foreign philosophical talking

Thinking in English: I try
a little philosophy
(by Tophe, November 15th 2018)

I have several pen-friends, in my France (we are talking in French) and in Egypt, Germany, Ukraine, Flemish Belgium, Russia, English Canada, Austria (we are speaking in English, even if this is a foreign language too for most of them). A few weeks ago, I received a long reply by my German friend and I answered only yesterday, sorry, as reading long discussions in English is not easy for me, answering this way: uneasy also. But in his words were 4 very interesting ideas to think over, in more room than a quick letter, and I do it here, as exercise in English somehow.
The 4 strong points he mentioned were these ones:
1a/ Men aren’t suitable for too much freedom.
1b/ The sense of reason and common sense mostly is underdeveloped.
2a/ It has to be done and the end justifies the means! And that's what everybody thinks, to my opinion.
2b/ So, there aren't a handful of high-ranking crooks, looting us innocent people. We're all crooks, just on different levels. The high crooks, of course, are cheating lots of lower crooks, but low crooks cheat the even lower ones and sometimes, often using their anonymity, they can cheat higher ones. Dog eats dog, but there are Pekinese and there are mastiffs.

Now I try to think over about it.
1a/ I feel uncomfortable about the denial of freedom for people including myself. I have learned at school that, during the Middle Age Inquisition, saying a word disagreed by the Pope leader was punished by very painful death penalty, being burnt alive. This is full lack of freedom and I think this is a shame. Of course, full freedom is bad also, as one may want to murder or/and rape innocent ones. But I think the famous way is a good basis somehow: be free unless you hurt someone (which is forbidden, not allowed). But there is a famous paradox explaining it: “no freedom for the enemies of freedom!”, and for instance it is now forbidden to love (without any violence) Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot. There is an accusation of “possible violence” (if accusing prosecutors are right, which is not proven at all). This is uncomfortable, and punishing opinions without violence is a bad consequence of the slogan “not too much freedom”. And also, if you allow dictators to pretend they are hurt by any resistance, and hurting someone is forbidden so any resistance to their dogma is forbidden, all explodes, because discrepant dogmas would want to crush everybody (if that does not happen, that just means one dogma is victorious dishonestly pretending to embody the only right freedom). The worst in my opinion is the Gayssot act in the French law, punishing the so-called “negationists” with jail and ruin. It is forbidden to deny the Historical dogma in France about the Shoah, or simply to doubt of its truth. Maybe this was a punishment for neo-Nazis, but it also punishes skeptical thinkers (like me and Indian Buddhists and several philosophers of the old times), doubting of the World existence, without any project of active genocide. This is not violence towards the Jews at all (and I am myself of Jewish ascent) but this is a resistance towards the domination of the Jewish leaders, using the Shoah guilt to direct the Western world into approving the Nakba (chasing away the Palestinian majority to give Israel back to the Jews, racistly or religiously fanatic without giving back the USA to Amerindians). And the denial of the Amerindian genocide is legal in France, this is a racist law for Zionist domination, pretending to fight the evil use of freedom. This is a lie, awful, a shame. Racist evil (electing Jewish blood) pretending to kill racist evil (antisemitic). So, what I see is the self-contradiction of the principle “not too much freedom for the people”. Dictators (not only individuals but lobbying groups and their allies) are using this as a dishonest weapon. Victoriously alas.
1b/ The most famous defender of Reason was the French “philosopher” René Descartes, father of the Cartesian spirit. But I have destroyed completely, by pure logic, his pretentions to logic. So: pretending to embody reason does not mean actually doing so, and this destroys all. It is the same for common sense: most people believe childishly what they are told, or what they see, and my opinion is different: according to me, the highest value is the clever doubt, which is not automatic nor spontaneous at all. Alas, my demonstrations, my philosophy, are classified as mental disease by Science, no matter if I have demonstrated that Science is a deep abuse, rejecting without any true reason the dream hypothesis (the Cartesian spirit is all wrong but wins societally). So… all right for true reason and modified common sense, but under the (pretended) name of “reason and common sense”, the worst is actually committed.
2a/ “The end justifies the means” (in French “la fin justifie les moyens”) is maybe a bad translation, the French words saying the same mean “a very good final goal justifies violence, even if violence is usually bad”. And I disagree, as this is a wrong way to justify violence against non-violent refusers. For instance, the Middle-Age Inquisition pretended to provide Heaven to the ones that were buried alive, to save their soul from the devil (and if they refused to obey the church truth, they were judged as certainly wanting to kill innocents, refusing the Church promised harmony). Not everyone agrees about this mechanism, I disagree. I see the trap in the justification to violence (now for sure) for a pretended good result (someday maybe). The worst dictators (recently Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Brejnev, Mao-Zedong, Pol-Pot) were all committing acute violence in order to get someday a Paradise, not for immediate pleasure to kill at all, and I think this is bad as without final peace goal.
2b/ No, I am not a crook cheating other ones, I try not to be a crook (“escroc” in French). As this is alas (at least: in the capitalist world) opposite to professional requirements (for cheating and hiding faults secretly) I am “medically” out of work, as prescribed by the psychiatrist, following the work doctor’s requirement. This is a shame, according to me. Honesty should be applauded and not sent to psychiatric asylum. Maybe I am a dog, but I am not eating other dogs. As a Westerner (so: rich without reason), I plead guilty without enjoying it, cheating. Yes, this is classified as mentally ill, but I feel I am not a crook, abnormally, that is at least possible.

So, I have answered fully now, thanking again my friend to make me think over pleasantly, in international language. This is too long an answer, but he may come here someday, maybe, as this is not written as a letter.