least, so I claim).

Celebritism supports oligarchy, which supports plutocracy, which supports intellectual fascism, which supports stupidity. Turtles all the way down to hell. Kill celebritism, and, ultimately, you will kill the cult of stupidity. It should not require much brains to realize that being obsessed by those who are famous for being famous is rather hare brained.

The French Republic has a duty to do better, because, historically, it guided civilization. The clowns presently in charge ought to be reminded of their shortcomings. (But, naturally, if too stupid, they can’t understand any of the preceding.)

Patrice Ayme’

Note 1: So far there were only 71 persons in the French Pantheon, including one woman (Ms. Curie; why her Nobel Laureate, and discoverer of nuclear energy, daughter, Irene, is not there is another mystery to me). All the “just”, those who harbored Jews at the risk of their lives, as my grandparents did, are there. So there is a precedent for admitting a CLASS, at the Pantheon.

Note 2: The original Pantheon still stands in Rome. To this day, it’s the tallest free standing (purely) concrete structure in the world. (That’s probably why the Christians did not destroy it: too tough, and no stone to steal to build their Vatican and what not…)

Positive discrimination

January 5, 2010


Associating cause and effect may be discrimination, but it is discrimination of the good kind. Discrimination is next to discernment, both are important to the culinary art, and to intelligence in general. Among the mentally underperforming, and easily whining, all these concepts became the object of disapprobation, in recent decades. Probably too tiring for their lazy little minds.

Propelled by Obama’s intelligence, the Obama administration has seen the light, and courageously decided to act accordingly. Citizens from nations including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria will face intensified screening, but U.S. citizens and most nations will not. This is a worldwide decision, because to screen a terrorist flying into the USA, one has to stop him before he arrives, or, better, before he starts. The problem of the terrorist is a quite a bit like the problem of a nuclear warhead: no use proclaiming victory after he detonates.

[It was amusing that Napolitano, the Homeland Security chief declared: "the system worked", after a Nigerian smoldered inside a plane, when his explosive petered out, and was jumped by a young white male Dutch tourist. One feels well defended.]

Ah, well, how did I dare use the masculine gender above, as in "he", and "him"? Am I discriminating against men? Am I assuming that most terrorists are males? Well, most terrorists are male. OK, there has been a few female bombers, especially in Israel, in no small reason because Israel’s security services had noticed that most terrorists were male, and acted accordingly. The fact remains that in the human species, males are more oriented towards hunting, war, and mayhem. To observe this is not being sexist, it’s seeing what can be seen, which can be seen to be what ought to be seen.

Reality, my dear Watson, nothing like it.

So 14 countries are going to be discriminated against. Too bad. But what is bad, exactly? In the past, Europe used its cultural-technological superiority to exterminate the locals in several continents: the Americas (mostly), Australia, and Northern Eurasia.

OK, I am aware that Dr. Jared Diamond insinuated (in "Guns, Germs and Steel"), that it was not the technological-scientific rational superior culture of Europe which exterminated the natives, and a nasty philosophy or two to go with it, but a variety of beasties and grasses (!) that Europe happened to be associated with, purely coincidentally (!!).

Mr. Diamond’s notion has been most pleasant to the Euro-American imperialists, because it told them that the holocausts that happened were not the fault of the Euro-American imperialist system. But that same desire was not viewed as correct by a large cohort of French associated thinkers, of the rather anti-American, and anti-French type. Those thinkers pushed instead the opposite notion that animated anti-colonialism much earlier. That notion is called MULTICULTURALISM.

According to multiculturalism, all cultures are equivalent. To discriminate against a culture is as if one were discriminating against a race. Now it is true that the white man had used his superior culture to justify superior holocausts. Authorities paying for native scalps in English speaking America, and the holocaust in Namibia under Goering, three centuries later, are extreme examples of culturally founded rabidly murderous racism. Multiculturalism is also correct when it just insists that many of globally inferior cultures sometimes were, and are, locally superior. Excellent ideas can come up from down below.

In recent years, some tried to make multiculturalism into United Nation law. This was of course not just erroneous, but also grotesque… And exploitative. (Because it is often exploitative to encourage people’s stupidity.)

Take an example. Joan of Arc was condemned to be burned alive because she had worn men’s clothing. (The charge of heresy had not been retained, because the very young Jeanne, representing herself, was an excellent advocate; see annex.)

This was Franco-English culture, or more exactly, the French justice system, and culture, circa 1415 CE. Abysmal, is it not? Nowadays not even fiercely sexist countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Iran would execute a woman for wearing men’s clothing. And a fortiori not by burning her alive slowly in a major spectacle (see Annex for some details, once again). Why? Because world culture, today, even in the most primitive places, such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran, is way more advanced than France and England were circa 1415.

