Posts Tagged ‘fascism’

Socrates A Poisonous, Unexamined Fascist?

September 22, 2016

The Pathos Of Truth Seeked & Violated. Unexamined Fascist, Unexamined Prostitute? Both. Why Was That Covered Up, So Long? For The Same Exact Cause Which Made Socrates Famous!

The death of Socrates keeps haunting philosophy. And that, per se, is a sad, yet very revealing tale. The old common wisdom was that Socrates died, as a martyr to truth (as Hypatia, Boetius, Giordano Bruno, and many others certainly did). You want a hero for philosophy? Pick Jean Cavaillès. In the presence of Cavaillès, Sartre nearly wetted his pants. We will see that the mood behind Socrates’ actions is significantly different. Socrates was on the side of those who killed Cavaillès.

Indeed, a casual look at the basic setup of Socrates’ trial contradicts the theme that Socrates was mostly a martyr for truth. Socrates was simply accused to be the mastermind of the young dictators who ruled Athens after her tremendous defeat, and half annihilation. Socrates was also mentor, friend and lover (!) of the young Alcibiades who, deprived of a generalship by Athens, then betrayed her for her lethal enemy, fascist, ultra-racist Sparta.

Agreed, philosophy needs heroes, and has plenty. Here is one:

Jean Cavaillès. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

Jean Cavaillès, Anti-Fascist Martyr. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

[Jean Cavaillès was tortured and assassinated by the Gestapo in 1943-1944. He is buried in the crypt of the Sorbonne.]

Thus Socrates was a sort of Charlie Manson of serial traitors and killers, whose mental actions led, or accompanied, Athens’ near-death experience in losing a devastating war, and the resulting dictatorship by Socrates’ students. Temples of democracy such as Britain, France, and the USA have gaily executed traitors, or incompetents, for much less than that.

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Stanford political science and classics professor, Josiah Ober opines in “The Civic Drama Of Socrates’ Trial” that:  “Conventional wisdom sees Socrates as a martyr for free speech, but he accepted his death sentence for a different cause… In his influential interpretation The Trial of Socrates (1988), the US journalist-turned-classicist I F Stone saw this trial as an embattled democracy defending itself. In Stone’s view, Socrates had helped to justify the junta’s savage programme of oligarchic misrule and was a traitor. More commonly, Socrates is seen as a victim of an opportunistic prosecutor and a wilfully ignorant citizenry. In truth, politics is indispensable to understanding the trial of Socrates, but in a slightly more sophisticated way.”

I love sophistication, philosophy is all about increased sophistication (so is science). Sophistication, translated, is wisdomization: sticking to reality ever better by ever more subtle, complex logic.

The point was not so much that Socrates justified the savage programme, but that he formed the minds who organized said programme, “corrupting the youth”. And he was at it again, even after being amnestied. Professor Ober describes the problem well (although he fails to fathom the enormity of what he describes).

Stanford’s Josiah: For what people today call ‘the wisdom of crowds’, Socrates had nothing but scorn. Athenian democrats who argued that the many, the group, were collectively more likely to get important matters right than any individual expert earned his antipathy. Whether or not anyone actually was expert in the art of politics, Socrates certainly supposed that there could be such an expert, and that the Athenians were deluded in thinking themselves collectively wise.”

The “experts” would have been naturally his rich, best (“aristos”) boyfriends. Professor Ober is led to the obvious question, but fail to recognize that he does not answer it:

“How did Socrates both scorn the idea of collective wisdom and yet maintain obedience to Athens’ laws, even when he disagreed with how they were interpreted? The rudimentary answer lay in the foundation that Athens (as opposed to, for example, Sparta) provided in its laws and political culture. Athens mandated liberty of public speech and tolerance for a wide range of private behaviour.”

Yes, but public incompetence could lead to trial (as happened to Pericles and many strategoi, generals and admirals). Anyway, that is not an answer. I will give a better answer: Socrates himself had no answer to his drastic self-contradictions, so hise self-delusion fatally committed him to self-destruction. Yet political science professor Ober sees the problem:

“By 399 BCE, however, four years after the end of the tyranny, and with Socrates doing the same things in public that had seemingly inspired the junta’s leaders, the Athenians regarded his speech very differently. In the eyes of the majority of his fellow citizens, Socrates was no longer an eccentric with potential for contributing to public life. He was now either a malevolent public enemy, or deluded and dangerously unable to recognise that his speech predictably produced seriously bad outcomes. And so the way was left open for Meletus to launch his prosecution.”

Right. What professor Ober fails to mention is that only the intervention of mighty Sparta prevented Athens’ annihilation after she surrendered, having lost already half of her population (other cities wanted to do to Athens what Athens did to Melos). Try to imagine this: the city-state half annihilated, democracy destroyed by Socrates’ students, and then? The strongest mood that Socrates had been instilling was to oppose democracy. And he was again at it, after the amnesty he had profited from. What could motivate such a rage?

Unsurprisingly, Socrates was put on trial for “corrupting the youth and impiety”. (The City was to some extent divinized, with Athena as her protecting goddess.)

“With unsettling metaphors and logical demonstrations, he made it clear that he [Socrates] opposed democracy… Xenophon implies that Socrates chose that sort of speech as a method of jury-assisted suicide: he was… tired of life and allowed the Athenians to end it for him.”

This is what I believe. And I go further than Xenophon, by explaining the cause of Socrates’ depression. Socrates may have been tired of his own contradictions.And may have been ravaged by regret. (Regret, I reckon, is a powerful human instinct.)

The Socrates’ worship interpretation is due to Plato. It poses Socrates as martyr to civic duty. But, as it turns out, “civic duty”, for Socrates, seems to be mostly blind obedience to “the Laws”, while viciously criticizing the Direct Democracy which gave birth to them.

That Socrates respected the laws of Athens while despising the Direct Democracy which had passed them is illogical in the extreme. Yes, I know Socrates said he respected “the Laws”, as if they were disembodied gods with a life of their own. But We The People passed said laws, and they lived only because We The People had created them, and We thge People could extinguish them just the same.

The “Laws” were nothing. We The People was everything. Socrates behaved as if he could not understand that.

Insisting that the Laws were everything reveals that the concept of blind obedience was more important to Socrates than arguing about the nature of what one should be obeying to, and why. Blind obedience is also the traditional ultimate value of standard fascism: law and order as supreme.

Blind obedience had been what the junta’s rule was all about. What the rule of Socrates’ young students and lovers had been all about. That’s also what fascism is all about. However, arguing, debating, fighting is how to get to the thorough examination necessary for the “examined life”.   

The contradiction was, and is, blatant. Socrates’ mental system was shorting out. Socrates had been shorting out for half a decade or more: he ambitiously wanted to “examine life”, but he could not even examine the minds of his followers, let alone his own, or why he was hanging around them. Why was he hanging around them? They were rich, he was not, but he lived off their backs and crumbs. And the feeling of power they provided with (after Obama got to power I saw some in his entourage becoming drunk with power).  

Arguably, Socrates was a martyr to fascism, a Jihadist without god. There is nothing remarkable about that. The very instinct of fascism is to give one’s life, just because fanatical combat is the ultimate value, when one gets in the fascist mood. In this case, the fanatical combat was against We The People.

Posing Socrates as a martyr for intellectual freedom is farfetched: fascism, blind obedience, passion for oligarchs are all opposed to the broad mind searching for wisdom requires.

Some will sneer: you accuse Socrates to be a fascist, why not a racist? Well, I will do this too. The golden youth Socrates loved so much and drank with were hereditary so. Socrates believed knowledge was innate (so an ignorant shepherd boy knew all of math: this is the example he rolled out!) If knowledge was innate, one can guess that the “aristos”, the best, were also innately superior. That is the essence of racism.

Logically enough, Socrates disliked science: nothing was truly new under the sun (as all knowledge was innate). So much for examining life.

