Censoring “Electrocoal”, Violating Democracy

November 26, 2014

“Scientific American” Censors “Electrocoal”, Violating Free Speech, the Status of the Internet as Public Utility, And, More Generally, Democracy:

President Obama declared last week that the Internet was a Public Utility. Rightly so. Say you build up a bridge. Does that give you the right to do whatever you want with the bridge when people use it? Not so, especially if the bridge has become a Public Utility.

Any media using the Internet is, to some extent, a Public Utility, because the Internet is a Public Utility.

Expression on the Internet is what Free Speech has become now.

A fundamental democratic right in Athens was that of addressing the Assembly.

There should be a right of free speech answer, especially when a site allows public comments.

More generally, the Internet is in need of laws, with the core aim of enabling Free Speech, and disallowing Hate Speech. Commercial, For-Profit Speech ought to be regulated: commerce is always regulated.

As it is, the Internet is the Wild West, and those with the biggest guns rule. Comments, rankings, private information and access are manipulated all over. Some companies’ business is actually to write fake comments and reviews, while passing for non-profit oriented free speech individuals: this ought to be considered consumer fraud, and the appropriate laws ought to be passed to criminalize the activity.

Scientific American is in the habit of censoring comments: “deciding what material is displayed on our website is our right”. They have censored strict scientific comments from me (without explanation).

A law ought to be passed forbidding public utilities to censor comments without some excellent reason. (Journalists are above the law in the sense that they do not have to reveal their sources, nor can be tried for opinion; so journalism always has a public utility aspect at its root.)

Take the example of Free Speech in the street: it is a right of democracy. Yet it can be curtailed by the police if, and only if, it “disrupts the peace”, or violates other laws. In practice, the police rarely intervenes (in democracy, it would have to justify its intervention!)

Scientific American censors, and others, such as Facebook, have argued that their website is their own property, they can do what they want. Well, not really. The problem is that they are in position of monopoly (or more exactly, oligarchy). Then, to empower their oligarchy, they use, and need to use, a Public Utility. That means they are financed by the citizenry in general. Moreover, they got a fiduciary duty: informing and debating in a non grossly misleading, non injurious way.

I related that The Economist censored me for quoting the Qur’an (no, I did not join the Jihad; my aim was to show that, at face value, the Qur’an calls for violent acts, and, thus, the need for Imams to inform believers that this is all allegorical, and outlawing interpretations that are stricto sensu).

In an article on fuel cell cars, the SA Master allowed dozens of comments from (taxpayer financed) Elon Musk’s minions, calling fuel cell cars “fool cars”. That was not censored. I replied in kind.

Scientific American censored me for calling electric cars, ELECTROCOAL. So doing, I claim that Scientific American violated the notion of PUBLIC UTILITY.

Scientific American sent me the following email:

“This comment has been deleted. Scientific American reserves the right to delete comments and revoke commenting privileges without notice. A subscription does not exempt you from our rules, and deciding what material is displayed on our website is our right, not censorship. You can create your own website for your own opinions and views, to share with the world. Scientific American does not owe anyone a platform – anyone may create a website of their own.

This comment is off-topic. Further violations will result in the loss of your commenting privileges, so please review our guidelines carefully. This help desk will not provide another warning.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/page/sa-community-guidelines/

Regards,

SA Webmaster”

[Notice the contradictions and the weasel words, Big Brother speech: censorship desk is called “help desk”, and “further violations…no other warning”.] “Webmaster” is an interesting Freudian slip: in a free society, the Internet should have laws, not “masters”.

Calling Tesla Electric Cars “electrocoal” is an allusion to the fact that electric cars in the USA are loaded with electricity that is half produced in coal thermal plants. So their global efficiency is that of a coal burning installation (more on this in another essay).

The Masters at Scientific American don’t like “electrocoal”. So they censor it, and call me a “violator”. And threaten to unilaterally cancel a contract with me, while still taking my money. No law prevents them to indulge in all these abuses of power.

Just as no law prevents Uber, an Internet based car-rental company, to use the private information it gathers on its clients, tracking them, selling the data.

Uber has apologized. But there should be a law, and employees, and owners, who have violated that law ought to go to jail. Yes, shareholders ought to be punished, as those who owned shares in companies that make money from slaves, ought to be punished; believe or not, those are still around!

Laws are not censorship, they are the common rules which apply equally. Private censorship, though, while using the Public Utility of the Internet, is a violation of said equality, which is the essence of democracy. Violation of democracy ought to be unlawful, just as the equally vaguely defined “hate speech”, or “genocide” are unlawful.

The problem is the same as when plutocrats use publicly financed research to increase their wealth or power (thus scientific publishing ought to be open source, and subsidies from the likes of NASA to private enterprises subject to serious examination… same as subsidies to big banks).

The ultimate reason for democracy, is not fairness, but intelligence. That makes even dictators long for democracy. Democracy allows the group to reach higher intelligence than any other society. The Internet is a tool to further the debate of ideas (ideas which do not violate the law, including hate speech, that is).

Violating the free debate of ideas ought to be left to dictators, and other “Masters”. It ought to be illegal in democracy.

The right of reply ought to be enshrined in democracy. The manipulations of commentary, and censorship for profit or bullies’ sake, or for perverting the minds of the public or children (see Islamism) ought to be illegal, even if done under the cover of higher morality, or hypocrisy.

Internet policing will not solve all the problems of vicious thinking, but it will allow to threaten to address the most egregious of them.

Patrice Ayme’

Government Is The Employer of Last Resort

November 25, 2014

Yes, life is quantum. Generalization, generalization… What else can be generalized? Economics, of course. Traditionally, economics is about money. Guess what? Money is doing very well.

But economics ought to be about workers. Then workers will do as well as money is doing now.

A famous fact is that Central Banks are “Lenders of Last Resort”. And who are the banks lending to? The Rich. How come one never talks about the employer of last resort?

Another thing that can be generalized, is the Great Depression. I was totally right to call the present economic degeneracy the “Greater Depression”

Money Velocity Is The Worse Ever: Deflation Coming.

Money Velocity Is The Worse Ever: Deflation Coming.

Yes, worse than in the so-called “Great Depression”. That’s why Putin is angry. (All powerful and angry: a bad cocktail.)

M2 is the total quantity of money in people’s hands, or their saving accounts. The M2 Velocity, measure of economic activity, is collapsing, lower than ever seen before (I will produce a full graph over a century another time; I had a problem with my Federal Reserve account). M2 velocity predicts deflation. Samuelson discovered M2 velocity varied:

“In terms of the quantity theory of money, we may say that the velocity of circulation of money does not remain constant. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” You can force money on the system in exchange for government bonds, its close money substitute; but you can’t make the money circulate against new goods and new jobs.”

In other words, Quantitative Easing is not work (take this, Krugman!)

In the giant Inca empire, there was plenty of work, and the main employer was the government. (Things went well, until smallpox showed up, courtesy, and advance guard, of the Castilians…)

When Darius founded his giant empire, his government was the employer of first resort, building a giant road system. Later Darius switched to other forms of economic governance, including free market capitalism. The Achaemenid Empire was such a stunning success, not doubt because of the extremely activist stance of its economic governance. (Athens reciprocated in kind, with just as active private-public military industrial complex.)

Here is Paul Krugman in “Rock Bottom Economics. The Inflation and Rising Interest Rates That Never Showed Up”:

Six years ago the Federal Reserve hit rock bottom. It had been cutting the federal funds rate, the interest rate it uses to steer the economy, more or less frantically in an unsuccessful attempt to get ahead of the recession and financial crisis. But it eventually reached the point where it could cut no more, because interest rates can’t go below zero. On Dec. 16, 2008, the Fed set its interest target between 0 and 0.25 percent, where it remains to this day.

The fact that we’ve spent six years at the so-called zero lower bound is amazing and depressing. What’s even more amazing and depressing, if you ask me, is how slow our economic discourse has been to catch up with the new reality. Everything changes when the economy is at rock bottom — or, to use the term of art, in a liquidity trap (don’t ask). But for the longest time, nobody with the power to shape policy would believe it.

