Posts Tagged ‘Violence’

Do Violence, Bias & Abuse Help Research?

January 16, 2016

Sexism is not humanly, ethologically, culturally, economically, civilizationally, emotionally, poetically, romantically and scientifically correct. Moreover it flows and then encourages, a general mood of violence, abuse, exploitation against all and any human being. It also rests on many a stupidity, thus foster stupidity. But, as we will see, there is worse.

Thanks to Sean Carrol for an  excellent essay condemning abusive harassment of women in science: “We Suck (but we can be better)”. A reminder: sexist research found, decades ago, that the brains of women and men were different. Many powers jumped on that result to claim the poor results of women in science, or the intellect in general, were thus justified.

However, upon closer examination, that was simply not true. Unsurprisingly, it was found female and male brains are not quite the same, except that one could not tell, and some of the differences are the opposite of what’s expected: most brains are a haphazard mosaic of female and male features.

Researchers have identified several structural differences between the brains of men and women, but they form changing mosaics from individual to individual, making it impossible to tell the sex of an individual based solely on MRI images of the brain like the one above.

Researchers have identified several structural differences between the brains of men and women, but they form changing mosaics from individual to individual, making it impossible to tell the sex of an individual based solely on MRI images of the brain like the one above.

In the end, therefore, human beings are not just bisexual, but multisexual. To boot, the varying influence of some hormones rule, haphazardly, while having nothing to do with pure intellectual performance.

The reason for the intellectual equality between human sexes is obvious: prehistoric life required women to be pluripotent, because they had to replace men. When men were far away hunting big game, patrolling territory, or at war, women had to be able to replace them completely, even for defense and hunting. More recently, Roman legionnaires were very surprised when they discovered that German women wielding swords turned out be what prevented German men to retreat.

The reason for having a non-sexist society is that we double the number of brains, thus increase considerably the number of ideas. It was obvious all along that females could perform at the very highest mental level: Emilie du Chatelet, after all, discovered the concept of energy, ½ mv^2 (Newton confused energy and momentum, apparently). She also discovered a few other things, such as infrared radiation, although she died in childbirth.

So sexism is a form of abuse, and, ultimately, not just a form of abuse of particular individuals, but of society itself, as it deprives society of half of its best elements.

And that is the connection with the violence made to graduate students. The American fundamental research system depends upon 120 institutions. However, many of the most prestigious universities, in their most prestigious departments depend upon a system of exploitation, or even abuse, of their students.

It works this way, even in public universities: the graduate students make all the necessary work (be it basic research or basic undergraduate teaching, or both). However some of these university departments have ridiculously low rates of attribution of the PhD. Say 10%. This means they use to teach, or do research students who, statistically, have no probability to get what they are after.

I personally witness ultimate violence in some of the world’s most famous universities. All the way to murder (I may give more details in a further version of this essay).

In 1998, Jason Altom, a graduate student in chemistry at Harvard, took his own life. Renowned among his contemporaries as both an extraordinarily talented scientist and a meticulous personality, he left behind a pointed note:

“This event could have been avoided,” the note began. “Professors here have too much power over the lives of their grad students.” The letter recommended adoption of a three-member faculty committee to monitor each graduate student’s progress and “provide protection for graduate students from abusive research advisers. If I had such a committee now I know things would be different.” It was the first time, a columnist for The Crimson observed later, that a suicide note took the form of a policy memo.

It seems clear in the behavior of Harvard’s (Nobel Prize) Corey. By telling his star student who committed suicide that, after five years, he had made “no intellectual contribution”, Corey was actually committing a crime. OK, the law does not strike this sort of abuse yet for what they are: potentially lethal abuse. Why? Because this is so typical of what happen in so many graduate department in the USA. It’s a bit as when there were slaves everywhere in the USA: it was legal, and it felt normal.

It is important to remedy this. How? Notice science was not as cut-throat in the 1960s: young professors could afford to buy a house next to a prestigious university (it’s not the case anymore). Young professors were typically on tenure track, graduate student were treated decently, etc.

Then things changed: American man had landed on the moon, science was not needed anymore. Investment in science went down, culminating with Congress yanking out the super collider. Society decided to do science and intellect on the cheap. Cut-throat academia came into being.

Treating women students well enough to have as many of them as men will improve quality, it will also force society to realize that research cannot depend upon abuse and exploitation of people, but its exact opposite: the fragile blossoming of ideas rejects relations brimming with the grossest powers.

Rejecting violence, exploitation and abuse will force society to put more (relative) resources into (fundamental) research, the way it used to be, not so long ago. Instead of treating graduate students as modern slaves, universities will have to recognize their humanity, dignity, hence foster their responsibility and independent judgment, producing higher quality thinking. Ultimately thinking blossoms from the debate of many minds, and not just the celebrity cult. Cutting throats does not help.

However, a cut-throat establishment may want research to be in its image, abusive and exploitative, to justify its own mood. Hence the present plutocratic university system is not here by accident, engaging into satanic behavior, just because bad things happen. Far from it. To teach celebritism, oligarchism, and even abuse, exploitation, sadism, and inhuman behavior is entirely what the present educational system sees, secretly, as its mission.

Patrice Ayme’

Feynman Renormalized

December 20, 2015

In quantum field theory, the statistical mechanics of fundamental fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, renormalization is a collection of techniques used to correct computations which otherwise blow up infinitely. Feynman was one of the pioneers of renormalization, and got the Nobel Prize for it.

That work was definitively made possible by a (philosophical) understanding of the “infinite” processes at hand, so Feynman was just not an “accidental philosopher”. Feynman made brutal, but amusing remarks about the uselessness of (some) philosophers in fundamental physics, something which made connoisseurs such as yours truly smile (I knew Feynman, he was complimentary, and kind, not at all putting philosophy down, differently from some recordings out there. Feynman accepted questioning the foundations maximally. His son became a philosophy major.)

The World Is Not As Simple As That, Nor Should It Be So Rough

The World Is Not As Simple As That, Nor Should It Be So Rough

I agree with the mood behind Feynman’s uttering, the spirit of what he wanted to say. However, the context of Feynman’s remarks needs to be… renormalized. (This is an example where the mood behind a precise theory in physics, namely Quantum Field Theory, can be carried over to bring the perspective of a new method to philosophy.)

As a physicist, I admire Feynman who wrote great lectures on physics, and is mostly famous for “Feynman Diagrams” a splendid, and perhaps deep way (Feynman himself was not too sure), to denote terms in the sort of power series expansion one has to consider in Quantum Field Theories.

Feynman’s statement  depends upon what one means by “government“, the type of government one is talking about. For clarity, I will consider that “government” here SHOULD mean “Direct Democracy“, the most perfect form of democracy, what democracy really means, where the People (Demos) exert Power (Kratos). That means, in particular, that We the People rules and legislates.

Feynman, who contributed to the Manhattan Project (the making of nuclear bombs crowned, for want of a better concept, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki) seems to naturally expect the sort of fascist war government he took part in.

If one expects something too much, to the point of forgetting about possible alternatives, or how grotesque and cruel that thing is, one condones it. Feynman expects government to be tyrannical. But tyranny is not ethologically human: it’s not natural, just natural in case of war. Feynman should have realized that the government he knew was not the one we should have looking forward.