It is more probable that Socrates was indeed, just a stinging insect buzzing around, stinging the idea of Direct Democracy. In exchange, his rich, young, plutocratic boyfriends would fete and feed him. Such was Socrates’ life, a rather sad state of affair, something that needed to be examined, indeed, by the head doctor.

Socrates may have been clever enough to feel that he was an ethical wreck. His suicidal submission may have been an attempt to redeem himself, or whatever was left of his honor (which he also tried to regain with his insolence to the jury).

Plato would pursue the fight for fascism (“kingship”). Aristotle, by teaching, mentoring, educating, befriending, advising a number of extremely close, family-like friends, the abominable Alexander, Craterus and Antipater, finally fulfilled Socrates’ wet dream: Athenian Direct Democracy was destroyed and replaced by an official plutocracy overlorded by Antipater (supremo dictator, and executor of Aristotle’s will, in more ways than one).

This trio of philosophical malefactors became the heroes 22 centuries of dictatorship (“monarchy”) needed as a justification. A justification where “civic duty” was defined as blind obedience to the “Laws” (whatever they were, even unjust “Laws”). This amplified Socrates’ hatred of Direct Democracy. So the works of the trio were preciously preserved, and elevated to the rank of the admirable.

It is rather a basket of deplorables. We owe them the destruction of Direct Democracy for 23 centuries, and counting.

And what Of Socrates’ regret for being so deplorable? (Which I alleged he had to experience.) A dying Socrates lying on a couch, uncovered his face and uttered— “Crito, I owe the sacrifice of a rooster to Asklepios; will you pay that debt and not neglect to do so?”  Asklepios cured disease, and provided with rebirth, symbolized by the singing of the rooster calling the new day. This has been traditionally interpreted (by Nietzsche) as meaning that (Socrates’?) death was a cure for (his?) life. Nietzsche accused Socrates to be culprit of the subsequent degeneracy of civilization (and I do agree with that thesis). Certainly, Socrates, a self-described “gadfly” was deprived of gravitas.

Wisdom needs to dance, but cannot be altogether deprived of gravitas, as it is, after all, the gravest thing.. Maybe Socrates felt this confusedly, besides having regrets for his status of thinking insect. Socrates could have easily escaped, and Crito had an evasion ready. By killing himself Socrates behaved like a serious Japanese Lord opening his belly to show his insides were clean, and its intent good. Well, many a scoundrel has committed seppuku, and hemlock is nothing like cutting the belly.

Human beings are endowed with the instinct of regret, because we are the thinking species. It is crucial that we find the truth, and when we have lived a lie, indulged in error, the best of use are haunted by the past, and revisit it to find what the truth really was. Regrets has many stages, like cancer. The most correct philosophical form of regret is to re-established the truth. The cheap way out is to flee from reality, as Socrates did.

How to explain Socrates’ insolence to the jury? There again, it was a desperate attempt at reaching the sensation of self-righteousness and trying to impart it to the jury (this is often seen  on the Internet, with the glib one-liners and vacuous logic which pass for depth nowadays).

The inexperienced democracy in Athens did not always behave well. Athens behaved terribly with Melos (see link above). But the case of Socrates is different. Ultimately, the train of thoughts and moods promoted by Socrates weakened those who wanted to defend the free republics of Greece against the fascist, exterminationist Macedonian plutocracy. Demosthenes and Athenian Direct Democracy was mortally poisoned by Socrates.

Thus, Socrates execution was not just tit for tat. It was not enough of tit for tat. It was a preventive measure, in defense of Direct Democracy, which failed, because it was too meek.

Democracy does not mean to turn the other cheek, to have the golden beast eat that one too. In ultimate circumstances, democracy has an ultimate weapon too, and that is fascism. This is why the Roman, French and American republics prominently brandish the fasces. Fascism is the ultimate war weapon. But fascism is not the ultimate society. Far from it: political fascism, just a few individuals leading entails intellectual fascism, namely just a few moods and ideas leading. Before one knows it, one is in plutocracy, where not only wealth rules, but so does the cortege of the worst ideas and moods which characterize it.

Socrates often talk the talk, contradicting completely the way he lived (for example he said one should never return an injury, but, as a hoplite, he killed at least four men in combat!)

Socrates spoke so well sometimes, that he can stay a symbol of truth persecuted. But, because it is a lie, replacing him by Hypatia, Boetius, Bruno and, or Cavaillès, and, or, others, is urgent. Indeed, the reality is that Socrates was not just inimical to democracy. The current of thought he floated by was inimical to science, mental progress, and the truth he claimed to be pining for.  And even him may have been so overwhelmed by these astounding contradictions, that, in the end, assisted suicide for his pathetic mental writhing was, indeed, the optimal outcome.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Advertisements

Obama Closes Yosemite

June 20, 2016

OK, only part thereof. Something Europeans miss totally about the USA, is that it is an empire, a military empire, and obeying orders from above is view as the essence of morality. Yes, the Roman army worked exactly like that, for many centuries… Until it did not. This is what gives to the Trump phenomenon an interesting, not to say disquieting, perspective: as Americans view respecting orders from above the essence of morality (as the Prussian pseudo-philosopher Immanuel Kant ordered) one may wonder what will happen with President Donald Trump? Will Americans goose step behind him as they did with G. W. Bush? 

So President Obama shows up in Yosemite, and a gigantic expanse of cliffs is “closed”, a kilometer high, several kilometers across. What fascinated me was the obedient tune many climbers sounded in a climbing site I read. It was as if God had ordered them to do something, and they felt honored. In a place like France, the order would have been so unenforceable, it would not even have been tried. Many individuals would have made a MORAL point of disobeying it.  

This Entire Landscape Is The Area Which Was Closed To Climbing When Obama Visited For Three Days

This Entire Landscape Is The Area Which Was Closed To Climbing When Obama Visited For Three Days

To give the scale, of this piece of the North Rim of Yosemite Valley, the exposed landscape in the picture  is more than 4,000 feet (1,200 meters) high. I have climbed and run all over it, from left to right, and above, and beyond. Differently from Socrates, who engaged in combat during epic battles, I am reduced to meeker pursuits, to get to examine myself.

What is good about being an obedient little fascist, is that one never has to examine oneself: following Immanuel Kant, one can define one’s morality as following orders. And this is exactly what the Nazis dis, and explained to whoever wanted to listen to them. (The jury of Eichmann in Jerusalem was not impressed by Eichmann explaining he had been moral by obeying Kant, and condemned him to hang. The Israelis had learned a few important things in WW II!)

Now this sort of orders given to an American population eager to please its masters, is not an happenstance: it’s training graciously provided by the Deep State, another occasion for Americans, in this case rather young Americans (most climbers don’t make old bones) to obey orders. I sent the following comment, fully expecting racist, tribal, hypernationalistic abuse of the sort which passes for normal in the Anglo-Saxon world this days, regarding France (and I was not disappointed). Yes, philosophy rests on experiments, just like science:  

I love the way Americans take orders, thus showing they are not worthy to lead the world, civilizationally speaking, as they effectively do. This sort of self-humiliation would NEVER work in France. Instead little American sheep take unconstitutional orders with alacrity, pride and total obedience. They should be ashamed of themselves, instead, and the rest of the world should be afraid. Very afraid. Indeed, who is this Obama? An employee of We The People! Wake up, People, instead of just goose stepping proudly in the sunset of the dignity of the human spirit. The meaning and appeal of real climbing is freedom. Taking orders, the exact opposite.

I know perfectly well that the essence of the USA is the military thing: the Indians did not go away nicely. They resisted. The army exterminated them. General Jackson, commander of the US Army decided to attack them, and Congress was too scared to contradict him. Hence the Cherokee “March of Tears”. The famous Tocqueville saw it, in front of his very eyes, but, as this was outside of his philosophical understanding, did not draw any conclusion on the American character, from that experience (I obviously do). Maybe one of the reason Tocqueville is so popular in the United States is, precisely, that he did not draw any conclusion of the holocaust of the Native American over a full quarter of the US, precisely when he visited them. That makes Tocqueville an All-American boy: very smart on what’s less significant, mute on what is most significant.