What do I mean by saying that everything changes? As I wrote way back when, in a rock-bottom economy “the usual rules of economic policy no longer apply: virtue becomes vice, caution is risky and prudence is folly.”

Indeed. Reason emanates from the Quantum, and what does the Quantum do, when boxed-in, with no classical way out? It tunnels out!

This is exactly why bacterial genetics can exhibit intelligent behavior (as Lamarck correctly anticipated); a changed environment changes the Quantum tunneling prospects, and can induced “directed mutagenesis”[John Cairns, Harvard U., 1988).

So intelligence ought not to be boxed in. Folly is often the best wisdom.

Economics, at this point, has been completely boxed in by the plutocrats.

Krugman again:

“Government spending doesn’t compete with private investment — it actually promotes business spending. Central bankers, who normally cultivate an image as stern inflation-fighters, need to do the exact opposite, convincing markets and investors that they will push inflation up. “Structural reform,” which usually means making it easier to cut wages, is more likely to destroy jobs than create them.

This may all sound wild and radical, but it isn’t.”

The bottom line is that there is not enough economic activity. Rather than repeating what I have said in the past, here is a new argument.

The reason interest rates are so low is that there is too much money for too little employment proposed. So money is not in demand.

If money were in demand, banks would pay for it.

So the bottom line is that work has to be created. Those who have money, the plutocrats and their agents, have no interest to create work, by investing capital, as this would make them dependent upon workers.

Instead they have increasing means, from financial derivatives to robots, to complicit central banks, and fiscal tolerance, to make money from capital without using human capital. The more they do it, the more they like it, the more vicious they get, and the more inclined they are to do it some more.

So what is the way out? Just as the government (in its role as central bank) is the lender of last resort, the government is the employer of last resort.

We are now experiencing the last resort. Thus the government needs to create employment. It can do this in two ways:

1) making it easier for business activity. Say by taking spectacular fiscal measures: as it is some corporations, typically very large pay very little taxes, why small ones are suffering from the opposite: way too much taxation. Most jobs are from the small businesses, most clout, and corruption, from the very large ones. This is a case where more democracy would lead to more economic activity, by creating a fairer market.

2) by outright paying people to work. An obvious target would be to create jobs in education and fundamental research.

Instead, our friend, the naïve, ill-advised Obama has decreased fundamental research, instead stuffing his “friends” and helpers with subsidies.

There are several promising leads with thermonuclear fusion (in part from more advanced electronics). But the government refuses to finance the research as much as it deserves (austerity for research, cornucopia for plutocrats).

Students are forced to borrow to attend ever more expensive universities. That forces them into “profitable” fields, which do not profit society at all.

The times are crying for massive investments in education, research, green infrastructure, cheap and efficient mass transportation and housing.

None of these projects can bring a quick buck. So the notion of profit is not relevant. Instead this infrastructure economy will quick-start the for-profit economy.

Is there an economy working that way somewhere? Well, yes, Switzerland. There, propped by the citizenry, the governmental economy, which is generally at the level of the canton, is very active.

Direct democracy mitigates massive corruption.

So, as Samuelson noticed, we need to go well beyond giving more money to the largest banks (Crude Men’s approach, called Quantitative Easing). We need to follow Roosevelt approach, the old synthesis of government and economy, long practiced by the most advanced civilizations, from Persia, to Greece, to Rome, to the Tang in China…

Provide people with hugely useful work. Recently the Chinese government was working on its system of grand canals. At some point, 14 centuries ago, a particular canal in that system provided three million laborers with work, all at the same time. And it is useful to this day.

The way is clear. It is the exact opposite of austerity and the rule of greedy plutocrats. Time for work, intelligence and generosity.

Patrice Ayme’

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT: Nature’s Faster Than Light Architecture

November 22, 2014

A drastically back-to-basic reasoning shows that the universe is held together and ordered by a Faster Than Light Interaction, QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. Nature is beautifully simple and clever.

(For those who spurn Physics, let me point out that Quantum Entanglement, being the Fundamental Process, occurs massively in the brain. Thus explaining the non-local nature of consciousness.)

***

The Universe is held together by an entangled, faster than light interaction. It is time to talk about it, instead of the (related) idiocy of the “multiverse”. OK, it is easier to talk idiotically than to talk smart.

Entanglement Propagates, Says the National Science Foundation (NSF)

Entanglement Propagates, Says the National Science Foundation (NSF)

I will present Entanglement in such a simple way, that nobody spoke of it that way before.

Suppose that out of an interaction, or system S, come two particles, and only two particles, X and Y. Suppose the energy of S is known, that position is the origin of the coordinates one is using, and that its momentum is zero.

By conservation of momentum, momentum of X is equal to minus momentum of Y.

In Classical Mechanics, knowing where X is tells us immediately where Y is.

One can say that the system made of X and Y is entangled. Call that CLASSICAL ENTANGLEMENT.

This is fully understood, and not surprising: even Newton would have understood it perfectly.

The same situation holds in Quantum Physics.

This is not surprising: Quantum Physics ought not to contradict Classical Mechanics, because the latter is fully demonstrated, at least for macroscopic objects X and Y. So why not for smaller ones?

So far, so good.

In Quantum Physics, Classical Entanglement gets a new name. It is called QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. It shows up as a “paradox”, the EPR.

That paradox makes the greatest physicists freak out, starting with Einstein, who called QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT “spooky action at a distance”.

Why are physicists so shocked that what happens in Classical Mechanics would also be true in Quantum Physics?

Some say John Bell, chief theorist at CERN, “solved” the EPR Paradox, in 1964. Not so. Bell, who unfortunately died of a heart attack at 64, showed that the problem was real.

So what’s the problem? We have to go back to what is the fundamental axiom of Quantum Physics (Note 1). Here it is:

De Broglie decreed in 1924 that all and any particle X of energy-momentum (E,p) is associated to a wave W. That wave W s uniquely defined by E and p. So one can symbolize this by: W(E,p).

W(E,p) determines in turn the behavior of X. In particular all its interactions.

De Broglie’s obscure reasoning seems to have been understood by (nearly) no one to this day. However it was checked right away for electrons, and De Broglie got the Nobel all for himself within three years of his thesis.

Most of basics Quantum Mechanics is in De Broglie’s insight. Not just the “Schrodinger” equation, but the Uncertainty Principle.

Why?

Take a “particle X”. Let’s try to find out where it is. Well, that means we will have to interact with it. Wait, if we interact, it is a wave W. How does one find the position of a wave? Well the answer is that one cannot: when one tries to corner a wave, it becomes vicious, as everybody familiar with the sea will testify. Thus to try to find the position of a particle X makes its wave develop great momentum.

A few years after De Broglie’s seminal work, Heisenberg explained that in detail in the particular case of trying to find where an electron is, by throwing a photon on it.

This consequence of De Broglie’s Wave Principle was well understood in several ways, and got to be known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

(Uncertainty of Position)(Uncertainty of Momentum) > (Planck Constant)

[Roughly.]

The Quantum Wave, and thus the Uncertainty, applies to any “particle” (it could be a truck).

It is crucial to understand what the Uncertainty Principle says. In light of all particles being waves (so to speak), the Uncertainty Principle says that, AT NO MOMENT DOES A PARTICLE HAVE, EVER, A PERFECTLY DEFINED MOMENTUM and POSITION.

It would contradict the “particle’s” wavy nature. It’s always this question of putting a wave into a box: you cannot reduce the box to a point. There are NO POINTS in physics.

Now we are set to understand why Quantum Entanglement created great anxiety. Let’s go back to our two entangled particles, X and Y, sole, albeit not lonely, daughters of system S. Suppose X and Y are a light year apart.

Measure the momentum of X, at universal time t (Relativity allows to do this, thanks to a process of slow synchronization of clocks described by Poincare’ and certified later by Einstein). The momentum of Y is equal and opposite.