Revolution begs for distanciation. Lack of distanciation is how too much tolerance can become a crime.

Thus Feynman’s statement was to some extent self-referential, and self-condemning. Indeed, in the government Feynman was used to, there was an abyss between government and citizens. Feynman witnessed the McCarthyism witch hunt (when his own career was fully launched; Feynman saw his Manhattan project superior, Robert Oppenheimer, go down in flames, just because Oppenheimer was “not trusted”).

In Direct Democracy, a government by the citizens, for the citizens, the distinction between government and citizens disappear. Abusive “representatives” (such as Richard Nixon,a Congressman, and Senator MacCarthy) altogether disappear, as We the People represents itself.

By expecting such aa abysmal distinction, between government and citizens, Feynman seems to expect that government will have to be, forever, the sort of government he played a role in. That government Feynman was involved in was a dictatorship of some sort, out there, and up there.

Government, in the most general sense, includes the legislative, judicial, and police processes and even the army, and the laws they built, enforce, and which created them. As such, the government is deeply involved in finding out what is true, and which philosophies are valid, and which are not, supported by a rather rigorous view of history.

So Feynman’s statement should be not just be reinterpreted as a warning to the citizenry to govern with an open mind. It also indicates a sort of naivety, a sort of Manichean view of the world out of physics.

Unfortunately, just as Quantum Field Theories themselves, our interpretation of the real world is self-referential, and non-linear. Our view of reality is constantly renormalized (in a way similar to what Quantum Field Theories do). We cannot separate government from truth, and especially not perfect government. And when truth is found, it has to be enforced.

No government nowadays tolerate a religion conducive to human sacrifices (wait…) Because it was found such religions were not optimal, in the context of more advanced socio-economies guided by more evolved philosophies. And that is so much the truth, it’s legislated that way, all over.

The more powerful we humans become, the more perfect our government has to be. Thus, the more We the Citizens have to be perfect. Thus, the keener we will have to be to find the truth, and impose it, when lives, or the future, are at stake.

Truth is obtained by debate, and by making mistakes. So the fact that “We The People” can err should not be condemned: after all, dictatorships and oligarchies (what we have) also err. Erring, if done in good faith, is part of the learning process. Tyrannies, oligarchies, plutocracies are, by definition, not in good faith: as they feel that the few should overlord the many, they are by definition vicious and idiotic.

So the Slovenian People, consulted in a referendum, just rejected same-sex marriage.  The vote was 63.4% against. Interestingly, the Slovenian Parliament had passed such a law, but a rather sad group appealed to the Slovenian top court, forcing the referendum. In Europe, Britain, France and Spain recognize same-sex marriages. But this is all part of the learning process: propose, reject, debate, accept. Better let the Slovenian gay inside come out of the closet willingly, after reflection. Instead of staying stuck inside in Putin’s all too warm loudly anti-homosexual embrace.

Truth, and the lack thereof, are not an innocent bystanders. If lies are allowed to grow too big, just one citizen, in a future soon to be, could condemn the “human race”.

Some truths, or lack thereof, cannot just be considered matters of state. A Cult of Death cannot be authorized as a legal religion, for example.

In Direct Democracy, truth will not just have to be a way of life, but the only way to have government, and that includes imposing it on We The People. This is exactly the main effect of the Climate Conference, COP 21, which happened in Paris. All the nations of the world united with one voice, one truth, and declared:”Earth, We have a problem!

We have to redefine “normal”. The best renormalization of society implies much more truth than ever before.

Earth is our home, but a home is something small, thus fragile.  A home cannot be inhabited by violent, potentially lethal lies.

Patrice Ayme’

How Was Auschwitz Possible? Ignorance!

December 17, 2015

Secrecy Is Atrocity’s Best Friend:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did the the mood change in Germany?

Auschwitz, the Holocaust.

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

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

Why did that revelation not happen earlier?

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

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

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

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

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

Fast Forward To France 2015:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civilization without information is only malformation of reason.

Patrice Ayme’

Truth Is Not Politically Correct

November 15, 2015

Truth is not Politically Correct. Denying this, pretending that truth is Politically Correct, is the mother of all problems with the present management of the entire planet. And that’s the first thing which is wrong with today’s political practice. And this is what leads to war and terrorism, let alone biosphere devastation, as observed today.

So why do we have this mood hostile to truth? Because it profits the powers that be. Hostility to truth makes people stupid. Stupid animals can be led by the nose more easily that those who are very clever. When a male shark wants to plant his flag deep in Ms. Shark, he grabs her in its powerful jaws, by a fin or another, flip her on her back, until she gets into a trance, and stops moving. This is similar to what the fiercest rulers do to We The People.

So our leaders are playing dumb. Are they as dumb as they look?  The four sacred months expired at 12pm, Mecca time, on Friday. Refer to Sura 5, verse 9: …”when the forbidden months are past, then fight and SLAY the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

9pm in Paris, 12 pm in Mecca, on November 13, 2015, was now time for “every ambush” on the pagans.

Three teams of fanatics attacked in Paris, within 33 minutes. Three individuals tried to get in the Stade de France (with 80,000 inside, plus the French president and the French and German national teams). The first kamikaze was detected at 21:20. He had to explode himself before he could get in, making only one victim (there was only security outside of the stadium, minutes after the match started).

At 21:25 a terrorist team of three attacked the restaurant “Little Cambodia”. 21:32 they attacked the Cafe’ A La Bonne Biere. At 21:36 “La Belle Equipe”. Their weapons and car were found in Montreuil, but they ESCAPED. That team killed at least 39 people.

At 21:40 another fanatic sat at a cafe’ on boulevard Voltaire, then exploded himself. Meanwhile, still another team of three kamikazes attacked the Bataclan theater. The raid was organized in Belgium, in the same zone as usual. 12 accomplices have been arrested so far.

Sacred raid (razzia)  against the crusaders in Paris.” is the way Islamist State (ISIS) called its mayhem in Paris. Two sisters of the Saadi family, both young mothers, got killed leaving orphans behind. Both were of a French “Muslim” family. Many Muslims were killed in the attacks, but, as ISIS would point out, they were assuredly “depraved”.

Friendly Californian Children Left This, Lighting Up the Night, In Front Of My House

Friendly Californian Children Left This, Lighting Up the Night, In Front Of My House

Sacred raid (razzia)  against the crusaders in New York and Washington.” is the way Al Qaeda called its mayhem in the USA. The same words, the same sentence exactly were used in 2001, with “New York” and “Washington” in place of Paris. So, in that sense, the latest mayhem is exactly a “9/11” in France. Not the first, nor the last. (That there were only 130 killed and 100 extremely gravely injured, with “life prognostic engaged” is not really a miracle: the explosive vests were detected at the Stade de France; thus, instead of killing hundreds, the kamikazes at the stadium killed just one besides themselves; inside the Bataclan, the kamikazes detonated themselves while fighting the police in the dark; strikingly, no police of the SWAT teams in the BRI and RAID was injured).

As Osama Bin Laden said: You will lose this war, because we love death as much as you love life.” This rather deleterious idea of Osama was quoted approvingly by the Islamist State.

ISIS, the Islamist State, said it struck in Paris “The DEPRAVED”, those who listen to California music, or watch soccer (because those “Depraved” went to a concert by rock group from California, or to a soccer match France-Germany). It did not matter if they were Pagans, Muslims.

