Evolution Scientifically Established Before Darwin’s Birth

November 13, 2014

English speaking authorities found a master thinker, Darwin, He created evolution. Charles Darwin is the messiah of evolution. Any critique of this miracle, this shattering of ill preconceptions, is labelled “postmodernist”, and no doubt arises noxiously from a gross lack of non-appurtenance to the church of righteous thinking (prestigious, well-paid American academia). Or then is to be attributed to the hysterical nationalism of the French.

This roughly summarize some of the critiques American professors have made of my “Lamarck Discovered Evolution” essay. It is typical.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Scientifically Established Evolution By 1800

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Scientifically Established Evolution By 1800

Paradoxically, this scornful attitude comforts religious creationism.

Why? Making Darwin into what he was not, a snow capped giant towering above a sea of error, is all too close to the terror of the religious mindset. Making Darwin into God, neglects the evolution of ideas, the giant collaborative reasoning that is science. It reintroduce the concept of the prophet: everybody got it all wrong, before, then comes miracle man, Darwin. Miraculously speaking English.

So why not Jesus for miracle man?

Or why not Muhammad? Hey, Muhammad spoke Arabic, which is obviously the language of God.

The scientists who claim Darwin did it all, are lying. Lying because they have not integrated the scientific method, and do not know how truth is established historiographically is the worst possible case.

Most of the ideas demonstrating that there had been “biological evolution” were evolved before Darwin.

The truth is that Darwin was astounded by the audacity of several of his professors who praised ‘Mr. Lamarck” for having shown how life had “evolved” from “simple worms”.

Darwin’s publications came in a full century after evolution started to be established scientifically.

Buffon introduced the idea that migration caused speciation. He illustrated this with pachyderms.

Augier introduced the “Tree of Life”, then much improved by Lamarck. Lamarck’s Tree was much more specific than the general idea that all species came from fishes (Pre-Socratic philosophers).

Lamarck had spent decades looking at life and fossils through a microscope, and he demonstrated that life had evolved over millions of years, by documenting in extreme, microscopic details the evolution of mollusks.

The great geologist Lyell got a copy of one of Lamarck’s books from a friend in 1827. He wrote back:

“I devoured Lamark… his theories delighted me… I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!… That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed…”

However, Lyell, a close friend of Darwin and Huxley, rejected evolution when he was a professor at the prestigious King’s College, London.

Lyell explained in a letter to Whewell in 1837:

“If I had stated… the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradistinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me, which are unfortunately opposed at every step to any philosopher who attempts to address the public on these mysterious subjects”

When finally Lyell endorsed evolution, he endorsed Lamarck. Darwin’s daughter Henrietta (Etty) wrote to her father: “Is it fair that Lyell always calls your theory a modification of Lamarck’s?”

No wonder. Darwin revisited Lamarck’s example of the giraffe, with more details:

“The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths…. Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish…. By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.” (Darwin 1872. Sixth edition of his seminal book, Origin of Species.)

In other words, Darwin subscribed to Lamarck’s book of 1801, on inheritability of acquired characteristics. (The whole problem now being what these “acquired characteristics”, now called “genes”, “epigenetics, transposons, prions, soma, whatever…) are and how they arise…)

Darwin had produced a toy model of evolution. Anatomist Gould told him that some varieties of birds he found in the Galapagos were different species. Yet they all belonged to the finch group. Darwin then brandished that as an example of evolution.

Darwin’s dubious birdies no doubt beat the millions of years Lamarck had uncovered. That’s the strength of the Anglo-American empire!

Darwin’s “B” notebook showed that he speculated a species could turn into another by summer 1837. He discarded Lamarck’s independent lineages progressing to higher forms, drawing a tree of life with a single trunk branching out (there too Lamarck proved right: decades behind the microscope, remember?).

On the continent, evolution was solidly established.

Cuvier discovered the “Ptero-Dactyle” (name Latinized later), and Mesosaurus (sea going giant). Cuvier also invented stratigraphy, and demonstrated species came and went.

Cuvier was a Christian fundamentalist, but a very clever one, with an open, and changing mind. He invented most of the “Creationist” Biblical arguments. Yet he explained why he could be proven wrong in the fullness of time, thanks to, say, more discoveries.

Lamarck’s reputation was soiled because Cuvier smeared it all over with “pangenesis”. The original texts make it clear that Lamarck believed in natural selection. In the case of giraffes, to put it in modern terms, he believed that giraffe ethology, and the vegetation being what it was, due to climate, put a selective pressure favoring giraffe’s anatomy, the way it was. (Cuvier later said it was all about “desire”; that’s not in Lamarck).

Darwin tried hard to prove pangenesis. A battle was engaged, still ongoing. Many of the arrogant certainties of the 1960s have been washed away. Elements of heredity are known now to travel among species, and interact with ethology.

To combat religious fanatics, we need the weight of evidence, not inappropriate celebritism. Misrepresenting those who discovered evolution only helps creationists.

Darwin is an important biologist, but evolution had been scientifically established more than a generation before he published anything.

Everything else is pathetic tribalism, and, or, making fun of the scientific process. No way to help the advancement of civilization.

Patrice Ayme’

Evolution: Lamarck’s Discovery

November 12, 2014

LAMARCK, NOT DARWIN!

Abstract: Not attributing Evolution Theory to Lamarck constitutes scientific fraud. Why it is so is explained thoroughly (including at the meta level).

Science is about truth. Thus, the history of science is about how one establishes truth. By itself that history constitutes a science, or more exactly a mine of facts and an important one, for the metascience of veracity (truthfulness).