But, wait, at same time t, the position of Y could be determined.

Thus the Uncertainty Principle would be violated at time t at Y: one could retrospectively fully determine Y’s momentum and position, and Y would have revealed itself to be, at that particular time t, a vulgar point-particle… As in Classical Mechanics. But there are no point-particles in Quantum Physics:  that is, no point in Nature, that’s the whole point!).

Contradiction.

(This contradiction is conventionally called the “EPR Paradox”; it probably ought to be called the De Broglie-Einstein-Popper Paradox, or, simply, the Non-Locality Paradox.)

This is the essence of why Quantum Entanglement makes physicists with brains freak out. I myself have thought of this problem, very hard, for decades. However, very early on, I found none of the solutions by the great names presented to be satisfactory. And so I developed my own. The more time passes, the more I believe in it.

A difficulty I had is my theory created lots of cosmic garbage, if true (;-)).

At this point, Albert Einstein and his sidekicks (one of them was just used to translate from Einstein’s German) wrote:

“We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete.” [Einstein, A; B Podolsky; N Rosen (1935-05-15). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”. Physical Review 47 (10): 777–780.]

The EPR paper ends by saying:

“While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.”

This is high lawyerese: even as vicious a critic as your humble servant cannot find anything wrong with this craftily composed conceptology.

Einstein had corresponded on the subject with the excellent philosopher Karl Popper earlier (and Popper found his own version of the EPR). This is no doubt while he was more circumspect that he had been before.

Let’s recapitulate the problem, my way.

After interacting, according to the WAVE PRINCIPLE, both widely separating particles X and Y share the SAME WAVE.

I talk, I talk, but this is what the equations that all physicists write say: SAME WAVE. They can write all the equations they want, I think about them.

That wave is non-local, and yes, it could be a light year across. Einstein had a problem with that? I don’t.

Those who cling to the past, tried everything to explain away the Non-Locality Paradox.

Einstein was a particular man, and the beginning of the EPR paper clearly shows he wants to cling back to particles, what I view as his error of 1905. Namely that particles are particles during fundamental processes (he got the Physics Nobel for it in 1922; however, as I will not get the Nobel, I am not afraid to declare the Nobel Committee in error; Einstein deserved several Nobels, yet he made a grievous error in 1905, which has led most physicists astray, to this day… hence the striking madness of the so-called “multiverse”).

The Bell Inequality (which Richard Feynman stole for himself!) conclusively demonstrated that experiments could be made to check whether the Quantum Non-Local effects would show up.

The experiments were conducted, and the Non-Local effects were found.

That they would not have been found would have shattered Quantum Physics completely. Indeed, all the modern formalism of Quantum Physics is about Non-Locality, right from the start.

So what is my vision of what is going on? Simple: when one determines, through an interaction I, the momentum of particle X, the wave made of X and Y, W(X,Y), so to speak, “collapses”, and transmits the fact of I to particle Y at faster than light speed TAU. (I have computed that TAU is more than 10^10 the speed of light, c; Chinese scientists have given a minimum value for TAU, 10^4 c)

Then Y reacts as if it had been touched. Because, well, it has been touched: amoebae-like, it may have extended a light year, or more.

Quantum Entanglement will turn into Einstein’s worst nightmare. Informed, and all around, quasi-instantaneously. Tell me, Albert, how does it feel to have thought for a while one had figured out the universe, and then, now, clearly, not at all?

(Why not? I did not stay stuck, as Einstein did, making metaphors from moving trains, clocks, etc; a first problem with clocks is that Quantum Physics does not treat time and space equivalently. Actually the whole Quantum conceptology is an offense to hard core Relativity.)

Faster than light entanglement is a new way to look at Nature. It will have consequences all over. Indeed particles bump into each other all the time, so they get entangled. This immediately implies that topology is important to classify, and uncover hundreds of states of matter that we did not suspect existed. None of this is idle: Entanglement  is central to Quantum Computing.

Entanglement’s consequences, from philosophy to technology, are going to dwarf all prior science.

Can we make predictions, from this spectacular, faster than light, new way to look at Nature?

Yes.

Dark Matter. [2]

Patrice Ayme’

***

[1]: That the De Broglie Principle, the Wave Principle implies Planck’s work is my idea, it’s not conventional Quantum as found in textbooks.

[2]: Interaction density depends upon matter density. I propose that Dark Matter is the remnants of waves that were too spread-out to be fully brought back by Quantum Wave Collapse. In low matter density, thus, will Dark Matter be generated. As observed.

MOST CRUEL COUNTRY?

November 21, 2014

To know the worth of a country, look at how it treats the most innocent, the children.

Obama just belatedly proposed to not expulse right away five million immigrants with children (out of at least 11 million illegal immigrants). However genuine the president’s emotions, this all swims in a sea of hypocrisy: why did the “Democrats” not act, when they controlled Congress, and the presidency, five years ago… As they had promised they would?

Worse: the measures proposed by Obama are only temporary. If (as is likely) the USA has, within two years, an entire “Republican” government, the ‘generous’ invitation of Obama to illegal immigrants to “come out of the shadows“, will backfire: once localized by authorities, illegals will be thrown out, more easily: a textbook case of bait and switch.

Even worse: the gigantic illegal immigration in the USA masks a state system of plutocratic exploitation of (workers and) children. It is deliberate.

Is Obama left wing? Not really. All he is proposing is to try to impose International Law for a few months, because such is his good pleasure, at this point. He just forgot to have a law passed when he had all the powers. Too busy golfing with his buddies. (I don’t golf, golfing is a pseudo-sport for conspiring pip-squeaks who love to replace wilderness by fertilized lawns.)

Deporting children born in the USA, or their parents, would be a violation of the Convention of the Rights of Children, an International Law in all countries, except… the USA.

Paul Krugman woke up to the issue in “Suffer Little Children”. Says Krugman:

“there are more than a million young people in this country who came — yes, illegally — as children and have lived here ever since. Second, there are large numbers of children who were born here — which makes them U.S. citizens, with all the same rights you and I have — but whose parents came illegally, and are legally subject to being deported.

What should we do about these people and their families? There are some forces in our political life who want us to bring out the iron fist — to seek out and deport young residents who weren’t born here but have never known another home, to seek out and deport the undocumented parents of American children and force those children either to go into exile or to fend for themselves.”

When I say Krugman woke up, I am generous. Like the New York Times, he writes as if he were unaware of the fact that only the USA, on the entire planet, violates the Rights of Children, as official government policy!

I sent a powerful comment, the New York Times naturally censored it (this way, if nothing else, they can steal the ideas therein!). It’s reproduced below, and having censored it, is testimony to the general hypocrisy, and that the New York Times is not just far right wing, but somewhat inclined to abuse children, as a matter of systematic thinking.

The USA, as a country, loves to give all sorts of lessons to the world. Those high moral principles are often self-dealing, but it requires some work to find how. For example, the actions of the USA to destroy the European imperial (“colonial”) system, starting in 1918, sounded lofty, but aimed at replacing European administration, by American plutocratic exploitation.

Similarly, the on-going crack-down on banks, by being more severe with overseas banks, aims to replace world banking by American banking. And the crack-down on tax evasion, by being squarely aimed at the middle class (FATCA), aims to impoverish said middle class, and condition it to live in a police state, while reinforcing the transfer of power from everybody, to the reigning plutocracy (something else Obamacare also achieves).

Loving children is natural, being essential to the species’ survival. Hating children, is artificial, perverted. We expect no less from plutocracy, the rule of demonism (demonism, the rule of all things demoniac, in other words, plutocracy, is my answer to Leibnitz’s theodicy).

Before I get into the comment censored by the NYT, let me answer those would suggest this is only a problem for the USA.

Not so.

Starting in 1918, the USA maneuvered efficiently to get in control of the world, helped in this by German racial fascism, British naivety, and an idiotic, if not outright treacherous French commander in chief in 1940.