Here is the order: “climbing areas will be closed over the weekend. Please see below for area closures for Thursday evening (6/16, tonight) through Sunday afternoon (6/19). There will also be other areas closed Friday evening through Saturday evening. We will keep you updated on the official word for the Friday/Saturday closures.

“All climbing routes from and including Church Bowl east to Washington Column (Washington Column itself remains open) will be closed from Thursday sunset through Sunday afternoon. This includes Bishops Terrace, Royal Arches, Serenity Crack, Son’s of Yesterday.”

Thank you for your cooperation in these temporary closures.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/climbingclosures.htm

The reactions I got were the usual abuse, insults and lies (deeply believed to be the truth): France was accused to be a Nazi bastion of cheese eating surrender monkeys. Always amusing from the country which, besides Germany, did the most for Adolf Hitler. OK, I plead guilty for provocation, but what is science, but for teasing out, provoking through experiments the true nature of things, be they human or mineral.

I also understand that Obama has little choice in these matters, or so he feels: the instinct of obedience, called also “peer pressure”, is strong in the empire. And Obama was selected, because he felt it, deep in his bones, to help him “navigate”, as he put it. Thus, when Obama became president, he obeyed. Obama obeyed the powers that be. The empire was safe with him. Thus, some are disappointed by Obama, worldwide, but he is loved in the US: “change you can believe in” was very very small. And next year, the meek progress Obamacare ephemerally proposed will blow-up (it’s already doing so). As the “health corridors” expire with the Obama presidency. But don’t worry: President Trump and his art of the deal, will have to pick up the pieces, and dozens of young Americans are ready to goose-step behind him, lauding all and any “closures” that the government may decide to order.

Patrice Ayme’

Military Industrial Complex: A Necessary Danger To Civilization

April 16, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So civilization needs MICs. No MIC, no civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Marcus Aurelius, INTELLECTUAL FASCIST: Why Rome Fell

February 16, 2016

Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (“Marcus Aurelius”) is generally revered as emperor and philosopher. Both attitudes are grievously erroneous, and have a bearing to what very serious people have considered, ever since, as the highest wisdom to be embraced. I will presently roll out some (new) reasons why this is so wrong.

What endangered the Roman State? The question has been considered since the Third Century’s turmoil, the time of the “Barrack Emperors”. In 360 CE emperor Julian explained why Christianism was bringing Romanitas down. Christians worshipped a secondary and “evil God” (and that the Serpent, bringing knowledge, was “good”!). Julian removed Christianism’s extravagant privileges (such as the right to execute heretics). However, Julian ruled only three years as Augustus. Immediately thereafter, the Christians came back with great vengeance, burning libraries to the ground.

Inventor Of Intellectual Fascism Catches Flies With Philosophical Honey

Inventor Of Intellectual Fascism Catches Flies With Philosophical Honey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

REAL HISTORY: World War One Inception

November 10, 2015

The real history is, all too often, still the secret history.

This is so true that I am not the first to think of that. The main, most revealing, horrors, massacres, and all,  most interesting and educational document we have on the history of the Mongols is called the “Secret History of The Mongols”. It was really secret, and written only for the elite (so they will learn how Genghis Khan did it, and the way he did it is much revealing than, say, the Prince of Machiavelli, or the “Art of War” of Sun Tzu).

Learning history from one’s master is to condemn oneself to perpetuate one’s subjugation.

History conducive to one’s servitude can be subtle. Extremely subtle.

Take three lies about World War One which are viewed as obvious truths by historically minded, college educated commoners:

  1. The USA had nothing to do with World War One’s inception. The USA only got involved in the war, against Germany, in April 1917.
  2. European powers are responsible of the inception of World War One.
  3. Germany was neither fascist nor “Nazi” (that is prone to mass murdering atrocities akin to holocausts) in 1914.

The three notions above are subtle lies. OK, not so subtle, it turns out, and certainly catastrophic. Catastrophic, gigantic lies whose consequences are alive and well as we try to think nowadays. Perpetuating these lies by repeating them like educated parrots, makes one incapable of understanding what is perhaps the main cause of evil in the world.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

For the third lie, one has just to look at what the Kaiser’s Germany did in Namibia: a deliberate holocaust aiming at exterminating the Natives and replacing them with Aryans. After French civilization was thrown out of Germany in 1815, Jews lost the equal rights they had acquired. The Hep-Hep riots took place throughout Germany, killing Jews, destroying their properties. Many German states stripped Jews of their civil rights. Nazism was a repetition, not an innovation (except in the sense that it got help from IBM; see the book: “IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation for further edification).

Some still insist that the Kaiser’s Germany, a dictatorship, was on a level field with those it attacked, including the French and British democracies. The Kaiser’s Germany deliberately launched a world war in early August 1914, knowing full well it would be a world war, but hoping to take out militarily, in quick succession a whole number of powers, including the French Republic, and later Russia, to force an advantageous peace on Great Britain. Five men took the decision to attack: the Kaiser, and His four top generals. The two admirals present were highly reluctant, but they gained only a delay. Five men: not a democracy in any sense.

If one does not realize the three points above are lies, one cannot understand the causal system which brought World War One. Still historians have written thousands of books on the subject, which more or less treat the three lies above as if they were not the lies they are, but self-evident truths. How come those noble, much honored doctors of history missed the truth so much? Is it because they are called “doctors” and thus doctor history? Is it because they were paid to sell books, and to entertain the ruling paradigm: pro-”American”, anti-European, anti-democratic. In a variant, Germans were crazy militarists (true, but irrelevant for understanding what sparked the German government into action).

Something similar happened with World War Two. One cannot understand the causal system which brought World War Two, if one does not known a number of facts which are completely ignored by (most) “official” history, and, certainly, all plutocratic universities.

Instead the usual causal system used is just to announce that the Nazis were, well, Nazis, stupid criminals who did not know what they were doing.

The much more frightening truth is the following. Against plutocracy, the Nazis themselves contend in vain. The Nazis were bent to lethal self-destruction, in part because they got carefully manipulated into insanity. Manipulated? The historian Dodd was the ambassador of the USA and his grim assessment of the nature of Nazism was shared by his colleague, the French ambassador. To avoid from the omnipresent Nazi microphones, the two ambassadors used to take walks in the “garden of the beasts” (Tiergarten” in Deutsch). Now there is an American book by that title.

Roosevelt replaced the anti-Nazi ambassador by a pro-Nazi one, and did the same in London, or Paris (where Roosevelt went as far as recognizing immediately the unconstitutional Vichy regime established under the Nazi guns; Churchill and the Commonwealth never recognized the Vichy puppets as the legitimate French state or government: it was not)

To come back to the three lies above they create the following moods advantageous to the present rulers (and it helps define who said rulers are!):

  1. The USA is innocent in all matters pertaining to European insanity.
  2. Europeans are crazy, lethal nuts, much inferior to the wise and balanced American sort.
  3. European democracies are not different from fascist, war criminally insane regimes such as the 1914 German dictatorship. It’s all a level playing field. Only the USA stands loftily above that mess.

The historical truth is completely different.

But, to find it, one has to look for those who had interest to launch a war. Clearly the Second Reich plutocracy (top capitalists, profiteers and generals) was aware, and declared, that the French Republic and democratizing Russia were overtaking Germany’s economic might. To the point the evil men who ruled Germany soon would not be sure to win a war against them. War was planned “within 18 months of December 11, 1912.

Moreover the German socialists were getting increasingly agitated, as they wonder aloud why Germany could not democratize too, or, even, become a Republic.