First overall theorem? Misattributing a discovery to another place, another time, or another country is generally not happening by accident, but by propaganda.

In 1825, Darwin’s teacher of biology informed his 16 year old student that Lamarck had discovered “biological evolution.

Lamarck Tree Of Life, 1809: “…not only will there continually be found new species, new genera, and new orders, but each species will vary in some part of its structure and form…”

Lamarck Tree Of Life, 1809: “…not only will there continually be found new species, new genera, and new orders, but each species will vary in some part of its structure and form…”

That the discovery of the theory of evolution is not attributed to Lamarck, constitute scientific fraud.

Why? It has to do first with Christian fanaticism, which did its best to lie about what Lamarck discovered. Why now? Because most scientists are too busy to read original texts, and it helps that Darwin was Anglo-American.

It was not the first time the Christian fanatics struck.

An example I am fond of is the misattribution to Copernic and Newton of ideas of Aristarchus and Buridan. The Catholic dictatorship, the obsequious servant of 2,000 years of queens and kings, is the engine of this crime. A very profitable crime, as it helped keep the rabble the exploiters were exploiting, in a state of stunned stupidity. Still is.

The misattribution to Darwin of Lamarck’s discovery, evolution, is more of the same theocracy and its associated aristocracy, anxious to keep We The People in haggard dumbness, as we will see below.

Darwinism is Lamarckism, according to Wallace. Wallace was himself a great biologist, discoverer of the Wallace Line. Wallace was on Darwin’s payroll, and was also Darwin’s coauthor. That evolution was Lamarck’s idea was actually confirmed by Darwin, who let Wallace repeat everywhere that Darwin had contributed little, relatively speaking (to Darwin’s daughter’s dismay).

So what are the facts on evolution?

Evolution by artificial selection was known for millennia, and practiced for tens of millennia (the oldest dog known is Belgian, and around 35,000 year old, it was very different from a wolf, and looked like a modern, enormous war dog, showing breeding of dogs from European wolves is at least 45,000 years old, I guess).

Breeding cattle, horses, camels, evolution by artificial selection, was a well-known art, not to say science, already in the times of Xenophon (that’s what the general-philosopher-economist did when retired).

Fossils were known in Ancient Greece. They caused confusion. To remedy this, Aristotle (PBUH), sent his students to study and report on life forms, thus founding, de facto, biology. (That the universe was not in a steady state was illustrated by the fiery landing of a giant meteorite in northern Greece; it was visited for centuries.)

By 1766, after proposing that the Solar System had been accreted from a cloud of debris, Buffon proposed that animals changed: they evolved. African and Asian elephants had evolved from Siberian mammoths, due to the changing their environment that their migrations had brought, he claimed. The details are unimportant: the evolutionary horse was out of the barn. Buffon’s broad picture of environmental pressure on evolution was also to be scientifically confirmed.

The full blown theory of evolution was proposed by Lamarck. This was a great conceptual breakthrough.

To this Massimo from Scientia Salon replied: “It was also the wrong theory, unfortunately.”

Massimo, do you mean that evolution theory is the wrong theory? Lamarck’s main body of work humbly established “the theory of evolution”, as Darwin’s personal teacher named it.

Lamarck did this, in part, by examining carefully under the microscope the evolution, over millions of years of mollusks species.

Lamarck suggested several evolution mechanisms, jointly operating (his detractors focused on one particular idea Lamarck floated in 1801).

When Copernic, copying Buridan and Aristarchus, proclaimed heliocentrism, nobody asked him for a mechanism. Still, one attributes heliocentrism to Copernic. While Copernic did not discover General Relativity, one still do not attribute heliocentrism to Einstein.

Yet those who claim Lamarck did not provide the most modern mechanism for evolution do just this.

One of Lamarck’s book, “Philosophie Zoologique” was published in 1809. The year Darwin was born. Here are some extracts:

“as new modifications will necessarily continue to operate, however slowly, not only will there continually be found new species, new genera, and new orders, but each species will vary in some part of its structure and form … individuals which from special causes are transported into very different situations from those where the others occur, and then constantly submitted to other influences – the former, I say, assume new forms, and then they constitute a new species…. [Species form] “a branching series, irregularly graduated which has no discontinuity in its parts, or which, at least, if its true that there are some because of lost species, has not always had such. It follows that the species that terminate each branch of the general series are related, at least on one side, to the other neighboring species that shade into them” [Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, 1809.]

Lamarck, employed as one of the world’s first research professors, demonstrated both the immense age of the Earth, and natural evolution, by studying fossilized mollusks.

Lamarck was so towering in biology, that he himself coined the word “biology”. Here it is, in his own words, in the original French, in Lamarck’s “Origine Des Animaux Sans Vertebres” [1815]:

« Tout ce qui est généralement commun aux végétaux et aux animaux, comme toutes les facultés qui sont propres à chacun de ces êtres sans exception, doit constituer l’unique et vaste objet d’une science particulière qui n’est pas encore fondée, qui n’a même pas de nom, et à laquelle je donnerai le nom de biologie

Yes, Lamarck also named and distinguished, “invertebrates”.

Lamarck suggested that the way animals lived could directly affect their genetics. A scientifically confirmed way to get this effect is now called “epigenetics” (“above genetics”). Considering how adaptative life is revealing itself to be, it is likely that more and more “epigenetics” will be uncovered.

It is ironical that Cuvier and his ilk made fun of Lamarck claiming that psychology could leave a trace in the progeny of a creature. Yet, this has been very recently confirmed: Lamarck, a hero for our times.