25% to 30% of the French population descends from relatively recent immigration (and nearly 100% of the French population descends for foreign stock, if one goes back 3,000 years, as the Celto-Germans invaded; only the Basques are very ancient stock). Probably a majority of French have partial Jewish and Muslim ancestry (Jews have been in France for more than 2,000 years, Muslims for more than 13 centuries; contrarily to legend, under the Franks, there was total religious tolerance. That means for a duration of seven centuries. Then unfortunately Catholic fascism got increasing respect, and thus powers, resulting in the rise of religious terror and intolerance, which became full bore after a crusade conducted WITHIN France killed around one million (a huge number at the time). After that the religious terror, on and off, lasted until the French Revolution, when the Jews and Protestants were given the rights which they used to have, long ago, were given back to them.

An important difference between what is going on in France with 11 September in the USA was that the USA was attacked by 15 Saudi kamikazes, and five other foreigners. (Only one was “French” and was arrested.) So “9/11″was completely an aggression by foreigners. (The USA, though, had, since, pure Qur’an motivated hate crime attacks, the foremost one by a military surgeon who went Qur’an nuts and killed a dozen other soldiers. So the Quranic cancer in France can, and has metastized in other parts of the West.)

In the attacks in France most of the attackers are French who learned the most striking parts of the Qur’an. The most striking parts being those which ORDER the top followers of Islam, those who want to get directly in paradise to go out and attack, or even kill, non Muslims. No, I am not making it up: “Violence in the Holy Qur’an” can be consulted. And more quotes are coming by tomorrow, making these order explicit.

The Qur’an is viewed by Muslims as a set of explicit orders from God. In particular God gives explicit order to kill, attack, and submit entire categories of people. Not bad, in the way of war, for a book which is only 80,000 words long. Most of humanity falls into those categories to kill, attack, submit, oppress, diminish, tax, subjugate. What are the faithful supposed to say? What are the faithful supposed to do? Go along with the program? The Qur’an is a program. Not just a “religion” (whatever that means).

The first religion of a Republic, is the Republic. Superstitions can be accommodated, as long as they do not disturb the primary religion. 

Well, they should do exactly what the Catholics did, in a country such as France: stop believing in all the garbage. And that’s the truth. Yes, it’s not politically correct. However, the philosophically correct should bulldoze over the politically correct. Always has, in the long run, always will.

Last, but not least: human beings, like baboons, know how to make war. It’s in their genes, so to speak. When attacked, baboons make a military formation, and predators flee. more than 70 million of French baboons have been attacked, and they clearly need to adopt a military formation, and get smarter. The Paris are has been under Franco-Celtic control since at least the early Third Century , when Paris got is name (changing back to the “Parisii“, the old Gallic name, from the Roman Lutetia). Every since Paris was named, there was not one decade when France was not at war. 17 centuries of war, and counting. This is a stunning fact.

As the concept of “Jihad” has it, war and maximum effort is a generalized attitude necessary for the fulfillment of hope, let alone life. It’s the exact attitude, for bad or good, which made, in the end, our species master of the Earth. War should give peace a chance. But war never should keep on giving peace a chance as if there were no tomorrow.

Patrice Ayme’


If You Want Peace, Make War

October 31, 2015

A lesson hard to swallow for those who feel peace wins all. Sometimes, all you can do, and all you have to do, is war:

Those who have never bothered to observe reality long pretended that, to have peace, one just needed to roll belly up, and make love. As anybody who has studied the wilderness can tell you, this tends to occur when the carnivores tear the soft belly of the prey, starting generally by the apparently succulent naughty bits. Even Obama seems to have vaguely realized that his entire presidency was a devouring alive of his so-called “hope you can believe”. So he is sending 50 special forces to Syria. Wow.

What needs to be imposed in the Middle East is forceful Western philosophy, the sort which has turned China around, after 26 centuries of Confucianism.

Everyday, at this point, 8,000 war refugees reach the island of Lesbos, just off the Anatolian coast, but part of the European Union. Officially Greece, which has only 11 million citizens, admitted 600,000 war refugees, in a few months. Europeans are officially sending money to help Greece, but it did not arrive yet: notice that, when people are dying, by the thousands, it’s no big deal, but if a state threatens to spend more money than private bankers are willing to lend to it, it is the crime of all crimes, the crime that the world cannot, should not, will not tolerate.

The Black Mamba Is A Fact. Kill From A Great Distance. Or Get Real Smart.

The Black Mamba Is A Fact. Kill From A Great Distance. Or Get Real Smart.

A Black Mamba can bring up a third of its body, and look a man in the eye. And it is a very aggressive, some say furious, snake, feared by all including herds of buffalos. Still prehistoric man learned to live with it very well. Meanwhile, Austria is building a wall. A wall, all along its border with Slovenia. Slovenia is, in more ways than one, basically, historically and geographically speaking, a part of… Austria.

What to do? First, find out which superior philosophy should guide us. Inebriation with the “make love, not war” philosophy leads only to four bullets in the back, as John Lennon dramatically demonstrated. Europe ought not to tolerate gross violations, gross deviations from the norms of… Western civilization. While considering the origins: for example, one cannot order Arabia to behave as civilized, as, say, Israel… Simply because Arabian brains have more work to do to get civilized. In practice, it means that the deliberate destruction of housing and other deliberate

invasive actions of the Israeli government ought not to be tolerated, because they are part of a descent to hell, whereas Saudi Arabia has to ascent from hell. So, being in hell is not enough

information: as in physics, one has to consider momentum and potential (this may sound vague, but it’s not just correct relativity, but correct Quantum Mechanics: De Broglie introduced momentum in 1924, and Bohm & Aharanov noticed in 1956, that potential energy was part of De Broglie’s reasoning, and that this had practical consequences; so this is the case where the strict analogy with physics has practical political consequences!)

Human beings do not have all the same interests. Yet, notwithstanding the unreal elucubrations of the animal rights fanatics, the rights of a Nazi, the rights of a serial killer, the rights of

Palestinian backstabber, or the rights of financial manipulators, are not the same of that of a Syrian infant landing on Lesbos. The latter are worth dying for, whereas the former are worth killing like venomous snakes.

Killing venomous snakes? Is not that uncalled for, unphilosophical, plain nasty, and unwise? A few years back, some individuals suggested that death by venomous snakes was a major problem. Generalized laughter followed, at the highest level of those supposedly in charge of world health care. Venomous snakes have interests, and therefore rights, the animal fanatics would point out, let them be. Assuredly, fighting snakes sounded biblical, and could not possibly be correct, or as noble as fighting Ebola. However those who are anchored in reality persisted.

As a child, I remember seeing many venomous snakes, and I feared them intensely. Having one in my bed was a recurring nightmare. True, there were some in the thatched roof in Ivory Coast. I also played with deadly Yellow Scorpion in the desert (“coucou be’!”), before parental intervention, and another time a scorpion stung my mom in bed. One most enlightening encounter was with a Black Mamba in Senegal (contrarily to comments on the Internet, the Black Mamba is Senegal, probably the first met by Europeans, is not olive grey, but black; it’s not just its mouth). The snake fled, much faster than I could run, or even see, it was mostly a blur. A long black blur, an incredibly long black blur, like several bull whips long, whipping all over the place, yet so fast, going where it willed.