So German plutocracy was culprit. However, by June 1, 1914, no special preparation had been engaged. Three days earlier the Archiduke of Austro-Hungary had been assassinated.

That day, June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the envoy of the president of the USA, the world’s greatest economic power, met with the German dictator, the Kaiser. House did entertain the Kaiser ‘s racial folly and did promise military and civilian aid, which was delivered for the first three years of the war of fascist Germany against democratic France and Britain.

Colonel House did even more: he proposed to the Kaiser a world government of Britain, the USA and Germany, as long as Germany renounced its project to build the world’s premier military fleet, as it already had the world’s most powerful army.

In the law of the USA, if one drives the get-away car, while a murderous hold-up is conducted, one is viewed as a murderer too (at least by the prosecutors).

In this case the USA’s leadership presented the plan to the Kaiser. The plan of the mass murder hold-up of, not just Europe, but the entire world. With the help of the USA, the Kaiser and his murderous accomplices had a chance. Otherwise they would fall prey to the (German) Socialists. Assuredly.

Hitler and his top Nazis would make the same computation in the 1930s. They had every reason to believe the USA was playing a double game. A bit more thinking would have led them to realize that, as in the First World War, the leadership of the USA (those who pull the strings of presidents) was playing not a double, but a triple game.

Together the French and British high sea fleets had a crushing superiority on the Kaiser’s fleet. They could have blockaded Germany. The embargo would have starved fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany out of the war in JUST ONE YEAR.

However, that was without counting the USA. Using the “neutral” Netherlands, the USA fed fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany as if it were a newborn baby. Including with materials Germany absolutely needed to make AMMUNITIONS.

Ammunition  making materials were provided deliberately to the Kaiser, in spite of French and British protests to Washington. So were the USA and the Netherlands neutral in World War One? No. If a country helps massively and crucially a mass murdering enterprise as the Kaiser’s Reich, it is an accomplice of said mass murdering enterprise.

One could argue that the Netherlands was afraid to be invaded, as courageous neutral Belgium was. That’s a mitigating circumstance, indeed. However, it does not apply to the mighty USA.

I view the USA as the Deus Ex Machina of World War One. Or, more exactly, the USA’s corrupt plutocracy.

It would repeat the performance in the 1930s with Nazism (which it more or less American plutocracy instigated, financed, created, inspired, and even fed one-liners to, let alone Harvard songs)

So here we are.

And we are here, with a rising plutocracy (so-called “wealth inequality”), which has transformed the world in a sort of Kabuki theater, complete with elaborate make-up.

We are here because few perceive how manipulated not just the interpretation, but the very nature of the historical universe have been distorted.

Indeed the ambivalent role of the USA’s leadership, having not been suspected, detected, let alone analyzed, went on with its self-promoting ways, still unsuspected, undetected, let alone unanalyzed.

Over-simplistic conventional “anti-Americanism” or “anti-capitalism” is a friend of this cover-up, because it eschews serious, informed, in-depth revelation, and exposition of the profiteer class (now well hidden inside the Dark Pools of faceless money, more than half of the world’s money).

All deep questions ponder what was the logic precedingly involved. Thus the deepest questions are always historical in nature to some extent.

Therefore, the inability, or lack of inclination, to be as critical of history feeds the inability and lack of inclination to tackle the deepest questions… Such as the survival of humanity, presently at play.

Ah, and what of the main cause of evil in the world? It’s not, as the trite truth has it, that good human beings did nothing. It’s rather that, deciding to know nothing, they refuse to check out the details. As everybody knows, this is akin to leaving the Devil alone, free to go on with His machinations and His not-so subtle lies.

Patrice Ayme’

One God, One Thought, All Submitted

June 24, 2015

God As A Conspiracy Of Plutocracy:

You want guidance, oh souls who are lost? Then it’s best to stay away from stupidity.

It’s rather daft to believe that not believing in gods, which are human inventions, somehow misses upon some of the human condition by not taking fairy tales as real. Make no mistakes: fairy tales are useful. It’s good to believe a little bit in them.

To act, to proceed into any action, we have, somehow to believe, that engaging in it will make a difference. Beliefs are good, indispensable. It’s not just those who believe in superstition(s), who believe in something. We all do.

But when potentates try to sell a particular brand of belief as the end-all, be-all, they are deluded. Or, worse, they want us to be deluded. What for? Once we are made stupid, we can be exploited. (A live example of incredible exploitation is the situation in Greece, where an enormous conspiracy makes an entire people pay for financial plots they did not engage in.)

That Son, Crispus, Was Really Killed By His Christian Father, Constantine

That Son, Crispus, Was Really Killed By His Christian Father, Constantine

[Solidus representing Caesar Crispus, Constantine’s first son, assassinated by his father in 326 CE. Constantine is a “Saint” of Orthodox Christianity: if you believe in Constantine’s sainthood, you are ready to die for banksters, and, or, monks.]

Most of the 10,000 or so religions we know of had, each, many “gods”. However not so the religion of Abraham. Who imposed that? Generals. Constantine was a general, he took over the Roman empire in his twenties. Later he steamed his wife alive, killed his nephew, and his gifted son (who did not like his father’s “Catholicism”).

The other great general was Muhammad himself (and his successors, aka Caliphs).

The one and only god was imposed, because he was an excellent role model for the one and only fascist in power: fascist on the throne, fascist in the sky. It just fit. The religion founded by one general is naturally one with a general on the top.

That does not mean one should not look positively to the present pope: he makes a nice Father Christmas. (And has many excellent ideas, such as cap and trade of carbon perm its being a sin… As I long believed.)

India has a million gods. But the fascist military structure implicit in Christianism helped Europeans to conquer the world. With Biblical efficiency.

How? India, under polytheism, had zero religious wars (as Partha a commenter to this site, pointed out). Why? Polytheism accommodates many feelings, ideas, dispositions, characters, and divinize them all. This insures tolerance where it is the most important to have it, in the heart.

However, under the fascist god, any slip of interpretation of proper worship may result in divine annihilation, thus it’s of the essence to kill unbelievers. That’s why religious wars and holocausts (as happened to the Samaritans) started in the Roman empire after Constantine imposed Christianism. Before that there had been none since the Romans had done away with human sacrifice religions (Gaul, Carthage), four centuries prior.

The essence of monotheistic theology is, if you will forgive the neologism, fascitology. It’s military pathology in disguise, and how to make intolerance divine. Killing god is a must for those who want to be free.

And that’s exactly why the SS adopted in 1933 “Gott Mit Uns!” (God With US) and the Congress of the USA goose-stepped behind in 1954 with “In God We Trust”.

Making We The People stupid with god enables masters to manipulate it down into complete impotence and destitution. As observed.

And this is precisely while the malignant cult of god grew in the USA, as plutocracy came to rule ever more (the initial establishment of the American Republic, was all about “Nature’s God”, not about the Christian fascist superstition).

To goose step behind banksters, all you need is god.

Patrice Ayme’

Perspective: Islamophobia Is Not Racist

March 19, 2015

Truth depends upon perspective. Yet, that does not mean there is no truth in perspectives. Global Truth? The union of true perspectives.

One perspective cannot oppose another, it complements it.

Islamophobia is just, literally speaking, the fear of Islam, an ideology. How could fear of an ideology be racist? (I am not talking about fear of people who happen to be Muslim; I have many Muslim friends! And I joke with them, instead of going below the table, trembling abjectly.)

Well fear can be racist, if fear is unjustified. Yet, with Islam, it is not.

Look at Hadith 41;685: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…”

Caliphate Salad, 9th Century. Different Before, Different After. At War, Always.

Caliphate Salad, 9th Century. Different Before, Different After. At War, Always.

[Maybe I should have used another map; this one depicts a Carolingian empire reduced to France; In truth, with its “March States”, it covered most of Western Europe; Also “Byzantium” called itself “Roman”.]