The end result is that the USA controls the world. By this I do not mean just that Washington and Wall Street rule. Russia, under Yeltsin was mostly destroyed by the perverse, self-dealing advice given by top American Universities, including the University of Chicago (where Obama taught) and Harvard (where Obama was distinguished, in more ways than one).

A lot of this has to do with a vicious mood best cultivated by mistreating children.

Candidate SS officers burnished their mentality by piercing the eyes of kittens; that Americans tolerate not knowing too well that children working in the fields fill their vegetarian plates is akin to that. And now for hypocrisy supreme:

MY COMMENT ON CHILDREN; CENSORED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES:

In 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by UN General Assembly. On September 2, 1990 it became international law. 194 countries signed and ratified it. With one notable exception: the USA has not ratified it. It is keeping company with Somalia, and South Sudan.

Both Somalia and South Sudan are wrecked by war. Is then the USA wrecked by war? War against civilization, maybe?

The Rights of Children include not executing children and not making children work. The USA violates both.

It is easy to blame the Democrats: after all, they were in control of Congress and Senate (with a super majority) when Obama became president. Too busy partying?

Another point is that this immigration which happened illegally obviously happen with the complicity of the state. Or more exactly, the complicity of the United States of America. Indeed, no other advanced country had such an enormous illegal immigration (not only in absolute numbers, but relative numbers).

It stretches the imagination beyond decency to pretend that what is, by far, the world’s greatest military power, was such a failure at defending its borders, without deliberately organizing said failure.

How is a failure to contain immigration carefully organized? By deliberately organizing weak controls and weak penalties (the same way Great Britain did it).

Why is a failure to contain immigration carefully organized? Because of a will-to-exploitation.

Interrogating agribusinesses’ owners is revealing: they needed, and need, the illegal workers. They are actually the ones employing the children, in total violation of International Law. Many are far right wing “Republicans”. They support illegal immigration, and have enough money to buy the authorities, including the politicians (who are themselves exploiters, so this is a peer to peer fraternity, exploiters to exploiters, playing kabuki theater).

This entire picture is a damning condemnation of the American system. Not just its famed “way of life”, exploiting right and left, but also its way of thinking, and even its emotional system.

Americans can go to Church all they want, and evoke god at every turn, but, by the measure that counts the most, their cruel country is the world’s ugliest.

Patrice Ayme’

Logos, Neurology, Stoicism, Christianity, Higher Morality

November 21, 2014

My statement:

“THE LOGOS IS MADE OF ELEMENTS OF BRAIN SIMPLIFIED”

Brought the observation: ”I’m afraid I can’t imagine what this means.” (Massimo from Scientia Salon.) Others have asked for more details. Here they are.

The statement was admittedly abstruse. It is supposed to mean that the Logos as speech is a representation of the Logos as more complex brain processes. (Here the word representation” is used in the mathematical sense, more general version: this is a new example of philosophy using fresh mathematics!)

How does this representative mechanism can be suspected to work? (I already wrote this, but this version has more definition).

Stars Inside. By Varying Myelin, Oligodendrocytes Act As Meta Controllers (2014)

Stars Inside. By Varying Myelin, Oligodendrocytes Act As Meta Controllers (2014)

Suppose we have brain “elements” X, Y, Z (to simplify, say X, Y, Z are neurons, but they could be organs in the brain, like the amygdala, or the geometric structure of some neighborhood in the brain, whatever… yes, here “neighborhood” is used as in General Topology, another mathematical field).

Yes, “brain elements” is an allusion to “elements of reality” as in the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paper on non-separability in Quantum Mechanics.

Then suppose we have the situation X > Y, and Y > Z.

X>Y means that the brain element X acts on the brain element Y. In the simplest case, “>” are axons. But the first “>” does not have to be of the same nature as the second “>”, which could be, say, some neurohormone or transmitter, such as Nitrous Oxide, or even a burst of oxygen and sugar in an area of the brain, thanks to some gateway neuron.

This innocent sounding remark allows to incorporate all three forms of the Logos defined by Aristotle. Aristotle distinguished the Logos-as-reasoning, from the Logos as Pathos, and the Logos as Ethos.

Pathos implies emotion, sensation… Ethos judgment on these.

The Logos done in my most general way incorporates all these, logic, pathos and ethos, because it allows for emotions: a relation between Y and Z can be through, or about, neurohormones or neurotransmitters.

Logos in that most general X>Y way even includes some forms of interactions we can’t even imagine, such as Quantum Effects… which show up in magnetic field vision in birds, whose simplest explanation is something having to do with spintronics, a type of Quantum Mechanics scientifically elucidated, but not yet incorporated in technological devices.

Then X>Z. Now there will be some meta-structure attached to all these relations between brain elements: I feel that the brain is all about different levels of “meta” piled upon each other. The structure of axons allow for this.

Namely if an axon (say) is active between Y and Z, another neuron, higher up in the meta-structure, can know about it (axons have varying level of myelin along themselves, and could be none; this differentiated activity of oligodendrocytes was observed in 2014).

The “meta” simplification works this way: whereas we started initially with three objects (X, Y, Z) and two relations (X>Y and Y>Z), that can be reduced two just two signals (X>Y and Y>Z) going to say, just one meta neuron.

Thus, aware of all these activations, higher meta neurons can then communicate the whole thing to the Broca or Wernicke speech area will convert all this in a speech.

Then we get something like : x>y & y>z & then x>z, where now “>” is just the verb “implies”, in plain speech, or a hand gesture. Thus a potentially very complex and variegated Brain-Logos activity has been simplified into Speech-Logos as usually interpreted.

WHY & HOW A GOOD TALK CAN SAVE THE WORLD:

Speaking of my preceding essay, and my observation that Christianity had to make the Logos into god, Massimo observed that: “The Stoics were talking about Logos / Nature / God / Zeus well before Christianity.” Indeed, pretty much something the imperial cooks of Christianity had to do . Christianity is a vast salad, artfully mixed with plenty of goodies.

Massimo also said: “The rest of your [essay] is interesting … but I fail to see what it has to do with Stoicism.”

It has to do with the Logos, recognizing its centrality in Stoicism. The best path to stoicism may be to talk calmly about a situation until it goes away. Talk it to death, so to speak.

Any short Logos, say 500 words, will miss many perspectives. But a good new perspective can pick in depth, where no pick has gone before.

Massimo opined that: “there is more value in Zeno and his followers than in Jesus”:

Indeed. Basically Jesus’ teeny-tiny Logos goes only that far.

Jesus is in love with one man, his dad. He also loves love. Nice, but such a ridiculously short a Logos can’t fill an entire universe. We need a bigger boat to handle that enormous ocean, and its giant sharks.

By making the Logos into God, one can talk like Jesus, love mummy, and daddy, and love itself, but also say much, much more, thus become like Jesus’ own dad.

There is indeed more value in all-encompassing complexity… As long as one is not a person with feeble mental capabilities. Persons who are not smart at all are better served with just a few instructions, the way Jesus had it (if one just picks the crème de la crème of what Jesus said, and not the mud of his mud). People at large are also best served if those who are rather stupid love their dad, and love. And stick with this, not trying to go beyond.

Christianity is a religion for the herd (consult Nietzsche for more on this, including sexual interpretations of the cross). Masters used something more robust (Nietzsche again, following meekly the more exuberant Marquis de Sade). Roman generals, under the Republic, before the Greek Stoics became prominent, were masters of stoicism. Stoicism on the largest scale is pretty much how the Roman Republic grew.

The Republic went down when too many in the Roman elite quit Stoicism for Greed (thus bringing along Plutocracy). It was sadly pathetic. Without forbearance, no exuberance!

Patrice Ayme’

Not To Corral Islam Is Racist & Exploitative

November 20, 2014

Abstract: Both the present Middle East and the way one interacts with Islam it are failures that grew from a racist bias. Islam has not been treated as well as Christianity. Christianity was domesticated, educated, and given strict guidelines to become compatible with civilization. As a result, at least in Europe, after a joint attempt with the Nazis at killing most Jews, Christianity has been made irrelevant, except for the pretty monuments it left behind, a propensity to charity, and a consolation for some of us who believe we are more than star dust.