Well, consulting reality would help: venomous snakes kill hundreds of thousand of people, every year. One of the reason? Colonial institutes such as the Pasteur Institute have found too onerous to maintain enough reserves of antiserum at the ready. You want to live, you envenomated savages? Go back to colonialism. (Somebody will have to pay for it, though.)

In other news, Netanyahu corrected his lie on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem giving the idea of the extermination of Jews. He actually said word for word what was already said on this site:

Mr. Netanyahu, was criticized by historians (some of them Israeli) for erroneous causality, had already said he never intended to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Holocaust by blaming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, but his new statement went further.

“The decision to move from a policy of deporting Jews to the Final Solution was made by the Nazis and was not dependent on outside influence,” Mr. Netanyahu posted on Facebook, in Hebrew and English. “The Nazis saw in the Mufti a collaborator, but they did not need him to decide on the systematic destruction of European Jewry, which began in June 1941…Contrary to the impression that was created, I did not mean to claim that in his conversation with Hitler in November 1941 the Mufti convinced him to adopt the Final Solution. The Nazis decided on that by themselves.”

It’s always simpler to tell the truth rather than to tell lies.

The basic story of June 1941 was related here many times: as Operation Barbarossa, the attempted destruction of the USSR, launched to the East, the 150 German army divisions were followed by 3,000 elite men from the “Zonderkommandos” (Special Commandos). The latter were older and generally of a high educational level (such as lawyers). They were also dedicated Nazis whose one and only task was to kill all and any Jews they would encounter.

Many Jews had been already killed by the vengeful Natives: when the area was invaded by the USSR, many Jews were put in charge of the occupying Bolshevik administration, earning them the hatred of the locals, beyond their basic antisemitism.

Hatred is a basic human mode of thinking. To suppress it, one cannot simply piously deplore and condemn it, one has to kill what causes it. In the case of the Middle East, Salafism, the way of the old ones (that’s literally what “Salafism” means) was the way of war.

It was even, as Islam surged in its defeat of the Persian and Roman armies, and its conquest of Syria and its repression of the rebellion in Egypt, the way of total war by extermination of all fighting age men. No, I am not pulling a Netanyahu and getting all confused. Assad and his Alawites, and many other sects, tribes or nations in the Middle East are equally persuaded that, if they don’t exterminate their enemies, they will be exterminated.

This will go on, as long as no more advanced philosophy is imposed there. Meanwhile, to survive in style, Europe needs to embrace a more sustainable philosophy, and that demands imposing order on itself and its neighborhood, by force. Reality is a Black Mamba: it can be lived with, but only given proper precautions.

But that would require correct philosophical leadership, and all the philosophical leadership we have, in these despicable times of ours, is that “markets”, that is, the richest and most obscure, ought to rule. Said markets have no market for Syrian infants, so they don’t care.

During Barbarossa, in five months, five million soldiers died (4 million of them Soviet). Barbarossa failed, because Fall rains and their mud, plus the worst freeze from General Winter in 50 years, arrived before the Nazis could encircle Moscow. Crucial in that non-achievement was that Barbarossa was delayed by 5 weeks (from May 15, 1941, to June 22, 1941). Moreover many elite Nazi units were decimated, wounded and exhausted because of action in Greece and Crete where Greeks and the British gave them a very hard time. A lot of equipment got also used up in that Hellenistic campaign, and not available for Barbarossa anymore, including lots of planes and paratroops (most of them killed in Crete). That’s why the Nazis could only get to see the Kremlin’s golden domes in the distance.

So you want to stop horrendous war? Use more war, in a judicious, and timely manner. Some will sneer, because they do not know history, and they are in no hurry to correct that, as they view history as so immoral, it should not be contemplated, let alone meditated upon (only really nasty people such as me do this, ought of sheer malignancy, or so they feel, before going to play trick or treat with their children…)

Yet war has its logic, and morality flows from it. The crime of the Jews, when Hitler rose, is that they cooperated with Hitler instead of fighting him to death (not just Republican candidate Carson said this, to some extend, but Hannah Arendt, long ago; in any case the historical record is clear).

What happened more precisely, in the case of that delaying attack on Greece, is that Mussolini, the Italian fascist leader, had invaded with his elite armies, the Albanese and Greek regions. The Greek army counterattacked, and walloped the Italian fascists. It was an extremely humiliating defeat. Mussolini had already suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the French, the previous spring. Now with the Greeks? Also there was a strategic problem: could not the British counterattack, through Greece, in the soft belly of the Great Reich, all the way to the vital Rumanian oil fields? So Hitler decided he had to intervene in the Balkans.Thus he attacked Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete. The Greeks resisted fiercely. The Royal Navy ruled the seas. Barbarossa got delayed by a crucial 5 weeks.

Now what would the peaceniks have advised the Greeks to do? Rise the white flag, offer roses to the fascists, have sex with them, give them all properties, dignity, freedom, hope. The Jews were forced into that. And still, they ended exterminated.

The peaceniks wanted the Greeks, and the French, to surrender. Such is their burning desire.  (Most of the people holding this sort of opinion are white, and probably closet racists who wanted Nazi Germany to win). Then Barbarossa would have happened on schedule, and the USSR be defeated. So, instead of having just exterminated most European Jews, the Nazis could have exterminated much more, and all Slavs, etc.

Instead the Greeks fought, as the French had done, ten months earlier. By the time Barbarossa started, the Nazi army was much weakened from what it had been, a year earlier, having lost more than 100,000 of its best elements. (Plus thousands of planes, and better pilots.)

When confronted to French fortifications on the other side of the Meuse, Nazi engineers charged with explosive backpacks, a non-sustainable technique providing with little inspiration; from their point of view, they were going to die, one way, or another, as they were stuck between the river and French guns, so it’s not like, in their minds, at least, they were really the suicide bombers they, in reality, were.

You want peace with killers? Then be ready to die, with all those, and all what you love, and respect. Yet, don’t expect those who are more worthy to follow you.

Reality has no morality. We have morality to adapt to reality. Those whose morality can’t adapt to reality have no future.

Patrice Ayme’

What Do We Need Men For?

September 20, 2015

This is a philosophical question: I leave reproduction issues, those technical details, aside. The latter are in the process of being scientifically solved. We can imagine a society without men, so to ponder why we would need them is of the essence.

More urgently, the obverse problem has appeared: in many societies, boys are prefered to girls, and a vast gender gap of the most ominous type has surged.

However, in the self-doubting West, conflicts, for some reasons, is not as popular as it used to be, and men are supposed to be war-like and disruptive. Why not getting rid of them? (Whether this elimination has been proposed or not, is irrelevant. In the light of the campaign waged against many a virile personality trait, it is pretty obvious that the ideal of the Greek superhero of old, the hyper virile hoplite, is supposed to be extinguished.)

With Women Like That, Who Needs Men?

With Women Like That, Who Needs Men?

[Blue Mountains.]

I asked one of my friends, a mountain guide. She generally climbs, when not guiding, with two other very strong climbers, who happen to be women. As I contemplated them, I wondered, indeed, what we needed men for. Could not that trio prove that women could do all what men could?