Lamarck got hated for all this by the forces of Christianity. The idea that a living creature, could, by the way it lived, CREATE its own features was revolting to those who promoted the Christian god.

What Lamarck was saying, philosophically speaking was that the living creature acted as the creator.

No need for a cross, a father, a son, an omnipotent god. Napoleon hated Lamarck. The Church hated Lamarck. British universities, (Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) which, at the time, were bastion of imperial Christianity hated Lamarck.

Really great minds are measured by the disapprobation they entail.

Lamarck proposed that the long necks of giraffes evolved as generations of giraffes had to reach for ever higher leaves.

The Church and Lamarck’s enemies made fun of that (some still do, following the Church!). Lamarck was deliberately mistranslated in English to make readers believe that he suggested the effort of the giraffe somehow directly passed over in its genetics.

In truth, what Lamarck truly said was 100% compatible with 2014 evolution theory: “…s’efforcer continuellement d’y atteindre. Il est résulté de cette habitude, soutenue, depuis longtemps [by giraffes]… que ses jambes de devant sont devenues plus longues…”.

Similarly, Lamarck suggested that there are flying squirrels, because squirrels tried to fly for generations (natural selection does not contradict this).

Lamarck did not just propose that evolutionary was driven by behavior. Following Buffon, Lamarck believed life started with spontaneous creation (this is the present view: laboratory studies and the most recent theory show that, in the early Earth’s environment, cellular life would appear spontaneously; fossils show it went fast: chemoautotrophs may have appeared 4 billion years ago).

Lamarck proposed that, insensibly, each baby was more complex than the preceding baby, so evolution would be characterized by an increase in complexity (as it indeed is).

Lamarck suggested birds descended from reptiles.

Lamarck went further than strict “Darwinists” go. He suggested that biology was an increase in complexity that could not be avoided, a sort of anti-Second Law Of Thermodynamics. Lamarck made life into a “force qui va” (to quote Victor Hugo).

This is a piece of philosophy, but one that has probably a great future: the Second Law of Thermodynamics is often quoted against life, but everything indicates that life swims up the stream of the Second Law, as the salmon swims up the river.

After 1815, reaction came over Europe. Jews got discriminated against by the Middle European dictatorship (they could not be doctors, lawyers, etc.). Lamarck, being an enemy of god, was made into an object of scorn.

The bloody dictator Napoleon launched Lamarck bashing: “[this book] … déshonore vos vieux jours… Ce volume je ne le prends que par considération pour vos cheveux blancs.”

The lies about Lamarck were deliberately crafted by a Christian fanatic, the biologist Cuvier. Cuvier, in charge of Lamarck’s eulogy misconstrued monstruously what Lamarck said about giraffes, and ill-intentioned unwitting parrots have been repeating Cuvier’s lies, ever since.

Cuvier totally believed that God had created all the species. Cuvier’s arguments are used by Christian fanatics to this day.

For example, after looking at mummies, and recent remnants, Cuvier pontificated that, as there was no evidence of recent evolution, there could be none. Lamarck retorted that Cuvier’s argument was mathematically stupid. Instead, unwittingly, Cuvier had proved, what Lamarck demonstrated first, that the Earth was very old, many millions of years old.

Lamarck being French, some feel more appropriate to attribute the discovery of evolution to the rich English gentleman Darwin, who, besides, was the heir of a financier, and not a vulgar research professor, as Lamarck was.

If Darwin’s teacher taught Darwin in 1825 that Lamarck had established “evolution”, why should we say now that “evolution” was established by the student of the student? Because, being in the Anglo-Saxon realm, we have to be Anglo nationalists? Is it all about tribalism?

As I mentioned this, EJ Winner objected that: “Patrice suggests that the bias against Lamarck is culturally determined (because he was French). This is simply and only post-modernism, in the least convincing sense. Need we really come to this?”

Well, I am not the one who came that way. Christian fanatics showed the way.

It is not because post-modernism is often wrong, that it is always wrong. Science and mathematics are, first of all, tribal phenomena. Sociologically speaking.

Lamarck was lodged at the Museum d’ Histoire Naturelle until his death at 85. Perhaps from spending too much time looking into microscopes, he was blind in his last decade.

Ideas are hard, especially when revolutionary. Parodying Lamarck’s ideas the way the Church did means that no meta-lesson was learned. Those who introduce the greatest new ideas, like evolution, deserve the greatest respect. Not showing respect for geniuses such as Lamarck is not to show respect for what makes civilization advance. Attributing Lamarck’s evolution to Darwin, just as universal attraction to Newton, belittles both Darwin and Newton, as it boils down to calling them liars. And it allows the real enemy to escape unscathed (religious and tribal fanaticism made into the dominant moods).

Attributing Lamarck’s discovery and affirmation of evolution to someone else, sixty years later, constitute scientific, and philosophical fraud. For want of a nicer way to put it.

That this is used to comfort the general intellectual aura of Anglo-American mental imperialism makes it worse. Ninety-six years ago, the First World War finished with a cease-fire. It had not solved the fundamental problem, namely that German speaking people confused dictatorship and republic. That lack of truth led them to have another go at it, 20 years later.

Ignoring truth is costly. Science, and metascience, can teach truth, and how to get to it. This is nicer in the longer term, as human beings are truth machines. Short term, it is anything but.

Truth does not have to be nice. It just is.

Patrice Ayme’

“American” Way Of What?

November 9, 2014

New Zealand’s Ian Miller, an esteemed commenter, says:

“Patrice, you seem to be against the American way of life. Horrors! It has always been like this… Now you cannot get anywhere near power without the expenditure of massive amounts of money, so your friendly plutocrats are a necessity. As an aside, I do not admire this way of doing things at all, and I feel that America would do better by cleaning up its own system than trying to impose “democracy” on others. As for the “progressives”, in that system of entrenched interests, how could they possibly change anything?”