Of course, one has to know what a Hadith is. Israeli voters apparently do, and they gave Netanyahu, 50% more seats at the Knesset. The Hadith above is part of the “constitution” of Hamas.

Identifying the color of skin to race has proven genetically erroneous (even Israel recognizes this, sort of). But we are living in intellectual times. It is about the race of thoughts.

We know, perhaps, of the order of 10,000 religions which have graced humanity. Most condoned human sacrifices. All are feared and condemned by all our contemporaries, except for a handful of these 10,000 that are practiced nowadays.

Why, if 9,979 “revelation”, “prophet” based religions have proven erroneous and condemnable, those practiced today are better?

The answer is simple: the religions still in existence today have been secularized. Christianism, to roll out example number one, as practiced today, is nothing as what its founding texts make it to be. Christianism in 2015, even by its fiercest fanatics, is closer to Secularism, also known as the Republic, than to Christianism practiced and imposed by its authorities in 400 CE (when Rome was ruled by bishops: the bishop of Milan imposed his will onto emperor Theodosius, an ex-general, a very fierce mass homicidal tyrant who mad a war to philosphers).

Christianism, or, as it was then known, Catholicism, was secularized after the Franks took ever greater power between 450 CE (Attila’s invasion) and 507 CE (defeat of the Visigoths by Consul Clovis).

This went on until 1097 CE, when the invasion of the Orient by the Turks, recently converted to Islam, passed a tipping point.

Until then, Frankish counter-attacks had repelled Islamists from Southern France (they raided all the way to Switzerland, Northern Italy). A Frankish army had freed Rome from an Islamist army.

However, Islam, interpreted literally, as found in Qur’an and Hadith, is a perfect war religion. Making war into a religion (Jihad!) helped the Turks invade what was left of the “Pars Orientalis” of the Roman empire. A huge massacre of 10,000 Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem, plus calls for help form the Eastern Roman government (Constantinople) launched the counter-attack of the Crusades.

Fascism is the mindset that optimizes war making. Whatever the good reasons to launch a massive crusade, it resulted immediately in the rise of massive Christianofascism. Jews east of the Vosges mountains were the first victims. The ultimate victim was philosophical Secularism: in the following centuries, Christian Fundamentalism killed millions (after warming up with tens of thousands of Jews killed, if not hundreds of thousands, Christian Fundamentalism killed a million Cathars; after that four centuries of mayhem between various Christian sects and with those who protested brought increasing mayhem.

So the rise of religious killing madness has been seen in Europe before. Twice.

The first rise of Christianofascism brought down the Roman government.

That is rather ironical. The imperial government had launched the Christian derangement to start with, so Rome was punished by its own fascist instrument.

The second rise of Christianofascism was a smoke screen behind which the secular power of rabid plutocracy hid itself. Roughly the same mechanism as the first time

And what of “Islam”, meanwhile?

Islam was specifically designed for war and conquest. That certainly was not exactly the full intent of Muhammad. But he is not the one who wrote down the Qur’an and the Hadith. Soon after his death, “Islam” became an astounding, giant war machine. The Qur’an was (mostly) written twenty years later (although some parts are even more recent).

As I said countless times, that led to war between (self-declared) Muslims (and so the many Caliphates above, and this is just one picture in time, Caliphate kept on coming, and going, all over the place).

In truth there was never an uncontested “Caliphate” (it means a succession).

The Caliphate is a myth:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142379/nick-danforth/the-myth-of-the-caliphate.

The preceding article focuses on the Turks, who became Muslims only 1,000 years ago, and put Islam as war religion to good use, by quickly building a giant empire that put the Romans in Constantinople on the ropes.

The Caliphate was a myth, from the start. Right away, some thought Ali should have succeeded Muhammad. But Ali became only the Fourth Caliph, in an ambiance of religious war, and his sons and his followers got massacred (as Shias remember all too well).

So “Islam” never knew peace. Neither external, nor internal. At least in the Middle Earth (of course, most Muslims are in South, and South East Asia, but that is another story).

As, in the Islamist model, according to the Guide Principle (Qur’an Sura 4, verse 59), the state is identified to one man, there were never institutions, nor continuity thereof.

Contrarily to the West: the Catholic church had continuity, and even Roman administration pretty continued under the Franks, and so did Roman secular law.

So what, looking forward?

Well, maybe one should look at France. Genetic studies show many French in the South and South-West, are (partly) of Berber, and, or, Arab descent.

Muslims were not discriminated against in Europe during the recovery of invaded territory (except, tragically in Spain around 1500 CE, at the end of the Reconquista).

So the solution is to secularize. Do to Islam what was done to Christianity. And don’t go backwards, as has happened in the USA since the 1930s.

I have said this for years. The New York Times just discovered it in “A Christian Nation? Since When?”:

“AMERICA may be a nation of believers, but when it comes to this country’s identity as a “Christian nation,” our beliefs are all over the map. 

Just a few weeks ago, Public Policy Polling reported that 57 percent of Republicans favored officially making the United States a Christian nation. But in 2007, a survey by the First Amendment Center showed that 55 percent of Americans believed it already was one. 

The confusion is understandable. For all our talk about separation of church and state, religious language has been written into our political culture in countless ways. It is inscribed in our pledge of patriotism, marked on our money, carved into the walls of our courts and our Capitol. Perhaps because it is everywhere, we assume it has been from the beginning. 

But the founding fathers didn’t create the ceremonies and slogans that come to mind when we consider whether this is a Christian nation. Our grandfathers did.”

Then the New York Times exposes how American plutocracy found that the Christian god (the “Allah” of the Qur’an) was all the help they needed.

As the New York Times reveals to the baffled masses:

“Back in the 1930s, business leaders found themselves on the defensive. Their public prestige had plummeted with the Great Crash; their private businesses were under attack by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal from above and labor from below. To regain the upper hand, corporate leaders fought back on all fronts. They waged a figurative war in statehouses and, occasionally, a literal one in the streets; their campaigns extended from courts of law to the court of public opinion. But nothing worked particularly well until they began an inspired public relations offensive that cast capitalism as the handmaiden of Christianity. 

The two had been described as soul mates before, but in this campaign they were wedded in pointed opposition to the “creeping socialism” of the New Deal.”

One should take this seriously. Islamophobia is a timely attitude, yet, Christianophobia has been neglected all too long.

The fight for secularization is also a fight against not just Christianization, or Islamization, but also against plutocracy itself.

One has also to remember that the very principle of plutocracy, a few having everything, especially power, is another description of fascism.

And that fascism is intimately related to war.

And that war arises from limited resources. Even in chimpanzees.

And that nothing will limit resources as much as climate change, acidity change, nitrogen change, and all other changes were are visiting on Earth. With a wild abandon, which plutocracy is no stranger to.

Recent pollen analysis in French beehives showed thirty-one (31) different insecticides. For some reason, French bee populations are collapsing except in remote islands, and non-chemically treated mountain areas. Bees are fundamental to the biosphere, since there are flowering plants, and they bear fruit. Verily, we need more than those fruits greed can bring.

Real seriousness is multidimensional, variegated, observant. And does not pose for a popularity contest.

Find, oh you wise ones, as many perspectives as possible, and the deepest ones, while not trusting blindly those popular yesterday.

Patrice Ayme’

God Here, Dog There

March 12, 2015

A big difference between the USA and Western Europe, is that the USA is obsessed by god. Just like Europe used to be, at least, officially speaking. (According to Rabelais, it was all a lie; peasants did not believe in the official obsession with god. That’s why his books on Gargantua and company ignored Christianism.)

A researcher applied Bayesian analysis to what we know of the writings on Jesus, and various alleged witnesses at the time. The probability that Jesus was a real person was found to be as low as .08%. Oops.

Jesus Killed Philosophers, Now Philosophers Kill Jesus. Any Question?

Jesus Killed Philosophers, Now Philosophers Kill Jesus. Any Question?