The question is not new. In the 1950s, when the Himalaya was immensely dangerous, French women constituted an entirely feminine expedition to climb some unconquered summit. However, mother nature decided otherwise, and smashed the arrogant creatures’ base camp below thousands of tons of snow.

My friend the guide told me the most ferocious boss she ever had was female. Moreover, although she agreed that men were pretty useless, at first sight, and thus that women could do without men, there was nevertheless something good about having males around. Women were pushed to go further when men were around.

The reciprocal reasoning has long been made by the chivalry, and the nascent romantic tradition. The Sixteenth Century French poet Ronsard pointed out, by claiming that love for the other gender was most transcendental:

Et moi sans faire long séjour

Je m’en vais de nuit et de jour

Au lieu d’où plus on ne retourne”.

Si est-ce que je ne voudrois

Avoir été ni roc ni bois,

Antre, ni onde, pour défendre

Mon corps contre l’âge emplumé,

Car ainsi dur je n’eusse aimé

Toi qui m’as fait vieillir, Cassandre.

ODES, IV, 10

Trans PA.:

Without sojourning long,

I am going, night and day,

To this place one does not come back from,

Yet, I would not have wanted

To be neither rock nor wood,

Cave, or Wave, to defend

My Body against feathered age,

As thus hard I would not have loved

You who made me age, Cassandra.

In other words: love is what makes life worthy. We pay for love, with life. That sounds a bit crazy, thus having crazy relations with the other half of humanity may help. Courtly love, which was invented in “love courts” set by women around the Twelfth Century had made the most ethereal form of love the most valuable value to guide humanity with.

My friend the mountain guide made the same point pragmatically: inter-gender relationships are more stimulating than having them not.

What the two genders do, is that they force us out of our mental box, or more exactly, our logic.

Can we rephrase this more… logically? Yes! The (slightly) different neurohormonalities, and maybe even neurologies, of men and women give us different logics. Call them L1 and L2. So by having women we get L1 (say) and by having men we get L2. So, with two genders, we get two logics. At first sight, that’s already twice richer than just one logic.

Moreover, by making L1 and L2 interact, we get more than just one or the other. Actually we get more than the union of L1 with L2. What we get, at the very least is the smallest logic containing both L1 and L2. We get META(L1, L2), comprising the meta discourse of L1 on L2 and of L2 on L1.

This is the big argument for neurohormonal diversity. And it can be generalized: the main mental reason for having physical exercise, adventures, or simply dreams, or poetry is that they create different neurohormonal states, and thus different logics.

This general reasoning of neurohormonal diversity generating logical diversity extends also to hermaphrodites and so-called “transgender” creatures.

Some may object that I talked about “logic”, and not of what men and women differ the most about, emotion. But my notion of “logic” covers “emotion”. “Emotion” is what gives meaning to logic, by assigning “truth values”, which are defined by practice, to generalized semiotics (in particular generalized semantics).

But this is a subject for another time. Passions, the supreme emotions, propel reason beyond the reasonable, and in this progress, our ever more transcendental nature. We need men and women, because we need ever more, and never less. And maybe violence of men is part of these riches, and the softness of women what is needed to make the Dark Side sustainable.

If advanced animals can be characterized by their Machiavellian intelligence, nature’s wisdom can be even more so. To have two genders with different ways of looking at, processing the world, and even being with the world, gives us stereoscopic vision for the mind’s eye. The mind of our culture, our all encompassing world culture, which can even drive biological evolution itself (another subject for the future).

Vive les  différences!  

Patrice Ayme’

Submission To War

July 18, 2015

Religions pull people together again. It could be the religion of the Republic, as under the Romans. In this case the religion served the Public.

Superstitious religions are much more frequent: they serve madness, by obliging “believers” to believe the unbelievable, thus to suspend reason, and fascistically follow those who are with god(s).

Human beings are one with reason. Suspending reason is suspending themselves. It can only be achieved violently, explicitly or not. That’s why millions, even tenths of millions, were killed in the name of Christianism and Islam.

Making A Religion From Killing People

Making A Religion From Killing People

Indeed, oligarchies and plutocracies are more frequent than republics, the history of civilization shows. A republic is much harder to achieve. Calling on the fascist instinct to obey those with access to weapons, and the training and mentality to use them, is much easier.

Sometimes, there are spectacular variants to superstitious, fascist religions. The Aztecs lived at high altitude, and had little protein (the Incas lived at even higher altitude, but had engineered potatoes, which are full of proteins). So the Aztecs religion recommended to fetch large, nutritious animals. However, Mesoamerica had no cattle or sheep, lamas or vicunas. The camels and horses had long been exterminated. The only animal which could walk to his fate in Tenochtitlan, was man.

So the Aztec religion recommended to kill people. Well fed Aztecs could not be defeated by those they ate… Until Cortez elite, but minuscule, army showed up. Cortez had little trouble to raise an army among the Natives, and exterminate Aztecs, and their religion.

The Romans exterminated several major religions which condone killing people as a matter of faith. The Gallic religion was the foremost, and largest such example. From Caesar to under Nero, it took a bit more than a century for Roman armies to eliminate the Druids and their theocratic plutocracy. The Franks would then take care of the savage Germanic religion. It took four centuries.

The Violence in the Holly Qur’an can only be holly, as it comes from god’s mouth. Thus it’s completely natural that a young perfectly integrated Muslim, especially trained as an assassin, grabbed a gun, and killed five Mariness and Sailor, wounding others.

Islamophiles will howl to the sky that the fanatic was not following a religion of peace. True enough. The true Islam is a religion of war.

However, it’s beneath the dignity of, or maybe against the religion of,  the Politically Correct and Philosophically Stupid (PCPS), to read any of the sacred texts of Islam.

The Qur’an orders believers to kill unbelievers. Such verses are unambiguous, and starts as soon as the first (which is the second) chapter of the Qur’an:

“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter… and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah.” (Qur’an 2:191, The Cow)

Islamist so-called “scholars” make impressive gymnastics to tell you that what you just read is all about peace. A preferred trick is to not translate “fitnah”. Fitnah means “strife”. In other words, Muslims are ordered to kill and kill and kill until all resistance (fitnah) has ceased.

Naturally, Muslim “scholars” contest the straightforward explanations of the texts they read ad nauseam . Why? How? The Qur’an orders them to use “every stratagem“… Including lying, which is expressly ordered too:

The Quran, chapter 9 (At-Tawba), verse 5:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.— translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

What to do with a terroristic religion?

The Celtic religion, and Carthage’s religion, were eliminated violently, by the Republic. Rome tolerated all religions, as long as they did not cause death, mayhem, or conditions bringing them forth.

The Republic, as a religion, can be peaceful (Italian Republics showed this). Hinduism is peaceful: with one million gods, there are so many leaders and emotions to follow, that none can exert too much of a weight.

There was a sort of betrayal of the West by its own intellectuals: they told us that Islam had to be respected. Whereas the entire Western civilization was built upon replacing superstition by reason and jurisdiction. Thus the West was built upon NOT respecting the superstitious religion, Christianism, beyond reason. So why to extend the courtesy of respecting Islam more than Christianism?

Is it because Islam is so much more violent that thinkers are afraid to be critical? Or is it racism? It’s good enough for them?

Islam means submission. Submission to what? What’s hardest to submit to? The most violent orders?

Patrice Ayme’


Should The Most Violent Society Lead?