It is racist not to extend the same courtesy to Islam.

Universities Grew From Cathedral, Under Government Forcing

Universities Grew From Cathedral, Under Government Forcing

***

Two Frenchman were immediately identified from a Daesh (“Islamist State”; ISIS/ ISIL) video showing the beheading of 18 prisoners, November 17, 2014.

One of them is Maxime Hauchard from a French family of French descend. He got a Catholic education. After a few lousy little jobs, Maxime converted to Islam, starting to wear a robe and shaggy beard.

The other terrorist is pretty similar: same age, 22 years old, also converted out of the blue from a Catholic background.

A prominent, even dominant movement of Catholics, in the Middle-Ages and Renaissance, over a period of seven centuries, caused great mayhem in Europe, and the Middle East, killing millions, spawning dozens of wars.

Fortunately, nowadays, the Christian superstition has been nearly exterminated as a force in Europe. So it is only natural that those who want mayhem should turn towards its untamed daughter superstition, Sunni Islam, especially in its Wahabbist variant.

So back to our frustrated Catholic know-nothing, do-nothing Maxime. Let me recognize, at the outset, that the state, and the philosophy which guided it is at fault, and at fault in two ways: with neither providing jobs, nor the education to go with it. A better look at contemporary China, or the European past, is in order here.

So a French low life is told about the Qur’an where it is said that one should kill the enemies of the Faith (sometimes rather painfully). Not to be able to kill one’s enemies with Catholicism is obviously frustrating. Christ made some statements where he apparently said he wanted to kill the enemies of the Faith, but modern Catholics insist he did not mean it.

In the Qur’an, some verses suggest one should not force Islam upon non-believers. But there are three sorts of “non-believers”.

One can be a “non-believer”, but still from the “people of the Book” (whatever the book is!). Or one could be a total heathen, a polytheist (but sometimes Christians, because of the Trinity, three gods, are put in that category). And the worst type of “non-believer” are the “Apostates”.

“Apostates” used to be Muslim, but then they were found not to be Muslim, after all. Those have to be killed absolutely, the greatest severity has to be deployed against them.

That’s why, when a Muslim writer has a sudden need to expose shortcomings of Islam, they end up dead, or on the run.

Who decides who is an “Apostate”? Well, that’s the beauty of Islam: just join, and then you can.

Take the case of these French punks. Remember: they are plain French punks to start with, and cannot do a thing. They have no power. Everything is forbidden. Then they convert to Islam, something that takes two minutes. Then the punks are free to decide who is a Muslim, and who is an ex-Muslim, that is an Apostate. So they take a ticket to Turkey, Turkey let them get in contact with very well financed terrorists, and let them enter Syria. Once inside Syria, our ex-Catholics and Two Minutes Muslims are free to kill whoever they are told is Apostate. Hey, they can nominate their own apostate, like all these Syrians and Americans to behead.

If one is a born beheader, it’s wonderful.

Girls? Girls are hard to get for Catholic punks. Yet, as a Muslim, you will be able to acquire a “battlefield bride”, any female human “whom you right hand posses”. Yes, that’s in the Qur’an, the perfect excuse for those who want to violate Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

The Quran, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 24:

“ 1.And (also forbidden are) all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you,

2.and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication… surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

— translated by M. H. Shakir

The term “those whom your right hands possess” is considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the classic tafsirs. Bernard Lewis proposes the translation “those whom you own.” Slaves are mentioned in at least twenty-nine verses of the Qur’an.

The general term ma malakat aymanukum (literally “what your right hands possess“) appears fourteen times in the Qur’an.

In all civilized countries, education is mandatory and this means not just that children ought to go to school, but that they ought to learn enough secular material to be civilizationally compatible.

This element of civilized behavior was first implemented by the Franks in the Sixth Century. Frankish bishops were often Frankish nobles made into bishops with a three weeks course. The Vatican hated them. A confrontation finally happened when the Pope Gregory the Great threatened to burn alive the bishop of Dignes, France. The latter was culprit of secularly educating children in his diocese.

Of course, the Pope had no army. The Frankish State told the bishop not to worry. Two centuries later, the Imperium Francorum actually forced all and any religious establishment to teach secularly, or be eradicated. By then the Pope had figured out not to argue with the Franks. The Church submitted.

Out of that mandatory secular education grew the European university system (the “Cathedral schools” became universities, as happened in Paris even before the present Cathedral.

In general, nasty religions have to be subdued, or stamped out. Such is the way of civilization. Leaving People in a state of subjection to nasty systems of superstition is human right abuse.

Tolerating vicious systems to thought and moods is not just about letting other been victimized. It’s also about civilization not been under threat.

Take the example of North Korea. A committee of the United Nations found that North Korea was a Nazi-like state, and recommended sanctions. (That, of course delighted Putin.) North Korea, being a nuclear armed state, represents an immense danger: it could bring the death of 50 million people, much faster than Hitler.

Civilization needs to be defended, lest it be destroyed.

What to do?

Nowadays, the Christian Church cannot do what it wants. If the Church hierarchy decided to burn alive some Church authority, as it did with Hus in the Fifteenth Century, the Carabinieri would take over the Vatican, disarm the Swiss Guard, and sent the Pope and his accomplices to a mental asylum, for treatment. (I would enjoy the sight, but that’s besides the point.)

The Vatican, as a State, was created by Charlemagne. What was the fundamentally Pagan Charlemagne up to, is an interesting question. He may have created the Vatican as a state to allow Venice, say, to pursue its semi-autonomous existence as a Republic (and thus allowing the potential for more Republics (Genova, Firenze), and attempts to establish some (as happened in Rome herself in the 11C). Within two centuries, a Muslim army actually seized the Vatican, and was then dislodge by a Frankish army.

If Christianity is tightly corralled, why should not Islam be tightly corralled too?

That question was not answered by the Franks, and their successors the French. In the case of the Franks, the reason is simple: the Franks were essentially secular (although their leaders evoked their made-up Christian Saints and Jesus, when not King David or the Trojans, all day long). Frankish armies annihilated the main Muslim Arab and Berber armies in 721-750 CE.

As the Franks extended religious tolerance to Jews, Pagans, and Catholics, they may as well have extended it to Muslims, too. And that’s what they did. Thus, no Muslim was discriminated against (massacres against the Jews started, much later, in Germany with the First Crusade, in 1099 CE).

That worked well. So it became a habit. When the Franks and Normands took over parts of Italy and Sicily which had been invaded by Muslims, that policy of religious tolerance was pursued: Crusaders were astounded to see thousands of Muslims praying in their peculiar way on what was nominally Roman ground (although the Arabs called the Franks “Franji”, namely Franks, the Franks considered themselves “Romans” officially since 800 CE).

Emperor Frederik Barbarossa’s personal guard was Muslim.

Meanwhile, the French State had, de facto, split from the rest of the Roman empire, although it was considered that the “French king was emperor in his own kingdom”. Western Francia was the strongest piece of said empire, and kept seeing the Church as something submitted to it. Clashes between the French State and the Vatican were numerous.

Some of these clashes were funny: a French king was excommunicated for 12 years (he had divorced his Danish wife, and remarried, without the Pope’s approval). Others were less amusing: Philippe IV Le Bel, cracked down on the Vatican, arrested the Pope, who ended dead. Soon, Philippe arrested, and annihilated the army of the Church, the Templar Monks.

For centuries to come, the French State went back and forth, most of the times cracking down on the Church. However three spectacular counter-reactions occurred, at the times of the seven religious wars of the late 16C, under the Medici queen, or, of course, under the usual suspects, Louis XIV and the Slave Master Napoleon.