Let me answer Ian’s main points. First a graph and a question: if Americans own nothing are they still Americans?

No Wealth, No Power, No Democracy

No Wealth, No Power, No Democracy

[If the graph was extended to the left, in earlier times, one would observe the richest Americans used to be not even half as rich, for the first 130 years of the USA. The wealthiest European 2%, in feudal times, that is the aristocracy, used to be about as rich as they are now, relatively speaking! Under Obama, the lines have strongly crossed the .1%, the very wealthiest, are richest than ever. No wonder even the "blacks" refused to vote for Obabla this time!]

***

“Patrice, you seem to be against the American way of life”:

I don’t know what the American way of life is. In 1940, the population of the USA was around 120 million. In 1980, it was around 250 million, and now it is around 330 million (there are 11 million Obama wants to make official; some objects).

Since I got to California, the population more than doubled. So what is California? Many of the recent immigrants are desperate to exhibit their Americaness, and are more American than the (“real”) Americans. So they go around, barely speaking English, and exhibiting the flags of the local “Baseball” team. They just arrived from Cuba, and the nine year old son spends (wastes) his weekend in “Baseball” practice.

“Baseball”, being a completely uninteresting activity, is perfect to judge the dedication of overseas self-propelled slaves at becoming thoroughly “American”…

There are many American way of lives, and American ways of thinking and feeling. . Many Americans, even in California, even born there, are dirt poor. Then you can meet people who immigrated from Germany or France to Silicon Valley, made a small fortune, and are now dejected, because they complain there are too many Asians, too many too rich Asians, competitive too much, educated too much, Asian too much…

The Silicon Valley, the USA’s main engine, is, first of all, an international phenomenon. I would even say a post-national phenomenon. The USA is a world-country.

However, simultaneously, plutocracy is growing, and Obama is its prophet (now past expiration date).

***

“Horrors! It has always been like this.”

Yes and no. True, Washington was from a prestigious colonial family (an ancestor had been general, etc). However, English America, after the “Barbarian Years” of endured servitude, did not present the sort of gigantic gap in wealth observed today.

Colonel, and then rebel and president Washington was pretty demoniac, and a plutocrat in that sense. Washington finished as maybe the richest man in the USA. However, he owned only 200 slaves or so, and his fortune paled, and was even insignificant, relative to the richest Europeans. Tolstoy was probably richer. The Tsar owned things all the way to America.

The first American billionaire was Carnegie, and he was to the left of the entire Democratic Party. Actually he was so much left, and persuasive, that the first generation of American plutocrat was genuinely philanthropic.

One can say that, for half of its life, the USA was strongly democratic (barring racial slavery, and religious, sexual discriminations).

The USA had, initially, a very strong unionized workforce.

Plutocracy became powerful in the USA, after the USA flew to the rescue of victory in 1918. I have explained this in detail in the distant past (I should have written a book from these essays, but did not find the time!) Basically the sacred union between politics and plutocrats allowed to first confiscate, and then control, Germany. The result was Nazism, which, fortunately, but not accidentally, for the USA, and its plutocrats, ran out of control, devastating Europe, and allowing them to control the entire world. For a while, a succession of presidents (FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson) was able to shield the USA from its own plutocracy.

But Nixon changed all that, as he remade the healthcare system and put plutocrats such as his friend Kaiser (well named!) in charge, thanks to subsidies. After that, it was all the way down.

***

“Now you cannot get anywhere near power without the expenditure of massive amounts of money, so your friendly plutocrats are a necessity.”

That was Obama’s trite excuse. That’s why he spent his presidency begging the wealthy. Actually it’s a stratagem, so he will be rich thereafter, like Clintons. (And very differently from Truman, an ex-Senator, who lived extremely modestly after his presidency. When asked why he did not cash on his career, he replied that it was a question of dignity of the office.)

When Obama got to power, everything could be done, the situation was ideal. However, the head of the “Democratic” Party was 100% rotten. All they could say, was that they needed the Republicans to agree. At that point, progressives ought to have gone in the streets, and protest. But they did not, because they had not enough education to know what was wrong, and not enough passion to care.

***

“…I feel that America would do better by cleaning up its own system than trying to impose “democracy” on others.”

Yes and no. If one had not intervened in Syria, or Ukraine, one would have encouraged Putin to become Hitler some more. In Libya, it was important to take the mad Khadafy down. (I know it’s a mess, but I have explained for years, one has to get rid of Islam as a political force, and this is part of it; the Punic and Berber civilization that is 3,000 years old, has more rights than the Islamists, whom I detest as much as Middle Age Catholics.)

Earth is a very small planet, not one of these aqueous giant Neptunes just discovered. We are all neighbors. Although I am pro-Iranian, I am against Iran getting nukes, because it would be nuke state too far. Many Iranians, even in the government, probably feel this, and they are delighted the P5 + 1 group is contracting the Iranian government on this (the We The People of Iran, ill-informed, want nukes, not reflecting that just one nuke can take Teheran out, killing ten millions).

***

“As for the “progressives”, in that system of entrenched interests, how could they possibly change anything?”

As I have said many times, the “Progressive Movement” has to think, and feel right, first. The problem of “progressives” all around the world (not just the EU and the USA), is that they do not have a clear, logical wish list.