June 26, 2015

“International” authorities keep pressuring Greece to conform to “austerity“. But what does “international” mean? It means the domineering socio-economic order, inspired by? Inspired by violence. As I will show.

The basic story of the present Greek tragedy is the following: (some) plutocrats stole (gigantic amounts of) money from their accomplices the banksters. States and institutions (IMF, ECB, Fed, etc.) then stepped in, and replenished the banks which their own management, banksters, and plutocrats had just stolen. No attempt was made to recover the money from the plutocrats who had stolen the, now apparently, but not really, ruined, plutocrats (pulling the strings from behind).

Then the governments and said “international” institutions turned around and asked the Greek Public to compensate for all the money those worthies had given to the banks. The same request was made everywhere, thus all sorts of budgets, from social services, to defense, to fundamental research, were slashed (even in the USA; the big exception is… China, where bankers toe the line fixed by the state more carefully).

This replenishment of the banksters by the Public was, and is, the world’s greatest fraud, ever perpetrated. It’s closely related to the following. Where did the money go?

70 trillion dollars (70,000 billion dollars) of stolen money rest in Tax Havens (source: Alain Bauer, a renowned world criminologist). Not even counting the hidden money in the world’s two largest tax havens, Britain (Great or not), and the USA.

The worthies, our great leaders,  having bought their own elections, know the ropes… Or know enough about the ropes, not to ask too many questions. Clearly this situation, overall, this gigantic conspiracy, this cover-up, is, all together, an act of the greatest violence.

Could it be related to the enormous violence of the country which leads this show? Here are some international comparisons; the USA leads in violence:

USA Violence Is Not Just About Guns. Jail, God, & Paying For Everything Is Also Part of It.

USA Violence Is Not Just About Guns. Jail, God, & Paying For Everything Is Also Part of It.

[Homicide by guns is just one metric of violence in the USA; there are worse ones, such as having to fork out 100K for a university education with the elite. Interestingly, there are no national statistics, in the USA, on police violence; judicial violence can be measured, by the millions which “justice” processes… violently; no such luck with those police processes… Or should we say, dispatches?]

Violence is both cause and consequence, feeding on itself. Violence is not just about killing people. Incarcerating them is also violent. Even The Economist recently observed that the USA was “Jail Nation”. Having a violent God, accepting money rules all, including elections, is also part of the violence.

No less than 8 million citizens of the USA are either in jail, or under suspended sentences, probation, etc. In a society with that much legal (and thus, police) violence it is only natural that it spills all over.

My point? Who controls, who has built, most of the world’s institutions? The USA (observe the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and where the IMF and the World Bank sit: not even half a mile from the White House). So, if the ideology and practice of the USA is impregnated with violence, it’s an ideology of violence which controls everything, and especially economic theory.

Even Academia is hyper violent in the USA; to attend Harvard what you need is beaucoup bucks. Harvard and the like cost around 100,000 dollars a year. That’s why I call them “plutocratic universities“.

Obama himself pointed out last week that the homicidal rate in the USA is 49 times that of France. That’s satanic. I know many Americans are bad, but do they deserve to be eliminated at 50 times the rate of Frenchmen?

Homicides, guns and violence are related markers, and marks of society. There is a relationship with the Human Development Index. Notice, in all these comparisons, that small countries don’t really matter. Comparing republics such as France and the USA has meaning: both are republics, both have independent defense systems, and worldwide empires (France controls nearly 11 million square kilometers, the USA nearly double this).

However, a small poodle such as Sweden will follow the orders Washington gives, and Luxembourg, with less than 1% of the population of France, and no industry, but for corruption, follow the wishes of all and any plutocrat.

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[9] is a “measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account.”

Note: The green arrows (Increase), red arrows (Decrease), and blue dashes (Steady) represent changes in rank. The changes in rank are not relative to the HDI list above, but are according to the source (p. 168) calculated with the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data.

  1.  Norway 0.891 (Steady)
  2.  Australia 0.860 (Steady)
  3.  Netherlands 0.854 (Increase 1)
  4.   Switzerland 0.847 (Increase 3)
  5.  Germany 0.846 (Steady)
  6.  Iceland 0.843 (Increase 2)
  7.  Sweden 0.840 (Decrease 4)
  8.  Denmark 0.838 (Increase 1)
  9.  Canada 0.833 (Increase 4)
  10.  Ireland 0.832 (Decrease 4)
  11.  Finland 0.830 (Steady)
  12.  Slovenia 0.824 (Decrease 2)
  13.  Austria 0.818 (Decrease 1)
  14.  Luxembourg 0.814 (Increase 3)
  15.  Czech Republic 0.813 (Decrease 1)
  16.  United Kingdom 0.812 (Increase 3)
  17.  Belgium 0.806 (Decrease 2)
  18.  France 0.804 (Steady)
  19.  Japan 0.799 (New)
  20.  Israel 0.793 (Increase 1)
  21.  Slovakia 0.778 (Increase 1)
  22.  Spain 0.775 (Decrease 2)
  23.  Italy 0.768 (Increase 1)
  24.  Estonia 0.767 (Increase 1)
  25.  Greece 0.762 (Increase 2)
  26.  Malta 0.760 (Decrease 3)
  27.  Hungary 0.757 (Decrease 1)
  28.  United States 0.755 (Decrease 12)
  29.  Poland 0.751 (Increase 1)
  30.  Cyprus 0.752 (Decrease 1)
  31.  Lithuania 0.746 (Increase 2)
  32.  Portugal 0.739 (Steady)
  33.  South Korea 0.736 (Decrease 5)
  34.  Latvia 0.725 (Increase 1)
  35.  Croatia 0.721 (Increase 4)
  36.  Argentina 0.680 (Increase 7)
  37.  Chile 0.661 (Increase 4)

Countries in the top quartile of HDI (“very high human development” group) with a missing IHDI: New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Andorra, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Cuba, and Kuwait

The most violent country ought not to lead: it’s as if one chose the local violent drunkard as the leader. However, it’s precisely because they are stupid and violent that bullies lead. Thus a paradox: the worst, are most esteemed.

Just after five Islamist attack in five countries around the old Roman Imperium, killed more than 70 people in 24 hours, including more than 40 in Tunisia, it may feel strange that I focus  on the USA. However, Americanism and Islamism are directly related, these days.

Islamism was quasi-inexistent in, say, 1948. It is the implementation of the Great Bitter Lake Conspiracy, a plot elaborated in Washington, and more exactly from the “democratic” advisers around president Roosevelt,  which fabricated the rule of Islamism (though the good works and financing of the Saudi plutocrats).

The mentality imposed by lords of the USA brought us Islamism, and the sort of tricks played on Greece. And they belong to a class. This so-called “Deep State” was animated, already a century ago, by individuals such as the Harriman brothers. (The Wikipedia link gives none of the savory details, where countries such as France, Nazi Germany, and the USSR figure prominently.)

There is a war against democracy, but its ways are subtle enough to escape the understanding of the baffled masses.

Patrice Ayme’

Our Impotent Self Glorifying “Leaders”

June 20, 2015

I was watching Barack Obama in San Francisco, explaining that shootings of civilians by civilians, racist or not (“this sort of incidents”), does not happen with the same frequency in any other countries.  Obama talked angrily. He was at the sea cliff mansion of a billionaire, the Pacific on one side, the Golden Gate bridge on the other. But his anger was not just directed at the gun lobby. Reading his face, one could tell he had strong doubts about the BS splashing so vigorously out of his oral cavity.