In the end, the French State made a tight deal with the Catholics, Protestants and Jews… But not the Muslims! (Although it had plenty of Muslims, more or less under its jurisdiction in Algeria; I say more or less, because a deal had been made about the freedom of religion with Abd El Kader, to end the war in Algeria).

In all these matters, the rest of Europe more or less followed France, however belatedly (for example the Prussian anti-Jewish laws re-instituted all over in 1815, were finally destroyed in 1945).

France herself has been following her philosophers… Who were clueless about Islam.

The last philosopher to dare criticize Islam was Voltaire, and his theater on the subject was censored recently… Although it was not censored under the Ancient Regime! And although, in the guise of criticizing Muhammad, Voltaire was criticizing Christianity, as everybody knew.

So one can say that now Islam has become more of a sacred cow in Europe, than Christianity was in 1770 CE!

Why is Islam treated more leniently in 2014 than Christianity in 1770? Well, it’s a case of reverse racism. But reverse racism is still racism, just like antimatter is still matter of sorts.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

a transexual look fashionable in Europe, sometimes with high heels and feminine manners, see Wurst; amusingly we have a rant from Charlemagne himself on the subject: the emperor declared that only short skirts, or long pants made sense for real men, as anything else got in the way).

 

 

 

 

LOGOS: Brain Elements

November 19, 2014

The LOGOS Sings of Elements Of Brain Simplified Into Discourses

The Logos started to dominate Greek philosophy with Heraclitus (circa 500 BCE). What’s the Logos? The discourse. Correct discourse, namely, well, logical.

Greek science discovered around 500 CE that much more of the universe responded to discourse (logos) than to the gods. However, during the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian army was destroyed because the commanding Athenian general interpreted a sun eclipse as a dreadful omen (to this day, the Muslim “scholars” believe that the gods drive the Moon… Instead of a human discourse. That’s why they have to look at the Moon to tell the end of Ramadan).

The first eclipses had been predicted nearly two centuries earlier by top scientists. Now we can predict that the Logos is actually incarnated. Here it is:

It Looks As Complicated Around One Neuron As Around One Galaxy

It Looks As Complicated Around One Neuron As Around One Galaxy

[The schemas above are themselves extreme simplifications of what we observe in real pictures nowadays; a conclusion is that we can get enormous plasticity in the electric circuitry, without affecting the synapses at all… A complete surprise relative to what was believed, say, ten years ago. The axons themselves are plastic along their lengths, and learn! Dendrites sprout, or not, driven, or not, by glial cells, or other neurons.]

Considering the importance of Neoplatonism for the Greco-Roman elite, Christianity had to make the Logos into god (it’s the so-called “Holly Spirit”). Thus the Logos’ importance precedes Logos Galileo’s famous statement that the book of nature is written in mathematical language.

By the time of Galileo, the Logos had already become a research strategy: develop cute mathematics, and hope physics would follow.

(The notorious “Superstrings”, which are Not Even Wrong, is more of the same: wild “mathematical” guessing in the hope that something physical will be revealed; it did not work.)

The scientific strategy of using the Logos to discover nature, started with Buridan. Kepler pursued it in what he called his “War On Mars”: Kepler tried all possible curves, and checked them against data. It took 30 years.

Calculus, developed initially by lawyer-mathematician Fermat gave Celestial Mechanics. Fourier analysis helped with heat, Poisson’s math predicted a dot to disprove the wave theory of light (thus proving the latter, as the dot was there!). Fitting mathematics to heat emissions forced Planck to introduce the Quantum.

Riemann discovered in the 1860s, the idea that force could be viewed as curvature (and reciprocally). Thus force predicted space. Einstein-Hilbert, and later Dirac, would that to good use, curving spacetime (1916), revealing spinors (1930). Spinors had been introduced in geometry by Élie Cartan in 1913.

How come the brain can predict the world?

It simple: the brain is built as a set of mini-worlds, each of them a Logos.

A spectacular illustration of that human stem cells, with a bit of coaxing, left alone, form nerve cells and organize themselves in mini-brains. Left to itself, having consulted with the world, or not, the brain organizes its mini-worlds.

Substructures of the brains are mini-worlds. Made of what? Well, looking at neurons, or glial cells, we see networks made of varying materials (of axons, more or less covered with myelin, dendrites, and all sorts of protrusions, including inside synapses, and glial cells with their own networks).

All these variations mean very large dimensions (accentuated by 50 neurohormones and neurotransmitters), and all the entanglement mean highly non trivial topology (knots everywhere).

Some of these networks translate into sensations, discourses of sensations, or simply real discourses, and thus logic, as written by logicians, mathematicians and physicists.

The fact that the brain is physically made of immensely complex implications and neighborhoods means that it is made of the most complicated logos imaginable… For the good and simple reason that it is imagination incarnate.

This inner world, this world of the Logos, can be rebuilt better, and much more easily than the universe out there. Yet, it is informed, and initially greatly imprinted, by the universe.

Science consists into reproducing faithfully categorical structures as found out there (through experiments).

Here the word “categorical” is as found in a sense at least as complex as in modern Category Theory (ultra-modern mathematics)… Diagrams of arrows, in particular (view arrows as axons; real axons are much more sophisticated than the morphisms of existing Category Theory).

This, of course, does not differ from basic common sense: as the baby learns about gravity, it informs the proper Logos in the baby’s brain about the basics of gravity (science gets a bit more precise, but does not basically differ).

Control is about the inner world, the inner Logos, not contradicting too much the Universe’s Logos. This can happen, because the inner Logos is basically a self-made “mathematical” model of what is hoped to be out there.

The Logos is more logical than logic, as all the logic we have is a simplification of the Logos.

If the contradiction is too violent, all sorts of pathologies can arise, and not just in Putin.

The Logos is made of micro-brains, it will end up interrogating itself. What gives?

Patrice Ayme’

Note: The great mathematician Grothendieck just died. Sometimes around 1970, I am afraid that he discovered that some of the preceding was true. Him, who was wary of physics (nuclear war), may have found that the mathematics he had taken refuge in, was just that dreaded physics again. Better to forget the whole thing. Grothendieck dropped out of math, and later asked his works to be destroyed. Yes, the danger of nuclear war is higher than ever (see Putin). Yet, the Logos is us. We cannot deny ourselves.

Singing Praises Of Great Leaders Is Not Progress

November 18, 2014

Six years ago, We The People in the USA were expecting change that was not going to happen. OK, it could be worse: Bush’s behavior in 2003 was nearly in the same category as Putin: ”I invade, therefore I am.”

Fortunately, in the meantime, Americans and the British came to see the error of their ways. Cameron gave a hard time to Putin in Brisbane, Harper (whom I don’t like) told Putin to “get out of Ukraine” (this, I like).

Hollande of France, meeting with Putin, just sat down in a hurry, as if he could not stomach to stand next to Putin. Putin stayed up, brandishing his hand below Hollande’s nose. Then Putin waved his hand up and down. Hollande finally got up, and shook the hand of the Russian dictator. Maybe some Australian suggested that Putin ought to be extended some protocol.

Change You Can't Believe: Research Go Down Under "Democrats"

Change You Can’t Believe: Research Go Down Under “Democrats”

[It’s actually worse than it looks, see below.]

In general, Putin ought not to be extended common courtesy. He is an uncommon dictator, a very dangerous one. Even the Soviet dictators, all of them, did not dare violate International Law as grossly as Putin did.

Just like the dictator of Sudan, or the president of Kenya, Putin ought to see himself prosecuted by the International Court of Justice. Meanwhile I strongly not rising to one’s feet when he shows up, except to hiss.

If Hitler had been treated as the rabid dog he was by the first part of 1939, by the USA and Britain (and not just by France), he would not just have been more careful. That, anyway, would have been no solution.

The solution was regime change, and Hitler’s top generals were willing. Now, of course, Putin knows this, so, differently from Hitler’s, Putin’s top generals are also plutocrats in their own right (only Goering was in that position, rotten and satanic, in Hitler’s armed forces; the chief of the army, Beck, and his main collaborators, were clean, strict Prussians, and they could see Hitler had put Germany on a collision course with reality).