How did we get from the primitive European Middle Ages to today’s much more enlightened world civilization? Well, by fighting wars. Some were philosophical wars (a French philosopher was burned alive too, on top of his books, more than a century after Joan of Arc, for having said bad things about Allah, or however they wanted to call their imaginary boss, same as the old boss; many philosophers were burned alive, not just Giordano Bruno).

The fact is most 9/11 assassins came from Saudi Arabia. The fact is most daily terrorism, at this point, is Muslim terrorism, and it is no wonder one would become a terrorist if one believed the Qur’an literally. And most Muslim terrorism originates from young men having a particular physical appearance, from peculiar places. Thus those ought to have their lives, let alone their persons, examined carefully. It is applied Socratism, with very practical consequences.

(This does not mean that all Muslim terrorists do not have, also, legitimate gripes; if you take a young Afghan male, and kill his family in a NATO bombing, he will have, unfortunately, legitimate gripes; that is why bombings should be practiced ONLY on the battlefield, and NEVER in a situation when civilians MIGHT POSSIBLY be hurt. This ought to be a fundamental condition, and when it is not respected, as when some criminal German officer ordered an airstrike on a gasoline truck, not knowing for sure whether there was a civilian there, among more than one hundred people next to the truck; as it was, dozens of innocent civilians were killed, and some NATO officers belong in jail, for an extensive period.)

Back to preventing terrorist attacks: the little white grandmother, or nine year old Caucasian boy from Iceland is unlikely to present as great a danger as the strapping young man from Yemen, as far as carrying explosives on board. This ought to extent to visitors to such countries, or those associating to Muslim terror preaching: they ought to have a big red phosphorescent label following every single one of their apparition in any ID check, worldwide, whatever they are doing, wherever they are going, be it at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or when renting a car, or showing up to rent a plane for the day, or paying for chemicals at the agricultural chemical supply store, or registering at a university, or applying to a job, or a bank account, or piloting lessons. Not that they ought to always be stopped, but secret services should be warned.

(One should not deduce from this that we would get a fascist state: policing the state is as far from fascism as it gets; the expression "police state" is unfortunate, because all too close to the policed state… which we all strive for.)

The ones engaging in discrimination are the countries fostering, tolerating, excusing, and encouraging TERRORIST SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT. They are fine gourmets of terror: let them taste their own dish, if they like it so much.

Those countries, and their citizens, should suffer increasing inconvenience for their mental behavior, and physical consequences thereof. Then maybe they will become more motivated to join civilization with more enthusiasm. It is high time to get basic, and logical. Terrorists countries cannot argue that they are terrorized, and poor victims; they are perpetrators, too, and they, and their citizenry, and their systems of thought, and ought to be treated as such.

Yes, I know this is not "politically correct". But philosophically, logically and historically correct is more important than paying lip service to absurdities. The later often leads to making the absurd into a religion.

An example. Overall, the Germans were collectively culprit of, and for, Nazism, and Hitler: after all, they voted for the guy, and more than once. If the Germans had been punished collectively earlier, things would not have had to become as horrible as they did.

I also know that the collective guilt of the German people was not retained by the Allied justice system at Nuremberg as a valid notion. Well, philosophically speaking, that was a grotesque mistake: the Nazis were elected, and enthusiastically supported, by the German population. (Exonerating the Germans happened under the pretext of Cold War reasons, but, in truth, really to cover the bloody tracks of the plutocracy, and keep the plutocratic system going, as it does, to this day.)

Fortunately for everybody, the Germans themselves did not stay as completely blind as that, and the German state increasingly took measures to flagellate the intellectual mistakes that led to Nazism.

This decriminalization of Germany has been a slow and increasing process; even in the 1950s, some of the notorious Nazis, such as Feldmarschall Erich von Manstein, (1887–1973), Heeresgruppenführer, had regained much of his superb and influence on the German society, or even its military. Never mind that von Manstein, a magnificent general, was a notorious convicted war criminal, culprit of the worst crimes against civilians (and he left plenty of criminal orders in writing too, that is why he got 18 years in jail, of which he served just a portion!). That respectability for Nazi criminals would not be possible nowadays, because the Germans have come to realize the criminality of the old thought system that terrorized Germany and most of Europe.

Erich von Manstein


Earlier, but related, Europe suffered under an insanely cruel form of Christianity more or less invented and certainly installed by the Roman fascist dictators in such an absurd way, that civilization collapsed in the West, while becoming such a monstrous parody of its own terror in the Orient, that it then succumbed to a few rather primitive Arabs from the desert.