[Statue of philosopher Etienne Dolet, place Maubert, where he was tortured, strangled, and burned. The monument was torn down by Hitlerian fascists during the Nazi occupation of World War Two: Nazis hated the enemies of Jesus’ god. Wake up, people: when do we replace Dolet’s memorial?]

Bayes’ and Laplace style “inverse probability” does not replace what I would call “inverse axiomatics”. If the probability of the existence of the goulougoulou is just .08%, it may as well be zero. And the axioms ought to be changed: believing in Jesus, son of god (not dog, let me point out), is as likely as believing in the Hummingbird God of the Aztecs.

All right, more people got killed in the name of Jesus than were devoured in the name of the Humming Bird God, so Jesus is a more serious problem, all the more as Abraham crazies are still around, whereas the Humming Bird crazies are so finished, they don’t even have a website.

***

NO JESUS PERSON IN HISTORY, BEFORE MYTH WAS BORN:

That Jesus did not exist is completely obvious to anyone who, as I did, read all the Roman literature (that was the reward for learning Latin). The Roman texts are clear: the first Christian, historically speaking, Saint Paul, wrote around 66 CE, that “Jesus was all and only in my head.” [Paraphrasing.] And so on.

Prominent Jews who did not agree with Roman rule, to the point of deadly strife, were prominently tried and executed. All, but for Jesus… And Saint Paul!

(The case of Saint Paul was that the Jews wanted him executed, as blasphemer, and the Romans were trying to save him, as a prosecutor, and Roman citizen. Brought back to Rome, from Jerusalem, he wrote there, from prison, about Jesus in his head; then, he was made to disappear, probably to save him from the nasty rabis.)

In Europe, nearly nobody believes in the Jesus-Abraham stuff. Not anymore. Even out of the six million Muslims of relatively recent immigration in France, a small fraction of the two million who are somewhat superficially Muslim, really believe in the Abrahamist mythology.

Jesus himself, Jesus the myth, that is, was a first class terrorist: he made clear all the Old Testament was true, as far as he was concerned. And the only positive thing one can clearly say about Bible god, is that his terror was strong. (On the love side, god-the-dad was rather weak. God the dad was not just about whips and chains, but outright extermination in the flames… As reminded to us in the Qur’an and Hadith…)

***

JESUS SET EUROPE AFLAME:

Why no more belief in Europe? Well, take the central case of France and consider the history of religious strife there: first one million Cathars got exterminated, and the south of France taken over by the north (under Philippe-Auguste, and a crazed Pope). In a single crusade.

That was just a warm-up.

Then the Jews got kicked out. And again, under Saint Louis, and again, under whomever tyrant was in need of cash again.

By the fifteenth century, the Protestants were hunted in the Alps, by mentally deranged Jesus lovers, and Louis XI had to send the military to remind fanatical Catholics that French Protestants were free to exert their cult.

Louis XI was rather a Catholic fanatic, he banned Buridan’s works (this is why people believe Copernic, yet to be born, invented the heliocentric system!). But, as king, Louis XI had to respect the law, and the law of France was fundamentally secular (coming, as it did, from the Salian Law, and the secular part of Roman law).

In the sixteenth century, Francois I, advanced in many ways, under the influence of the fanatically Catholic Sorbonne, burned, alive, three philosophers, for insulting Jesus (or something like that).

The sixteenth century ends with seven religious wars in quick succession, secret intervention of Spanish Catholic fascism in France affairs an episode that was part of the Gran Armada attack on England, and the war in the Netherlands). The emperor of Spain and the Holly Roman German Empire, sent an armada to kill down to the last baby of those French colonists in the Carolinas: all too many were Protestants, so they had to be eradicated.

The horrors of the religions wars which wrecked Europe for more than 5 centuries, and then merged into “nationalist” struggles are indescribable. They were similar, but went beyond what is now done in Syria (where ten year old children were recently made to execute prisoners).

In the following century, Louis XIV threw the Protestants out of France, weakening France and creating the germs of war, for centuries to come.

The revolution of 1789 reinstated Jews and Protestants, and cracked down on the Catholic church. So the French intellectual tradition, say, at 90% has become very anti-Christian in general, and especially anti-Catholic.

Thus French philosophers have looked without mercy at what Christianism brought. The verdict? Not much.

***

JESUS AND HIS DAD GAVE AMERICA TO THE USA, BLESS THEM:

In the USA, it’s different: Christianism, and its Bible was the backbone which justified the holocaust of the Natives. The Bible is indeed full of notions such as “elected people”, “promised land”, “heathens”, and entire population to massacre, just because God said so (and if you don’t obey god, god will torture your son, as god did to the disobedient King David).

The Bible was also the fundamental cement of American ideology. Thus the American establishment views any attack against the religions of Abraham as attacks against its very foundations.

If the Bible goes, and Baseball, and American football, there would be nothing left. What would happen then? Would Americans start to think and debate like the French, and be prone to revolutions?

***

WHY EUROPE DESPISE GOD, A FEW MORE DETAILS:

Étienne Dolet was a personal friend of Rabelais. As Rabelais was giving a lecture in anatomy (he was a medical science professor), Dolet intervened during a questions and answers session, with some smart remarks, that’s how they met.

Dolet was burned, alive, at the age of 37.

But his story does not stop there.

From 1660 to 1750, no less than eight hundred sixty-nine (869) authors, printers, librarians, and merchants of pictures were thrown to the Bastille, hanged, or, and, burned, because they published works contradicting good behavior, religion, or the King. (Never mind that King Louis XIV was a certified thief, tyrant, mass murderer, criminal against humanity, and religious persecutor.)

As recently as 30 September 1865, the canton d’Uri’s Criminal Tribunal condemned “J.-J. Ryniker, typographe,” for having published a booklet offensive to god and Christian teaching, and the Catholic church and its chief, and against Holy Script (“brochure offensante envers Dieu et l’enseignement chrétien en général, ainsi qu’envers l’Eglise catholique et son chef, et envers l’Ecriture sainte), to be lashed twenty times by the cat with nine tails (“vingt coups de verges”), jail with water and bread on lternate days, perpetual banishment from the canton, and various other punishments.

In World War Two the unconstitutional regime of Marshall Petain, operating in collaboration with Adolf Hitler, demolished the statue of Dolet which throned over place Maubert in Paris, where he was martyrized.

Why?

Because Petain’s regime rested on fascism, and there is no better justification in the West for fascism, than the Christian god. This is what Constantine found out, and why he replaced the cult of Sol Invictus by Jesus.

Another factor in god’s ignominy was Nazism. First, the churches did nothing, but really absolutely nothing to stop the Nazis. Not only that, but the Vatican helped dozens of thousands of Nazis to escape to the Americas.

Worse: philosopher Hannah Arendt (Prussian, Jewish, Higher Class, German, and Heidegger’s lover), correctly accused the Jewish Councils (“Judenraten”) to have collaborated with Hitler, making a bad situation worse. She was right. But the crimes of god, of Abraham’s god, do not stop here.

Most Jews submitted to god’s will or Amor Fati (Abrahamism without god), instead of revolting against Adolf’s will.

God’s aura came out so diminished from his lack of guts when confronted to the total evil of Nazism, that some learned Jews in an extermination camp conducted a “trial of god”.

And thus Israel got founded on the secular socialism of the Kibbutz, not around the Torah.

So out with god, better get a dog.

Patrice Ayme’

How & Why Plutocracy Fosters Islamism

January 10, 2015

In Saudi Arabia, the co-founder of a web site, Raif Badawi, was condemned to ten years in jail. He was also condemned to pay a $270,000 fine, and to be whipped in public 1,000 times. Fifty strikes each week, for twenty weeks. Plus a life-long ban from any media. His wife and three children fled to Canada. The public whipping started in January 2015.

His crime? Supposedly, he criticized Islam. (Badawi actually criticized some Saudi clerics’ interpretation of Islam).