It’s time to make Russian generals feel that Putin is threatening Russia, as Hitler did, with Germany. Better a coup than total democracy, Putin style.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman, the most read (pseudo-)progressive in the world, went back to his habit toof praising all things “Obama”. Yet, because the simplest evocation of “Obama” makes We The People stay at home, or vote “Republican”, Krugman praises “government” in “When Government Succeeds”.

Karen Garcia, perhaps the best commenter at the New York Times, disagreed with Krugman-the-Sycophant. OK, OK, I know, there is more money in being a sycophant for the mighty. Karen wrote, contradicting Krugman where it should hurt:

It’s not “health reform” — it’s a piecemeal reining-in of the predatory insurance cartel. And although the premiums may be holding steady, the Affordable Care Act is anything but for many people. Deductibles and co-pays are through the roof.

Health care in America is just like the lottery. It’s the luck of living in the right state and picking the right plan at the right time. You’re not a patient who gets treated. You’re a consumer who goes shopping. Some people will be “covered” and others will still go bankrupt when they get sick and can’t afford a $5,000 annual deductible on a $20,000 income.

That “fake scandal” that Paul Krugman refers is, of course, being used for nefarious political purposes by the GOP. But the fact remains that MIT economist and ACA consultant (to the tune of $400,000) Michael Gruber not only called people stupid — he admitted that the law was made deliberately opaque. Politicians were more interested in making this delayed “reform” seem deficit-neutral than in ensuring that everybody got covered. Politics trumped the public good. And that IS a scandal, no matter which side of the neoliberal duopoly you’re on.

The fact remains that least 40 million Americans remain uninsured, and will continue to needlessly sicken and die in the richest country on earth. We have the most expensive medical care in the world and still rank a shameful 51st in life expectancy.

That is the scandal.

Government will succeed when we get Single Payer.”

I support what Karen Garcia wrote: I basically said for years that it was exactly what was going on, and what would happen. And it did. Singing the praises of Obamacare is self-defeating for progressives.

Fifty-first in life expectancy, but first in bombing capability. What could go wrong?

Obama was partly undone by self-satisfaction for the little that had been already done, and the sycophants all around. Remember the Nobel Peace Prize? For what? Talking the talk? A pre-payment for future service to the reigning plutocracy?

It is true that economic activity organized by the government has its place, because not everything responds to the profit motive. An excellent example is health CARE. Care responds to care, not profit. That’s why it’s called health care, not health profit.

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/synthesis-found-governmentalism/

Only wild dogs and hyenas ought to profit from the sick. It’s a long tradition among wild humans, too, thus demonstrating health plutocrats are akin to wild beasts.

The greatest flaw of Obamacare is that it did not even try to start the transition from health profit to health care.

In general, the Obama presidency is turning into a rout for the Democratic Party. People will judge by themselves the very high deductibles of Obamacare. There is a pattern to all this, a common logic: http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/obamacare-to-police-state-same-logic/

A fundamental conceptual mistake greedsters and the economists supporting them (Chicago school, Harvard) have been making is not to realize that much of the economy does not respond to the profit motive. Yet, Darius and Themistocles (heads of Persia and Athens, respectively) had understood this absolutely, and put it to tremendous use.

Darius built, Eisenhower style, a freeway system so that news from all over the continent sized Persian Empire, spread on three continents, could reach the center in a week, thanks to the (Persian) Pony Express.

Themistocles built a giant Navy, thanks to a public-private set-up, wasting Attica’s forests in the process.

All this was more than 25 centuries ago.

The government can do two very important things: support education, fundamental research, and set-up giant, important, free utilities (like Darius’ freeways, and the Internet). The fundament of the foundations of all this is to pass laws: thus the Franks forced the Church to teach secularly, around 750 CE. All states have now followed, and make education mandatory.

The Obama administration has reduced government support for fundamental research. Fundamental research on basic science is where governmental support is irreplaceable. Instead many others have been financed, such as the for-profit industrial corporation Space X, while NASA is drifting aimlessly.

Krugman sang also the praises of government about Ebola. Indeed, well organized governments stopped the epidemic in its tracks: Senegal had one Ebola case, a Guinean student who had lied, when he got into Senegal. However, he was cured, and there was no other case, although Guinea and Senegal share a long border.

Speaking of borders, the main frontline organization for Ebola was the non-profit, high risk, Doctors Without Borders (initially the French Medecins Sans Frontieres, which was attributed, the Nobel Peace Prize, and rightly so!). Although, in this case, Obama acted well, although belatedly.

Speaking of Ebola, a vaccine, or two, exist (the disease was discover by the French in 1993; the vaccines use pieces of the cover of the virus).

However, those vaccines have not been fabricated, from lack of government financing. Austerity you know, so that the plutocrats can become ever richer!

Ah, but not all is bleak. Fundamental research on nuclear weapons is in the process of passing the all-time peak (established under Reagan), thanks to the Obama administration.

Patrice Ayme’

Obamacare to Police State: Same Logic

November 16, 2014

Little Guys Are Suspects: 

Was Obamacare a plot to give total control to the Republicans, also known as the Plutocratic Party, within two years? So deliberately bad was Obamacare, that this is something that I have long believed. It is Machiavellianism 101: duplicity deployed.

There is a global pattern unfolding, where common citizens are held accountable for imagined, or anticipated crimes, when not punished for mass crimes they have nothing to do with (such as the crash of 2008; the FATCA, see below, is one such example).

I explained in details, for years, years ago, what was wrong with Obamacare. Now others are belatedly arriving at the same conclusion:

In “This Democrat Is Giving Up on ObamaCare. The disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act was the catalyst for my party’s midterm thumping,” Burke Beu, Nov. 13, 2014, explains:

“I grew up in a Democratic family. I have been a registered Democrat since age 18, a Democratic candidate for statewide office in Colorado and a party precinct captain in that caucus state. I’ve volunteered for numerous Democratic candidates and contributed to party causes and campaigns… I voted for President Obama again in 2012, then received a cancellation notice for my health insurance. This was due to ObamaCare, the so-called Affordable Care Act. However, I couldn’t afford anything else.”

Democrat Burke Beu makes it clear: “ObamaCare is a failure. For anyone who thinks this is a misprint because no Democratic activist would make such a comment, let me add that it is too big, too complicated and too expensive. Without a public option within its network of exchanges, ObamaCare is a giant blank check to the insurance companies that pushed it through Congress. It punishes responsible consumers like me and treats younger individuals as fools who are expected to pay the bills while not paying attention.

Now we learn in videos… that Jonathan Gruber, MIT economist and a key architect of the Affordable Care Act, proudly relied on his perceived “stupidity of the American voter” as the basis for designing ObamaCare…

Fearful that doing nothing was worse than doing the wrong thing, Democrats gave up on Medicare for the masses and opted for a drastic alternative. ObamaCare is an outrageous combination of private-market inflation, government bureaucracy, excessive mandates and a ridiculously delayed implementation schedule. When the thing finally kicked in, it hit hard—and there is plenty more pain on the way.

Worst of all, ObamaCare looks and feels exactly like what it is: a health-care plan devised by lawyers and corporate executives rather than true health-care providers.”

Verily, the top Democrats were not “fearful”, but greedy. Some made a fortune from their health care “expertise”. (I have detailed all this greed in essays, some six years old.)

Beu was published in the Wall Street Journal, the number one newspaper in the USA. Now let’s switch to another plutocratic newspaper, the New York Times. It is interesting, nowadays, that so many newspapers friendly to wealth, and owned by plutocrats (like the preceding two), can sound way on the left of the so-called democratic administration.

The New York Times is waking up to the (undercover) Police State:

More Federal Agencies Are Using Undercover Operations (Nov. 15)

“Across the federal government, undercover work has become common enough that undercover agents sometimes find themselves investigating a supposed criminal who turns out to be someone from a different agency, law enforcement officials said. In a few situations, agents have even drawn their weapons on each other before realizing that both worked for the federal government.