Many “progressives” are fanatically anti-nuclear. But there is no solution to the CO2 Armageddon without nukes: known nukes… for example Thorium, or Fusion. Armageddon is around the corner, and it will not be progress (at least, not the easy way). OK, we are incredibly lucky that the Sun is getting quiet. See my 2009 essay:

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/sun-cooling-ice-melting/

Many “progressives” are completely unaware of the fabulous heist of 2008=2009. They are like babes, and their meal was stolen by financial plutocrats, and they do not have enough knowledge of even know that!

“Austerity”, truly more and more theft by the richest, is stealing their jobs, their futures, their hopes, and soon, everything else.

I made hard changes myself. When I discovered Obama had turned to the Dark Side (for help, advice, hope and shelter), I got literally depressed (fortunately I am a mountain runner, and that can be even more depressing, when the night comes, and the cold, and thunder).

It’s enlightening to follow Paul Krugman’s evolving thinking; the more time goes, the more he comes my way, away from plutocrats, towards “Synthesis Found: Governmentalism”(hence Krugman’s recent apology to Japan)… but he still has a long way to go!

A logical, futuristic wish logic is what I am trying to suggest.

I say: The first thing “Progressives” have to change, is their minds. The world will follow.

Meanwhile, for relaxation, and physical exercise, let me suggest that European “progressives” go down in the streets, and get rid of the Thief In Chief, Jean-Claude Junker, just elected head of the European Commission. That is also a problem for the USA: we pay more and more taxes precisely because the greatest fortunes in the world do not pay any tax (or get subsidies!). Some of the stealing goes through that den of thieves Luxembourg, one of several (including Great Britain and the USA: see my old: USA, Den Of Thieves: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/usa-den-of-thieves/).

All they got to know is the boss, same as the old boss, because they don’t know what hurts them.

Pain is not just a feeling, it is a knowledge.

Patrice Ayme’

Tax Theft: Luxembourg. Impotence: All Over. Culprit: GOP?

November 8, 2014

Great Evasions From Taxes And Responsibility. Krugman Accuses Republicans Of Everything

When cheating is legal, is it cheating? Many worthies in Europe are affecting surprise that Luxembourg allowed hundreds of the greatest plutocratic corporations to escape amounts in taxes similar to the “austerity” they try to impose. That means that tax evasion by the richest is paid by the poorest.

Tax avoidance, through Luxembourg alone, by the richest persons in the world, are of the order of 10% of the yearly Federal Budget of the USA (you will not see this in the newspapers, I computed it myself).

Burning Cars May Move Minds (Brussels, 11/6/14)

Burning Cars May Move Minds (Brussels, 11/6/14)

People are starting to see through this Kabuki theater. While Luxembourg flaunted its criminal nature, there was a bloody demonstration in Brussels against renewed “austerity” (from a new “conservative” government). No less than 20% of the capital’s population was in the streets, French and Flemish speakers united. Two police officers were grievously hurt.

Demonstrators burned cars, but did not set fire (yet!) to the European Commission and Parliament buildings. Let me be clear: the European Commission and the European Parliament have known, for years, of Luxembourg’s dirty nature. I have written of this institutionalized thievery, for years. It has been known, for years. All the politicians are accomplice… Indeed, none of them protested stridently against institutionalized tax stealing.

Jean-Claude Junker was the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, for 19 years, and, thus, Luxembourg’s thief in chief (plus 5 years, prior, as Luxembourg finance minister). Junker’s punishment? He is now head of the European Commission. It eerie, surreally obscene, a bit as if Himmler had been made president of Israel (in the last few days of WWII, Himmler cooperated with the Swedes to save thousands of Jews!).

Satanic corporate officers would show up in Luxembourg, and, within the same business day, organize the tax evasion of their employer, with the full participation of the authorities of Luxembourg.

Luxembourg whined that an illegal act had been committed: state documents had been revealed (28,000 pages on 340 companies, obtained by a consortium of journalists, ICIG; they have a consortium… to escape national censorship; many firms paid less than 1% on profits, whereas the law is 12.5%; other countries are cheating, including, Eire, the Netherlands, and the UK). Infamy knows no shame.

But one does not need to rob the state thugs of Luxembourg to expose the truth about Luxembourg. The industry of Luxembourg is organized crime.

According to the most recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis about $95 billion of profits moved into Luxembourg from U.S. companies in 2012 alone. In Luxembourg, those $95 billion of profits were basically not taxed. Direct investment from the U.S. into Luxembourg in 2013 was $416 billion. More than 200 U.S. companies operate there.

Luxembourg’s GDP per capita in 1961 was $2,200 (yes, two thousand dollars). Now it is more than 120,000 dollars. Only the tax cheaters Liechtenstein (140 K) and Monaco (180 K) are richer. What to do, when a country thrives from thievery? Why don’t the French and Germans send a few special forces?

Here is a description from the prime financial channel of the USA, CNBC. Here is the start of the associated text: “Here’s an international money riddle for you: What country is smaller than Rhode Island yet is the most attractive place for companies and investors to park their money, behind the United States? Ireland? Cayman Islands? Try Luxembourg.”

Notice that CNBC admits implicitly that the world’s greatest tax cheat is the USA itself (banking secrecy is often total in the USA, with shell companies, “charities”, “trusts”, and “Dark Pools”). And so it is.

So don’t ask why Obama did nothing for the USA. Ask why he should have done something against his sponsors.

And then rolled another editorial of Paul Krugman, accusing the Republicans of the “Triumph Of Wrong”. Said he :

“From Day 1 of the Obama administration, [republicans] have done everything they could to undermine effective policy, in particular blocking every effort to do the obvious thing — boost infrastructure spending — in a time of low interest rates and high unemployment.