After six centuries or so of cloaked secular relief under the Franks, Christianism in a strong literal, terrorizing, version came back, under the guise of the Crusades, first directed against the Muslims in the Orient, but then against the Western populations too. The philosopher Abelard tried to stop the process, nearly all by himself, but the great fascist and fanatic, ("Saint") Bernard de Clairvaux won the day.

At that point the fundamentally secular political power of the West mostly used the fascism of Christianism in a cynical way, it was not prisoner of it (but for the occasional lunatic such as Saint Louis (IX), or emperor Philippe II). Many of the kings and emperors of the Middle Ages considered the Church to be their tool, and acted that way. We are very far from the extremely superstitious sons of Roman emperor Constantine, founder of Christianism, who really believed that Christ was just around the corner, ready to come back, and destroy the world.

As the Bible [Peter 3:10] has it, in typical fashion:"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Passages such as this infuriated many European monarchs, including England’s Henry VIII.

[It is my pleasure not to discriminate here: the Qur’an, in its usual psittacine fashion, has apocalyptic concepts to the same effect.]

Europe freed herself from superstitious religious terror and the fascism that parented it, the hard way: the various Christian insanities killed many millions of people, and caused the Dark Ages. One gets there without even counting the Nazi variant of Christian anti-Judaism, and the Crusades, both of which killed well in excess of ten millions. The fascism hiding behind it all killed an order of magnitude more.

"Hiding" is probably the most important word here. More important than "superstition", "religion", or even "fascism". "Hiding" was enabling.

That the Bible is full of terror and superstition is bad, but, just like its son, the Qur’an, it has its flashes of depth. As John 8:32 puts it:"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."Well, maybe, sort of. Verily, as the philosopher will say, the truth shall be hard to know, but only the truth allows survival.

How do we get to the truth? Step by step. By eliminating first obvious lies, or falsehood. To claim all cultures are equal is an obvious falsehood. Some are superior to others. The whole history of civilization is the effort to define how and why a cultural trait can be superior to another.

Because progress there is. Even the last of today’s terrorists would not respect the otherwise very honorable Maori culture’s cannibalism. (Not that I am down on the Maoris; during the early Crusades, the Franks, perhaps to make fun of, and certainly cynically using Jesus’ weird symbolic cannibalism, did eat tons of Muslims… Not something the official history of the West likes to remember… But this cannibalism was not something central to European culture, whereas it was central to Maori culture, as it was central in all cultures, if one goes back far enough. Al Qaeda is bad, but not that bad: progress!)

A giant truth is that little truths have to be told, first, otherwise the big ones will never dare come out of the closet.

Some nations, some cultures, some people are inferior and dangerous. This is a little truth. To ignore this little truth is not just inferior and dangerous, and not honorable, and not very smart, but it also perfidiously berates those others, one claims to respect the inferior culture thereof, because it does not give them the honor of telling them what we perceive to be the truth, which is often the greatest gift there is.

Moreover, watching carefully obvious potential suspects may help us to go to the restroom in planes, have a blanket, a book, while not being so well chained, that only the stewardesses could change our diapers. What is there not to like?


Patrice Ayme


Annex: OF THE INFERIOR CULTURE EUROPE USED TO HAVE: Joan of Arc was too extraordinary a character, many times over. Some, studying what is known about her nowadays, smell a deep conspiracy. She rode too well, fought too well, reasoned too well, knew too many languages, and performed too many miracles to be the naïve teenage shepherd that she was depicted to be.

Anybody reading transcripts of Jeanne’s trial will be struck by her intelligence. Short of having her sent by God, she may have been sent by some suspect queen who had interest to further the three way civil war between Anglois, Francois and Bourguignons. In any case, once she was captured, a ransom was not paid, and that was strange. She took an oath to stop been a bad girl, but violated her oath after dressing with pants to avoid being raped in jail, she said. The punishment for making fun of the court was burning alive. (I am not discriminating against Western Europeans here, by alleging that the Europeans were particularly cruel: Chinese tortures were quite exquisite; in Japan the punishment for whatever the lower classes had done, was crucifixion.)

Thus somebody was burned alive in Rouen, nice and slow (not necessarily the possibly very well connected Jeanne herself, though, recent scholarship has shown).

Burning women alive was as frequent, in these times, as Hollywood super productions nowadays. To prove she was a woman, after the fire had stripped her, the executioner pushed away the burning wood, and allowed people to see, by touching and exhibiting, here and there, that indeed the moaning criminal was, no doubt, a woman. I am giving some embarrassing details here, so that the reader can realize how inferior European culture was at the time. Not that this sort of horrors was just about Jeanne, or even women. The top Czech religious intellectual Hus was not treated much better by the top cardinals a generation later: burned alive too. A full century later, the religious madman, and hero of Protestantism, Calvin, originally a Frenchman, burned a philosopher alive with lots of green wood, in Geneva, so it would last longer.