Who Am I? What Do I Think? What Happened? Something Is Going On, But You Don’t Know What It Is, Mister President

Who Am I? What Do I Think? What Happened? Something Is Going On, But You Don’t Know What It Is, Mister President

Had Obama just doubts that what he was saying could bring any progress? Obviously Obama knew that we know that, whatever he says, makes no difference. A sad state of affairs. Mr. Skin Color President is taken seriously by nobody. But he still gets to use the big jet, so what’s the big deal? Since when did he care about anything else?

As Obama was denouncing the frequency of shootings in the USA, one was happening in Oakland (three wounded). Obama declared that it was “not enough to grieve”.  Indeed. But it has become so American, to just grieve. More and more, the rabble is into incantations, and little else besides. And the reason is in plain sight.

It was Obama’s 20th trip to San Francisco. To listen to him, one had to pay $33,400. Then one could get access to one of the various mansions of some of the wealthiest people on Earth Obama visited that day.

$33,400: more than half the median family income.

$33,400: does Obama feel the violence? It’s not Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, but Liberty-Inequality-Obscenity.

Does Obama feels he has power, because plutocrats and their little children give $33,400 to see his face? They would give the same money to whomever is president next. Its pocket change to them, and Obama is just the bus boy serving them, because somebody has got to do it. Obama was not born in Kenya, but his spirits sure died under a regime similar to the one colonial Kenya enjoyed.

Obama says the mood of the country has to change about guns. But 90% of the USA want tighter regulations about guns, 69% want to crack down on CO2. So why it’s not happening? Because the people who can afford $33,400 to see Obama in person are all who matter. And those people have very different priorities: they make money from fossil fuels, they need private armies to defend themselves, inequality is what feeds them, and the more, the better, they are happy that We The People Is NOT in power. And the first line of this, is that We The People’s opinion does not matter.

Is it why Obama looked so nervous and culprit? Maybe he stumbled on the truth? Did he finally realize he became… nothing? Nothing important?

The truth is that, during his entire presidency, Obama did nothing positive (besides killing Osama Bin Laden), and a few very negative things (letting banksters and the CIA get away with murder).

Why was Obama so ineffectual? Because he did not take one tough decision, and imposed it. Obama is not feared by anyone. And without fear, the Prince cannot rule, as Machiavel, having studied pope Rodrigo Borgia and ex-cardinal Caesare Borgia from very close, pointed out.

We are not living in democracy. Athens had a democracy, we don’t. Democracy means direct democracy, where the Demos has the Power (Kratos).

Instead what we have is a political system where immense powers go to a few individuals, and only to them. That way the system headed by Putin, Xi, or Obama are no different. The rest of the population, the 99.9%, is left without power whatsoever. (Seriously: studies have shown that what people want they don’t get. More than two-third of the citizens of the USA want something done about the CO2 crisis. Yet, federally, nothing is done.)

That’s why the population cling so avidly to their guns. At least they have the power of holding onto a self-destructive device which can turn them into god for a few seconds.

Obama did not understand any of this. Or he did not understand what it meant. He seemed to have really believe he was in a sort of democracy among his peers, and he could debate things, get to a consensus, and advance things this way.

Not so. When President Eisenhower imposed desegregation in public schools, he used the military. It was dangerous, and dangerous for Ike. But Ike was a soldier. He ordered to proceed with D Day during a lull in a major storm. Ike was tough.

When Lyndon Johnson imposed the “Great Society” reforms, he forced lawmakers to sign on, by using all sorts of unsavory means, thanks to presidential powers.

And President Roosevelt said: “I welcome their hatred” speaking of bankers. And hated he was: after all, he had started his presidency by closing all banks for four days (selected few were re-opened later). Then he outlawed gold possession, devalued the dollar (thus defaulting on US debt). And so on.

Obama thought he could keep on leading a charmed life, seducing everybody, and be a good president. But being a good president mean, leading people where they did not want to go. All the preceding presidents took hard decisions, even Nixon and Carter (Nixon founded the EPA, HMOs, pulled out of Vietnam, admitting defeat, etc.; Carter, at the very least named the hawkish Paul Volcker at the head of the Fed, to crush inflation, bring a recession, and cost Carter’s re-election).

The present political system is nasty. To get any positive result, any positive progress, one has to be nasty. Nastiness has to be carefully measured.

As I sketched in the case of Napoleon, Napoleon was way nastier than he needed to be, in the end, although he got there from the invasion of France by nasty plutocrats, and, first of all the British army and navy. That invasion lasted years. For years, Napoleon’s homeland, Corsica, was officially a possession of the English crown, because the king of England said so. That would infuriate any Corsican, republican patriot.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, Angela Merkel, and her French poodles, having saved the bankers from their profitable perfidy, wants the Greek rabble to pay with dear lives. Seeing her business meanness and military impotence, inspired by Obama’s lack of balls, Putin has moved, and keeps on moving. Not afraid, as Xi in China, to take dangerous decisions.

Something Is Going On, But You Don’t Know What It Is, oh great leaders of the West.

Rome had started as quasi-Direct Democracy Republic (not as direct as Athens, much more direct than we have now). Six centuries later, this was not even a memory: Rome had become an unsavory mix of military dictatorship, plutocracy and theocracy. The ancient Republican structures, such as Roman law, were crushed underneath. Political power had lost sustainable legitimacy.

In 381 CE, emperor Theodosius (initially a Spanish Roman general) passed a number of laws which launched a “war against the philosophers”. The lack of thinking bore fruit quickly: the empire became so impotent that, by 400 CE, the Franks were put in military control of Gallia, and the Germanias. In 406 CE, the legions were withdrawn from Britannia.

This was the bitter and of the (Roman) plutocratic austerity program. And its motivation was the same as now: the plutocrats did not want to pay taxes. By then, most plutocratic families, or “nobles” as they called themselves, had a bishop in their family, giving them moral authority (this was the age of the “Founding Fathers of the Church”; Saint Jerome even made emperor Theodosius bent to his will).

If one wants moral authority, or just the ear, and presence of power, it’s simple nowadays: no need to pretend that one loves god. Just fork over $33,400, and the president is yours. Let drones and bullets fly. Pay lip service to violence. Amen

Patrice Ayme’

Imprinting Through Sports, USA Style

March 18, 2015

USA Violent Sport Metaphysics Imprints Youth:

Many countries are exploding here and there, or in danger of doing so, or in the grip of frantically repressing states (Russia, China, Arabia).

The European Central Bank (ECB) inaugurated its shining new skyscraper, worth a billion (Euro/Dollar). It’s the same ECB that is destroying the European economy and watching the poor die, from lack of care and, or, food.

In Europe, only plutocrats and their servants the bankers, are supposed to have money, and actually the ECB started a program to send them some more (copying the USA in a delayed way… Or maybe Washington told them they should do it, and the USA did not need the sky high Euro anymore…).