This was, it turned out, bad for America but good for Republicans. Most voters don’t know much about policy details, nor do they understand the legislative process. So all they saw was that the man in the White House wasn’t delivering prosperity — and they punished his party.”

The usual flood of comments approving that childish and irresponsible vision flooded in, as a self-congratulatory orgasm of surrealism. My own comment was completely lost in that self-loving flood.

The truth, though, is that the democrats were in total control of Congress, the White House, and had a super-majority in the Senate (allowing to override filibusters), in the beginning of Obama’s reign. That was highly problematic, as the Democratic Party is controlled by plutocrats.

What were they going to do? Legislate against themselves? Discover that Delaware enables even more tax evasion than Luxembourg, as long as one is really very rich? Not embarrassed, the plutocratic owners ad operators of the “Democratic” Party accused Republicans “of doing everything they could”, to have, presumably, psychologically forced Democrats to do nothing anti-plutocratic.

I pointed out that, on November 5, 2008, Obama went to work at a hedge fund, in Chicago. That should have alerted the so called “progressives”, that something was not quite right (I certainly noticed!). But it did not. Even six years later, the (pseudo-) progressives still do not get it.

How long will it take for We The People to realize the present governmental set-up, complete with its attending pundits, is a plutocratic mood organization? I guess, as long as the New York Times keeps on censoring me, there is little hope. But then, why do I send money there?

Habits are hard to break. Ultimately, ideas break down, when people start breaking things down. This is how it was always done. Ultimately, violence is not just a political activity, but a psychological one, because it requires a lot of energy to break out of old systems of thought, and even more, out of old systems of mood.

Let see what Europeans worthies do, having named a thief in chief as head of the European Commission, and now seeing the rabble raise in a fury. A hint: if next time demonstrators make it to the European Parliament, breaking and burning, said Parliament may reach a clearer, and more cautious mood.

Austerity? You want austerity? Then why not start with the plutocrats?

Patrice Ayme’

Science: Magical Common Sense

November 7, 2014

Science Goes Beyond Common Sense Systematized

Some say that science destroyed our old illusions with relentless explanations:

“Geocentrism”, the illusion that the Sun turns around the Earth, is often quoted as an example:

However, geocentrism appeared only after it became clear that the Earth was a rounded sphere. That revelation came from observing the Earth’s shadow (prehistoric man has got to have thought that the Earth was flat). It confirmed what looking at ships already indicated.

Soon after, by studying the shadows more carefully, the distance of the Sun was found to be at least three million kilometers. Hence, shortly after the Earth was found to be round, it was found that the sun was bigger than Earth, thus it was more natural to suppose that Earth was rotating around it.

Aristarchus of Samos actually proposed exactly this theory, within at most three centuries from the earliest suggestion of the geocentric theory.

So geocentrism was not common sense, far from it. Common sense displaced it nearly immediately after its creation.

So why did geocentrism triumph so long?

It is actually the establishment of political dictatorship, indeed outright plutocracy, and the intellectual eclipse it entailed, that brought the neglect of heliocentrism. That was accentuated by the forceful imposition of the divine character of Aristotle’s physics… Aristotle, whose plutocratic political philosophy fit dictators like a glove (hence dictators loved everything Aristotle, and felt we should share the love too).

Dictators wanted We The People to believe everything about Aristotle, as if he were wisdom incarnated including his completely silly, easy to disprove, physics.

That was no unfortunate accident. It is precisely the very fact that Aristotle’s physics was stupid which made it an instructive example: believe what your master tells you to believe, even, and, especially, if it looks idiotic; thus your mind shall be like that of a dog! Masters need dogs. (The Trinity played a somewhat similar role, of training to violate credulity.)

Heliocentrism was reborn after Buridan, around 1320 CE, introduced inertia (Anglo-Saxons call this “Newton’s First Law”). Buridan was immensely famous, so the Church suppressed him, actively, five generations after his death. As part of the Church’s general crackdown on intellectuals (started with treacherously burning Hus alive.)

Buridan’s work is now attributed to Copernicus. (So the Church is still winning that one! Just as it does every day it forces to celebrate the monster Saint Louis as a “saint”.)

In truth, much common science is just common sense, systematized. A lot of modern mechanics and aerodynamics was perfectly mastered, intuitively, by Genghis Khan’s archers (say). A Mongol prince hit a dummy with an arrow, in a competition, at a distance of half a mile. The archers did not know the equations, but they knew what they say.

The rise of modern mechanics came from Middle Ages gunnery, especially after the French invention of field guns around 1430. Gunners quickly found that Aristotle’s physics was wrong, and established their own empirical science.

Commodity traders anxious to know first what the ships carried, developed telescopes. Galileo perfected them later (and had a scientific fight with his friend the Pope… about tides, and Galileo was wrong…)

Did the discovery of genes change everything?

That’s what snake oil salesmen want us to believe. Read Dawkins:

“… when you are actually challenged to think of pre-Darwinian answers to the question ‘What is Man?’ ‘Is there a meaning to life?’ ‘What are we for?’, can you, as a matter of fact, think of any that are not now worthless except for their (considerable) historic interest? There is such a thing as being just plain wrong and that is what before 1859, all answers to those questions were.” (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 267)

What is he saying?

That Englishman Darwin found all wisdom prior was worthless. Darwin, who thought of himself as a Lamarckian (and so did Wallace about Darwin!), would have been shocked.

The Anglo-Saxon debate about Darwin is a funny thing: in this vision, religiously propagated by Dawkins, evolution was discovered in 1859, by the British empire. (Dawkins may despise the Christian god, but he reveres the English empire.)