In 2013 Raif was cleared of apostasy (= being found to be a Muslim no more). That was so kind. Among the barbarians, apostasy carries the death sentence. Hey, it is in the Qur’an. Islam, the religion of eternal peace, six feet under. Religion of peace: if all say it, it’s got to be true.

Mr. Badawi’s lawyer was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Master, Your Dark Side Is Strong. Making a Religion of Not Slandering Pluto, Under the Death Penalty, “That’s the Future”.

Master, Your Dark Side Is Strong. Making a Religion of Not Slandering Pluto, Under the Death Penalty, “That’s the Future”.

[Obama bowing to Arabia’s top Pluto. I used the picture 6 years ago, it’s worth recycling, as Obama confirmed in 2012, that “slandering the Prophet” equates with a “Holocaust”. Aside: the French novelist Hollenbeck published, the day before the Charlie Hebdo attack “Soumission” a novel about France under Islam… “Islam” means “submission“. ]

Obama has been back-pedaling on the so-called “prophet” in the last few days, reminding us of the fact that France was the USA’s “oldest ally”. A fact. In truth, not just an ally, but the doctor who rescued the USA from the London based tyrant.

When a tyrant, the Shah of Iran was in power, he executed many drug traffickers, every week. So that creep said. After Khomeini and his gang got to power, there was no need for such convoluted logic: executing people for insulting Islam was much more efficient, and glorious: it’s in the Qur’an. Fake drug charges disappeared.

My dad, a geologist, met with the Shah more than once: the NIOC, the National Iran Oil Company, did not have the technology to explore for unobvious oil and gas, but TOTAL did. My dad was told to bow, and avert his eyes. He did neither. The Shah lived with it: he needed new oil.

When savagery from a state is tolerated, it’s not just democracy that is threatened. It’s our lives. The planet has become too small for the lunatics and fanatics to be safely ignored, when they control a state.

Hitler proved this thoroughly. The Nazis thought the French would ignore them, and leave them a free hand to the East, as the Brits had agreed to do in 1935. However France marched to war, and, in retrospect men of good faith regret that France did not do it earlier (didn’t because Britain agreed to go to war against Hitler, if France did, only in spring 1939; that was in the appendix of the Franco-Polish defense treaty).

The two madmen shooters who killed top French intellectuals were programmed by Al Qaeda in Yemen. They said it several times during their terror streak, both to passerbys and in a deliberate, calm phone interview with BMF TV (American services were the first to point out the eldest had been in Yemen for terrorist training).

A third criminal madman, connected to the two who “killed” Charlie Hebdo, took over a “Hyper Kacher”, a Jewish supermarket in Paris, killing four. After speaking on the phone, he forgot to hang up, and he was recorded explaining to his Jewish victims that he was applying the “loi du Talion” (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.). Although he had been born in Paris, and was of African descent, he claimed that colonialism had killed his children and his combatants (all imaginary: French soldiers basically fought no wars in Black Africa: Black Africa got pacified pretty pacifically).

The criminal proclaimed his will to kill a baby aged 11 months. He killed four (including a 21 year old, gentle Tunisian, who had arrived in France, a year ago) and wounded seven.

All together, the terrorist had Kalashnikovs, machine gun-pistols, RPGs, grenades, explosives, and several handguns. Stun grenades were not enough to neutralize them: they kept firing, even after being thrown on the ground by shockwaves.

PLUTOCRACY IS STARVING CIVILIZATION TO DEATH:

How come so mad? How come so resentful? One can look at the unemployment rate in Europe, and observe the diminished prospects of Europeans. But that was truly a sleeper cell planted by Al Qaeda, among some French born, but thoroughly ignorant, uneducated, uncivilized youth.

Deeper down, thus, one observes the failure of the school system, and not just in France, but throughout most of Europe, and even the West.

In the 1950s, schools in France, Britain, the USA, were the best in the world. The best schools enabled young people to get the best jobs. Not so anymore. No wonder the young are angry.

Why don’t the states have the mean to provide with good schools, and good jobs?

Let’s do the schools first.

Because the states do not have the financial means to provide We The People with the best education.

So Imams financed by Saudi Arabia are in charge. OK, they came in illegally. Why don’t we issue an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia? Because it, and its even wealthier and more powerful masters, are in charge.

But why don’t the states have the means? Because the wealthy are refusing to pay enough tax, and they have made sure that a few thousands opinion and legislation makers.

This was seen before: under Marcus Aurelius, the plutocrats refused to pay enough tax for all the legions needed to keep two German nations, the Marcomanni, at bay. They were threatening to break through Austria, march on Italy, cut the empire in two. But the wealthiest Romans did not care. Marcus Aurelius had to sell the imperial palace cutlery to finance the army.

The problem with the plutocrats (who held most of the Senate in their mental grip) went from bad to worse, and was the proximal cause of Rome’s downfall. To save money, the Roman army took to contract with German armies for defense. (Finally, in 400 CE, the Franks were outright put in command and control of the entire North-West of the empire.)

We have a similar situation nowadays.

The great Roman emperor Trajan, initially a Spanish born general, financed his “alimenta”, a program of educative welfare for disadvantaged youth. How? With a global estate tax. Something a bit similar to what Piketty (and yours truly, for a decade) have proposed.

Under Trajan, the army was strong. Trajan conquered Dacia (in the middle of Eastern Europe; successors withdrew from it; the Franks came back, seven centuries later Europanizing, and “Christianizing”, the Frankish way, all the way to Ukraine. Trajan also visited the Persian Gulf.

However, after Trajan’s death, plutocracy, the system of thought that the base and wealthy ought to rule, came back with a vengeance.

This is quite a bit what is happening nowadays: after the interruption of World War Two, where a giant army came to power (see Ike, and JFK presidents in the 1950s and 1960s, two warriors), and being savagely interrupted by the Roosevelts, the spirit of plutocracy is back with a vengeance

The states are weak, because the plutocrats want them weak.

So the schools are weak.

And how come are there so few jobs in Europe? Neither Europe’s crackdown on CO2 (thus energy), not the soporific effect of the welfare state explains everything.

The rule of tax avoiding giant corporations of the USA explains much. And do they conspire? Of course they do. Looking at maps of where Airbus sells planes is telling: it’s basically everywhere, but for the USA. The USA and the countries submitted to it are under clear orders not to purchase the Franco-European planes.

Much of the electronic industry (transistors, integrated circuits, even the PC) were actually pioneered in France (for example, mass production of transistors in France started within days of the announcement of its invention in the USA!)

Why has Europe been incapable of defending itself? Look at who heads it: J-C Junker is now head of the European Commission. Under him the top 200 plutocratic corporations of the USA are conducting, through Luxembourg, a tax evasion amounting to more than 9% of the Federal budget of the USA (100 billion dollars). They hide this by claiming they are “philanthropist”, and making spectacular, well publicized gestures.

I don’t know how, and how much, Junker is paid. But he should be arrested, for indirectly fostering poor schools, lack of police, dearth of jobs, and thus, Islamism.

We have seen people like that in World War Two: they made a lot of money, and yielded a lot of power, as long as their sponsors the Nazis, had a big army.

Some may squirm that I explained that plutocrats, because they want power, don’t want to pay taxes, so, indirectly, they help Islamists and other enemies of freedom and democracy. This tactical, or strategic, alliance is clear.

But there is more than that. Islamists are enemies of dictatorship, because they want to be dictators and get all the milk, honey, nice flowing waters, and virgins with “deep dark eyes”, that the Qur’an promised.

Here is our friend the Qur’an:

“O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Shura 4; verse 59).

In other words, obey authority as a matter of religion. This makes the Qur’an intrinsically hostile to democracy. Just as plutocracy is. Both are ideologies to justify the rule of a few.