“There are all sorts of stories about undercover operations gone bad,” Jeff Silk, a longtime undercover agent and supervisor at the Drug Enforcement Administration, said in an interview. “People are always tripping and falling over each other’s cases.”

Mr. Silk, who retired this year, cited a case that he supervised in which the D.E.A. was wiretapping suspects in a drug ring in Atlanta, only to discover that undercover agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the F.B.I. and the New York Police were trying to infiltrate the same ring… even Justice Department officials say they are uncertain how many agents work undercover.

But current and former law enforcement officials said the number of federal agents doing such work appeared to total well into the thousands, with many agencies beefing up their ranks in recent years, or starting new undercover units. An intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the agency alone spent $100 million annually on its undercover operations. With large numbers of undercover agents at the F.B.I. and elsewhere, the costs could reach hundreds of millions of dollars a year…

At the Supreme Court, all of the court’s more than 150 police officers are trained in undercover tactics, according to a federal law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity because it involved internal security measures…

The agents, often youthful looking, will typically “dress down” and wear backpacks to blend inconspicuously into the crowd, the official said…. A former F.B.I. undercover agent, said he was troubled to learn that the Supreme Court routinely used undercover officers to pose as demonstrators and monitor large protests. “There is a danger to democracy,” he said, “in having police infiltrate protests when there isn’t a reasonable basis to suspect criminality.”

Gruber, the Obamacare adviser, said it: we are all supposed to be idiots.

Meanwhile the FATCA was passed. This law makes any common American going overseas a criminal suspect. I am talking about the mood of the law. Any overseas bank is supposed to engage in a severe criminal activity if it does not report “USA persons” engaging in banking (not even The Economist knows who these “persons” are supposed to be). Accounts have been seized, without judicial intervention, by the government: just too many small deposits can get any USA bank holder in that situation (excuse: you have got to be a drug dealer).

“FATCA” is an insinuation that any “USA person” is a “fat cat”. There are about eight million citizens of the USA living permanently overseas. Now banks, worldwide, view working with them a possible criminal activity. So they don’t feel like extending banking to them. The effect on the USA will be disastrous (do top Democrats want us to vote Republican to redress that grievance? They sure do: Machiavellianism 101!)

It’s the same idea as with Obamacare, or massive surveillance of legal demonstrations, undercover: the little guy is a criminal suspect, suspect of whatever is wrong with health care, or democracy, or banking.

In all these cases, the real problem, the rise of the immensely rich who pay no taxes, has not been addressed.

Typical is plutocrat Bill Gates’ rejoinder: told that French economist Picketty suggested that his wealth ought to be taxed, Gates replied one ought to make distinctions: Gates is a good guy, those who fly in their own jumbo jets are bad…. And ought to be taxed.

The punchline? Gates owns the company. The world’s largest company of luxury private jets rental.

The hyper rich own anonymous companies, shell companies, charity companies, dark pools, trusts, etc. They are everywhere, but the IRS does not see them. At most the IRS see their lawyers. In California, the very rich does not even pay significant property tax: they found several tricks around Prop 13.

So there is a pattern in all of this: the Obama administration did exactly what the plutocrats wanted it to do. Including making common democratic voters disgusted by the “Democratic Party”, or democracy in general.

So it goes in plutocracy. I am sure Obama’s future is brighter than ever. For those who live in the dark, any light is bright enough.

Patrice Ayme’

Questions About Genocide

November 16, 2014

Periodically, the question of genocide resurfaces. What is genocide? I believe that it is quite a bit like all obscenity. A famous American judge, speaking about the latter, quipped that he knew it, when he saw it.

A problem with genocide is that mass homicidal violence can be perfectly justified. By this I mean that there are cases, in history, where it looks as if it were justified.

The vast coalition which exterminated the Assyrian empire seems to be a case in point. The vigorous way with which Charlemagne annihilated Saxon power in Northern Germany (deporting part of the population in South-West France, among other feats), is another example. The Saxons had stood in the way of civilization for centuries, when not eradicating it outright, after landing in Britannia. Charlemagne’s view was that, after trying everything else, deportation was in order.

A Cherokee Born Long After The Trail Of Tears

A Cherokee Born Long After The Trail Of Tears

A recent example of massive violence to save us from unfathomable evil was the defense against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII.

A number of philosopher have struggled mightily, splitting hair to define genocide. Examples are found in Scientia Salon.

Trying to find a general definition of genocide is best done through examples: by kidnapping their children, did Australia commit genocide against the Natives in the 1960s genocide? According to the United Nations definition, it did. Or was that just a good gesture to give those children a chance?

Was what the USA do to American First Peoples genocide? If so, are there mental structures in the American psyche deriving from that?

Did the invasion of America by Europeans constitute genocide, and, if so, was the genocidal aspect necessary? Otherwise asked, was the genocidal English American invasion model superior to the French “Mission Civilisatrice” in Canada? And if so, in which sense?

Studying particular examples informs the general definition. In mathematics, physics, law, or ethics.

Exterminating the most spectacular aspects of the Aztec civilization was certainly culturocide, and, according to some, all too broad, definitions, would also constitute genocide.

In general stamping out a nasty religion, such as the Punic, Celtic, or Aztec, does not constitute genocide, just well-deserved ethical cleansing. Nobody is crying because we don’t conduct human sacrifices, Celtic, Punic, or Aztec style.

The Roman civilizing principle was that religions requiring human sacrifices ought to be obliterated. Everybody agrees (so why is Abraham, the would-be child killer, so popular?)

However, extermination of 15/16 of the Aztec population, including its leaders and thinkers, certainly constituted genocide (although how it happened was not clear: immunity was partly at fault). After a spectacular trial instigated by rancher cum adventurer and bishop Las Casas, the highest authority in Spain and the Roman Empire, Charles Quint, decided to stop the Conquista.

Revenge and exemplary killing do not constitute genocide: they may be viewed as measures to prevent future genocide, by telling future perpetrators that they could not get away with it.

An example is the 40,000 collaborators executed by France in 1944, and thereafter. Although they all got justice, as deserved, some of this justice was express justice, as deserved.

On the other hand, the behavior of Stalin in Ukraine in the 1930s, or Putin in Chechenia around 2000, seems to fit the definition of genocide. The latter case is an example where a bad man and his collaborators (say the French actor Depardieu) could be put under public disapprobation (Depardieu actually owns property in Chechenia: does that make him an accomplice of genocide, and a violator of the Fourth Geneva Convention?)

And the awkward questions keep on coming: when a nation commits genocide (say Turkey with Armenians) do other nations which conduct business with it become accomplices of said genocide?

The question of the Kurds also surfaces: by cutting Kurdistan into little pieces thrown to the four winds, did colonial powers become accomplice of conditions conducive of genocide against the Kurds?

The genocide of the Jews in World War Two was a mix of the deliberately vicious (Zonderkommandos, as early as June 1941), and deliberate happenstance (famine in 1945). The latter means that one should include in the will to genocide, the will to create such circumstances that cause in turn genocide.

The Nazis knew they were going to go extinct, in 1945. However, consumed by rage, but still full of desire to escape their well-deserved punishment, they remembered the “Trail Of Tears”.

The government of the USA had deported the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, among others, exterminating many in the process. One third of the Cherokees died.

Thus the Nazis decided to force march all concentration camps inmates they did not outright assassinated in a rush. Their hope was that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these embarrassing witnesses and hated subhumans, would died. They did.

Rwanda’s Kagame is a modern example of that: after having shot down the Rwandan and Burundi presidents, or stealing through proxies the wealth of Congo, he deliberately created conditions for the evil spirits of genocide to raise.

A crime should be defined: endeavor conducive to genocide.

We need to refine our analysis not just of facts but mental plays on the fragile condition of the human spirit. This is true not just for genocide, but for war in general.

Patrice Ayme’


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 348 other followers