Why was Lamarck  so hated after 1815? For the same reason that anti-Judaism was made into the law over most of German speaking Europe, at the same time (thanks to Metternich and company).

It was the same mood: the Lord of Heavens, Jesus Christ, was back, complete with anti-Judaism, and research professor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s evolution theory (which Lamarck demonstrated by studying fossilized mollusks, around 1800), which had attacked so fiercely the Christian god, was out. Teaching evolution was strictly forbidden in British universities. (Darwin turned around that, two generations later, by not being a vulgar professor.)

Britain had been allied, used and encouraged as a weapon, the anti-Judaic, anti-Slav, rapacious kingdom of Prussia, since 1756. The dirty evolutionary, over-intellectual, anti-lord, and anti-plutocratic French theories were anathema. Especially in the Anglo-Saxon world (nevertheless, they percolated, from Darwin, to geologist Lyell…)

But did not science’s evolution theory, Lamarckian or not, debase man, by showing man was just an animal?

No. British universities forbid the teaching of Lamarck for two generations because evolution theory debased Christianity, which says god looks like man. Thus, god was a monkey, or dog. But that would not have shocked Indians, just stiff upper lip Brit, whose empire depended upon smooth sailing between lord in heavens, sovereign and force.

Most of the 10,000 religions or so that we know, did not make a sharp distinction between the human and animal realms. Many saw a continuity, a complicity, a coming and going between beasts, men, and gods, with various transmutations.

Evolution was known, de facto, for millennia:

Even large prehistoric dogs, 35,000 years ago, were obtained with heavy breeding from wolves (they did not look like wolves at all). Xenophon and Macedonians, obsessed by the breeding of horses, knew perfectly well that artificial selection worked. Natural selection was an obvious extension: the Spartans themselves used it sociologically in their eugenics program.

So science is very far from having “de-legitimized” all of the theories that came before. And some of these theories seemed most likely even tens of thousands of years ago: a discipline such as ethology had to be well mastered, for prehistoric man to survive, let alone thrive. Practice often primes theory (even the thinking cow, Martin Heidegger, guessed that one).

Practice precedes theory: it is particularly true in mathematics, where detailed examples suggest general theories.

Physics and biology confirm, systematize much of what men have observed, ever since there are men, and they think. Many phenomena are simply better observed, and understood.

So nothing is new under the sun?

Not quite. What science brought that’s really new, like neurons, or Quantum Physics, if anything, has made the world into an ever more complex, mysterious, magical place.

The more  we see, thanks to science, the more beautiful, and complex, it gets. Who needs gods, when we have what we found? And is now part of us?

Patrice Ayme’

Elect Ideas, Not Clowns

November 6, 2014

Obama Versus Brown. Obama’s  Inexistence Made Blatant. Last Twitches Coming?

Obama, the Resident of the White House, said something particularly deep and clever today:”… to the two-thirds of Americans who did not take part in the process yesterday, I hear you too!”

Which process is Obama alluding to? Voting. Two-thirds of eligible Americans did not vote. American citizens are voting out the conventional electoral process. Although I always voted, and although I spent two years, and a fortune, in effort and treasure, to get Obama elected, eight years ago, this time I did not vote.

Your humble servant, and We The People have had enough of electing little dictators.

Antares Rocket, One Of Obama's Pluto Pet, Goes The Way Of His Presidency

Antares Rocket, One Of Obama’s Pluto Pet, Goes The Way Of His Presidency

If one wants democracy, We The People has got to vote on (most) laws. Politicians ought not to be called “legislators”. Instead, they should be just in charge of the details.

In the meantime, refusing to vote is a king of sitting in the middle of the street.

Brown is Obama’s skin: it turned out that color of the skin did not bring change. Duh. Brown is also the name of the governor of California, re-elected in a triumph, for the FOURTH time.

Brown did two terms as California governor, three decade ago. When he was re-elected 4 years ago, the situation was abysmal. Several governors could do anything to the California deficit. To raise taxes required 2/3 majority (66% for).

What did Brown do? He said: ”I’m raising taxes on the rich. You better vote for it. If you, Californians do not vote at more than 66% for that, I will close all your state parks.”

Californians love their parks. They screamed, and then voted as told. Plutocrats had said they would flee California. Guess what? They found they had nowhere else to go.

(BTW, had a referendum about taxing the plutocrats been proposed, I would have gone to vote.)

Brown spent 4 years training as a Jesuit for priesthood, in silence, prayer, and Latin. Later he went to UCB, became a lawyer, and worked, and studied (including Zen) in many countries (including Mexico and Japan).

He was not born yesterday.

Obama looked condemned to me the day after he got elected, 6 years ago: he went to work at a hedge fund. Hedge Fund: money changers, as president Roosevelt called them contemptuously (and FDR was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and basically brought up by Teddy Roosevelt, himself president of the USA).

That Obama went to work at a hedge fund told me he had understood nothing. Or, rather, strong supporters such as me, had understood nothing: Obama was the plutocrats’ candidate.

(That Obama was facing the wealthy Senator McCain, who did not even know how many mansions he had, does not make him any less the plutocrats’ candidate. Passing remark: Seneca, the philosopher, and Nero’s teacher, chuckled that he had no idea how many giant agribusinesses and properties he had on the various continents. Those who partake in the Stoic Religion, worship Seneca. And that’s a basic problem with the (hypocrisy of) stoicism.)