Je Suis Charlie

Patrice Ayme’

DeKanting Philosophy:

October 21, 2014

Writing this essay made me sad. I had come across a group of self-assured philosophers, singing the praises of Kant. That was a moment of solitude. Sheep praising the wolf. When I brought up objections, pointing at the enormous connection between Kant and Nazism, I was haughtily told “We, in philosophy, do not judge thinkers on one sentence”.

This depicts how followers of Kant behaved in Nazi occupied Europe:

Dog Philosophy: Obey, Always To Obey The Mighty. Confucius, To Kant

Dog Philosophy: Obey, Always To Obey The Mighty. Confucius, To Kant

One Sentence, One Idea Can Move The World, And Not For The Best:

In the Twelfth Century, Saint Bernard (de Clairvaux; Abelard’s, and humanity’s, enemy) was asked how he, the saintliest and most influential Christian (he told Pope Urban II what to do), could defend homicide.

Saint Bernard haughtily replied: ”It is not homicide, but malecide, the killing of evil.” Bernard, one of the known universe’ most evil men, then launched the Second Crusade, the Cistercian order, the Knights Templars, the Inquisition, and the killing of millions, for centuries to come.

People who are viewed as philosophers, by a large following, have much more influence than is generally attributed to them.

Some are anti-philosophers, those who give guidance, honor and cover to the satanic minds who grab power and lead civilization to the abyss, driven only by the greedy instinct of the self-destructive predator.

Locke helped slavery. Rousseau, Kant, Herder etched in the stone of (pseudo) philosophy the erroneous systems of moods and thoughts which brought Nazism. Yet, they still have lots of cognitively impaired followers. Truly these guys are not philosophers, but plutocratic puppets. That makes them all the more dangerous.

How does one subjugate people? By making them feel wrong. Then it is easy to make them think wrong. In the end they believe it is smart to engage in whatever will and up oppressing, or even, could destroy them.

In the philosophy of the predator, destruction, whether means, or end, is an intrinsic good.

The archetype modern example here is Prussia, and the fascist, racist, anti-Judaic Nazi Germany it ended up creating… bringing the annihilation of Prussia.

The Germans, under the influence of a triumphing Prussia in the Eighteen, and Nineteenth Centuries Century, were led to believe it was smart to dislike, despise, hate, oppress, subjugate, exploit, dehumanize, Poles, Slavs and Jews. Superficially, it worked. Until September 10, 1914, when the all devouring Frankenstein of Prussian racial fascism had to beat a hasty retreat on the battlefield.

(Indeed, in parallel, and to be able to enforce all this oppression, subjugation, contempt, dehumanization, maximal force, that is, military force, had to be used. Thus, in Prussia and its admirers, militarism was inseparable with racism. Prussia had an army comparable in size to France, in the Seventeenth Century, with a tenth of the population. This militarization paid off handsomely: after coming close to total annihilation, under the gay aggressor Frederick II, Prussia grabbed immensely rich Silesia, its mines and industry, from Austria.)

Instead Of Reading Hitler, Read Kant, It Does Just As Well:

Thus a mood of exploitative racism and hungry military aggression was created by Prussia’s masters. All they needed were parrots to sing their praises. And they were many, the most prominent of these birds repeating songs of evil was Kant. Now for some comic relief. It turns out that Kant is still much admired, 70 years after his followers exterminated tens of millions of innocent civilians (they wanted to do more, but they were rudely interrupted by carpet bombing).

How was the mood created? In no small part by making people admire a pseudo-philosopher, Kant. Kant was racist, militarist, mechanical. A perfect philosopher for a racist militaristic regime.

“The reason a people has a duty to put up with even what is held to be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority is that its resistance to the highest legislator can never be regarded as other than contrary to law, and indeed as abolishing the entire legal constitution.” –Kant

In other words: dictators (=”highest legislators”) rule, disobeying them is immoral. That could only please Kant’s paymaster, the hereditary dictator of Prussia. Remark: This, that resisting the dictator is immoral, nothing new: I call that the Qur’an Fascist Principle (Sura IV, Verse 59).

“O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.

This is the essence of Hitler’s Fuhrer Prinzip. Kant was just a guy who heard about the Qur’an. This makes Kant vastly inferior to Voltaire. Voltaire read the Qur’an, and dragged the emperor of Mecca, Muhammad his name, it in the mud, to the point that the Politically Correct censored him, in the Twenty-First Century (!) Voltaire was right, so he gets censored, Kant is a Nazi, so he gets lauded. In a world where human values are inverted, a plutocratic world, in other words, this all makes sense.

Not only Kant was a fanatical Jihadist of the worst type, but Kant was a racist, and could be said to have invented the (false) theory of scientific racism. Sometimes the idiocy gets even funny: Kant thinks Africans smell bad. But it’s all scientific. Says the pseudo-philosopher:

“We know now, for example, that human blood turns black (as is to be seen in blood coagulum) …. Now the strong body odor of the Negroes, not be avoided by any degree of cleanliness, gives reason to suppose that their skin absorbs a very large amount of phlogiston from the blood, and that nature must so have designed this skin that in them the blood can dephlogisticate …”

Negroes are of course born idiots, and in this Kant follows another of the Prussiano-Anglo-Saxon pantheon of evil philosophy, Hume:

“The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents... So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color.” -Kant

Kant is the first author of no racial mixing (later implemented by the Nazis). A new concept in Europe:

The mingling of stocks (due to great conquests), little by little erodes the character and it is not good for the human race in spite of any so-called philanthropy.”

For comparison, Rome had African (Libya), and Arab emperors (or “Augusta”). Rome happily mixed all races.

That racist principle was used by Kant with lots of direct impact. The Spanish Crown was encouraging a policy of interbreeding and had ordered the Mexican governor to comply. The governor had, however, opposed the order. Kant encouraged him (in contradiction to making obedience the highest principle; Kant acted as if racism was an even higher principle than obedience). In a letter to the governor of Mexico, Kant wrote:

“[Of the idea that] nature would develop new and better races of produce them through the commingling of two races there is little ground for hope in as much as nature has long since exhausted the forms appropriate to soil and climate, whilst cross-breeding (for example of the American with the European or of these with the Negro) has debased the good without raising proportionately the level of the worse — hence the governor of Mexico wisely rejected the order of the Spanish Court to encourage interbreeding.”

Heil Kant!

Kant’s account of race also includes the superiority of the white race and that the others will become extinct. For details, see Wulf D. Hund’s “The Racisms of Immanuel Kant,” a book which begins and ends with this quote from Kant:

“All races will become exterminated … except for the whites.”

Kant’s insults against Jews are too numerous to count. The Jews are by nature “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.” Nicht so klar? Here it is, for the brin impaired. Kant: “THE EUTHANASIA OF JUDAISM IS THE PURE MORAL RELIGION.”

Johann Herder (1744-1803) quoted Kant’s lectures on practical philosophy: “Every coward is a liar; Jews, for example, not only in business, but also in common life.”… Nazis made a “hideous misinterpretation of Kant”? Or is it that some people are just hideous stupid?

So why is Kant still popular? Adolf Eichmann, on trial in Jerusalem, found the explanation:

“Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think.”

In other words, Kant is the perfect philosopher for weak-willed idiots. All the more as he invented a weird, pseudoscientific jargon which appeals to those who find too difficult to learn true science, the uneducated and unintelligent. Hence said jargon became wildly popular with philosophically inclined half-wits.

Tolerating Kant, is tolerating Nazism. Adulating Kant, is adulating the essence of Nazism. Time to get acquainted with those facts.

In other news, one of the world’s most powerful men died when his jet got flipped by a snow plough. In Moscow. He had just been plotting with one of the world’s dictators. Interesting how plutocrats live on the edge. (More on this later.)

Indeed, plutocrats do not have much too fear, besides snow storms, as long as those who view themselves as “philosophers” drink the cool Kant aid.

Patrice Ayme’