Pee, Strike, Bat, Strike, Armor, Watch, Admire... & Good American Snipers Will Be

Pee, Strike, Bat, Strike, Armor, Watch, Admire… & Good American Snipers Will Be

Protesters took to Frankfurt’s streets, attacking police stations, burning police cars, and the like. It looked like a war scene. Inside, the perfectly plutocratic head of the ECB made a discourse in perfect American, using perfect American concepts, such as “fairness“, which he had plenty of time to hone, as he prepared to become vice-chair of Goldman Sachs.

“Fairness” is big in the USA: see Rawls’ “Justice As Fairness“. For the head of the ECB to feel that the European Central Bank is not treated “fair”, is wonderfully American. T Rex not treated fair: the critters are protesting. Goldman Sachs man knows best. “Europe”, Also Known As demented plutocracy, rules.

Why is Europe, even Germany, full of protests against plutocracy, while the USA is so quiet? OK, Europe is more on the receiving end than the USA. But it’s not just about that.

Between 1980 and 2015. In 1940, the USA was 132 million, in 1980 it was 226. Then it exploded. At the start of 2015, the USA’s population was more than 320 million. It augments by 4 Americans, every minute. 35 million USA citizens have at least one parent who is an immigrant.

How is the empire of the USA so successful to churn several new millions into decerebrated obedience every year? Does it have to do with bashing on the head? Yes, in part, as we will see.



Here I was, partly part of a birthday party, parting from the crowd with the keen eye of a Kodiak bear watching agitated salmons.

I was in a park, complete with magnificent trees (enjoy while they resist the greatest drought in more than a millennium).

First I contemplated a game of baseball. Baseball has always irked me. It’s not just that I do not understands how it works, nor could possibly imagine trying to care enough to understand it. Has one ever seen a game that looks less fun? But here I was, and a few hundred Americans, much of them colored or Spanish speaking, were all excited what they saw. Not that there was much action. Baseball is mostly a “sport” where one guy moves part of his body violently, and thousands, or even millions, watch that spastic action.

Was does this mean, philosophically?

All the players, young boys, were males. The genus Homo Baseballus is apparently monosexual. I view anything with a male imbalance suspiciously, because I am a party pooper, not keen to scream hysterically as some women in the audience.

During the games players do mostly two spectacular moves: one consists into lifting the leg in an exaggerated way, as if a boy was to mimic a large bipedal dog peeing all over.

What is the subliminal message? That, if one wants to be the center of all attention, listen to women scream on shrill delight, one has to practice marking one’s territory?

Then the one who has symbolically marked the territory throws a nasty, hard ball as violently as possible.

Apparently, that ball is the next best thing to a rock, because it is launched towards three guys in full body and face armor.

What is the subliminal message? That wearing armor is good? It’s fun? That trying to kill guys wearing armor, who try hard to get killed by being in the way of nasty projectiles, is all American? Why all the whining about so many wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, then? Baseball players too, get maimed by projectiles, and they call it a game. Learn the fun of hurting, and getting hurt.

Why not to use real bullets, as they are at it? Ah, then, one would miss on the peeing move…

Next, one of the candidates to pummeling by ball, tries to hit the ball using a bat. Imagine that. Or, rather, try to imagine anything more symbolically violent, and deeply stupid.

Hitting fast ball with bat gives the occasion to make another violent gesture. Grabbing a bat with two hands, and using all of one’s body to throw momentum into the move. That is the exact same gesture that one would use to break the back of one’s opponent with a bat. Is that a coincidence, or is this a symbol?

Worse: is this a stealthy way to teach youngsters that one of the most important moves in life, is the one that breaks the opponent’s back?

Why would one otherwise want to hit a ball with a bat? A bat is obviously not the correct device to hit a ball, and bestowing colossal violence on the air to do so, not appropriate, either. PPP Lift Your Thigh, Strike Violently, Full Armor: Healthy

The metaphysical message?

It is a worthwhile pursuit to use extreme violence, again and again and again and again, if you hit nothing, as long as you show you are ready to disintegrate your shoulder, doing so.

Anyway that “game” is called baseball, and it unites the USA. It is interesting to see African-Americans and “Hispanics” being obsessed by it. This way, they demonstrate their will to belong.

Violence and machismo shall unite, little else does.

If you want your birthday party under no cloud, let no philosopher be invited.

Albert Londre, famous for revealing conspiracies between the wars, said that the job of journalist consisted in “porter la plume dnas la plaie” (“Plunge the pen into the wound”).



Speaking of Hispanics, have you ever met the Piñata? It is a strange activity from Mexico. You know, the country where a recent “civil” war killed 100,000 or so (who is counting? That, and corruption in Brazil, are in the domain of the incommensurable…)

The Piñata consists into hitting a human effigy with a crow bar or something. It is supposed to be one of the best, most educative games for American children to play, apparently (after this, you are ready to hit stuff with your baseball bat, beat up other hockey players, and suffer concussions charging head first into fellow “players”).

The message? Nothing as funny as dismembering a human being.

Metaphysics, as I said, is most practical, and can be taught through games.

Where does all this American violence come from?

From the exploitation mentality.

Why not as much in Europe?

Because in Europe, the exploitation mentality has been successful just one way: in reducing population from the otherwise unbearable heights it would have reached. A Pyrrhic victory on the grandest imaginable scale. Even then, tens of millions of Europeans had to emigrate for other continents

Moreover, the most successful confederation in Europe, the Franks were pretty much unique among the Germans by putting tolerance and integration first: by 600 CE, in the gigantic Imperium Francorum (soon to become much larger), everybody was a Frank (next door in Spain, the Goths kept a strict apartheid against Jews and the Catholic majority; this contributed to Spain’s fall to the Islamists a century later).

So basically, in Europe, violence did not work. Violence was mostly used by a power like France in the way the Roman Republic used it: in a defensive way.


An interlocutor was perplexed by my observations. What kind of games do children play in a country such as France? She asked. I came up with a whole list: musical chairs, hoquet, colin maillard, etc. Although involving moving the body, all these activities are more pacific than dancing.

Violence in USA sports is great that a major American football star, not yet at his peak, just announced his retirement, age 24. “He made his decision after consulting with family members, concussion researchers, friends and current and former teammates, as well as studying what is known about the relationship between football and neurodegenerative disease.

“I just honestly want to do what’s best for my health,” Borland told “Outside the Lines.” “From what I’ve researched and what I’ve experienced, I don’t think it’s worth the risk.””

The violence of society in the USA is carefully cultivated. Yes, it shows up in police action. That’s the whole idea. Incarcerating and jailing a large proportion, larger than in any other countries, is also part of the plot… Or let’s call it the system.

Can that be duplicated elsewhere? Not really: people come there with too much cultural baggage, and the attitude that they have a right to deploy it.

Meanwhile, it will work, as long as Americans had enough of the violence. Yet, as the example of Netanyahu winning the elections in Israel, by adding violent threat after violent threat, shows, violence can become a virtuous circle… As far as being elected.

Another trick, once one is done hitting youth on the head, or, even better, letting them hit each other’s heads, is extremely high costs for basic life, joined with extremely high salaries for those with the correct mentality. Plutocracy is its own ordering principle, because greed is called success, and without that success, the basics, including a university education, are not there.

But that’s another story. American violent sports metaphors are all over American semantics, especially in the business world. No wonder women cannot break through, and no wonder many USA CEOs started as American football stars: decerebration on the field is exactly what was needed to make them the best enforcers.

Patrice Ayme’