The leader of the Republicans, McConnell, Senior Senator of Kentucky, just said the Senate needed to be fixed. “We have an obligation to change the Senate”. He said he was going to fix the Senate, making it work on Fridays, even at midnight, and also Saturday, if need be.

McConnell’s head is entirely white: he has been elected to the Senate continuously, for 30 years. Hardly not an insider.

Question: what happened to the Tea Party? Well, it never really existed. It was one of the tricks used by Obama’s political allies to do nothing.

McConnell was asked whether he was afraid of Obama’s veto. He smiled: “the president vetoed 2 little bills in 6 years. In the first 2 years, he loved everything he saw.”

And nothing happened.

(Obama would say Obamacare happened. Or, as he calls it, proudly, in a marked cognitive dissonance, Romneycare. Even November 4, 2014, Obama gave a whole lesson to the press corps on how much Obamacare was actually his “former opponent” creation. That Obamacare was actually Romneycare should have told progressives something. In truth, Obamacare is an excellent deal for health care plutocrats. Everybody else? Not that much: the deductible on my health insurance is something like $9,000. So my family has to spent $9,000 from our pockets, before reimbursements kick in. That means if I spend $9,000 in the next 7 weeks in a hospital, I have to pay the whole thing. The clock restarts January 1. That, by the way, is on an expensive plan, $1,500/month.)

Nothing could happen under Obama, because he was, whether he realized it, or not, an agent of Wall Street, and various other plutocrats. Same problem with the Clinton. The Clintons’ “Global Initiative” has offices a rock throw from Wall Street.

Obama showed this in a telling way, supporting short term tweak to existing and past technologies, calling this support for Research (support for private entrepreneurs to get to orbit, such as the Antares rocket which exploded a week ago, is exhibit number one; the government of the USA ought to support only fundamental research, such as for thermonuclear fusion, or through schools).

We are still waiting for the reform of the financial system. It was not difficult: president Roosevelt’s system had to be dismantled. But then that would have dismantled Clinton Global Financial Initiative (I’m ironical).

And this is not just a USA problem. The European Central Bank just mentioned hundreds of billions of “financial derivatives” that European banks hold. Well, that cancer which spread form Chicago ought to be unlawful: banks ought to invest in the real economy, not in a parallel universe.

In case you wonder why financial derivatives billionaires give multi-million dollar prices for the Multiverse in physics, I just gave you the reason.

Is there anything to save from this Obama shipwreck?

Well, and this is what the colossal abstention vote is suggesting, we have to change the Constitution (all over; not just the USA and France, or Britain). No need to scream in my face, as a very busy San Francisco’s architect once did, and pontificate that this is not serious, and nobody would take me seriously, if I persist with my folly. It is. The best way is to do as Switzerland is doing, that is sensibly, and insensibly.

The Swiss Constitution was not designed for direct democracy, it’s just growing into one, with ever more referenda of We The People, on all important issues.

Interestingly (one of the) the “votation” coming in three weeks has to do with limiting immigration. It will not pass, but it has furthered an even more sophisticated reflection on the subject (a Swiss referendum against immigration from (the rest of) the European Union passed last year; negotiations Swiss-EU on it are intense).

Referenda are healthy. In Great Britain, immigration is a burning hot subject (people hate it). But because We The British People cannot vote directly on the issue, they have made the European Union (which has little to do with it) into the scapegoat.

We have to ask more from politics. This starts by voting out the conventional electoral process.

Elect grand ideas, not clowns.

Patrice Ayme’

Is Philosophy The New Science?

November 5, 2014

A provocative title, assuredly, while science is everywhere, and philosophy, in appearance, some will say, nowhere. But actually our world owes even more to philosophy than to science: after all, according to my convoluted theories, the rise of Europe is greatly due to the push of the Franks against slavery, and towards less sexism. (It will not escape the cognoscenti that the great dynasty of the Tang in China, in the same period, was marked by powerful empresses.)

Science and philosophy are basically methods at both extremities of the same spectrum.

The age of science is upon us, thus the age of philosophy.

Science is about what is true. Philosophy is about what could be true.

Science is about realistic circumstances, philosophy is about imagining them. Science is about knowing, philosophy about guessing.

Neither goes without the other, since there have been baboons, and they think.

Homotherium Kept Yesteryear’s Thinkers Honest

Homotherium Kept Yesteryear’s Thinkers Honest

All animals with advanced brains have to be scientific enough to catch dinner, have sex, play hard to get, and they have to be a bit philosophical. However both science and philosophy took gigantic dimensions, once the genus Homo made culture into, well, a science.

With its intricate brains, Homo Sapiens could create, in said brains, entire world of ideas, neurological structures constructed by experiences, the world of tangibles, the world of truth, science. But it could also instruct, from the same, more free form structures, the world of imagination, where philosophy feeds at the trough.

In particular, 10,000 religions blossomed, and many a virgin perished in their names.

So what now?

Some say philosophy is dying. What they mean, is that they are dead.

This is the age of science, the age of truth. Much is known, but it’s nothing relative to what is coming. What is coming is automatic science. It’s not yet here, but some computer scientists are working on machines to prove theorems, automatically.

That does not mean mathematics would become meaningless, impotent, just the opposite. Mathematicians will devote themselves to the imagination, in other words, to the philosophy. Machines will see if it (mathematical philosophy) works.

In the myth of the singularity, dear to some “futurists”, science starts to progress so fast, that all becomes a blur. We are not yet there: electronic chips’ speed has stalled (from overheating), and multi-core programming is hard. However, even with slower progress, all mundane intellectuals tasks will fall to machines pretty soon.

And all over the world of inquiry, so it will be. Even in law, machines (computers) will be able to fill in all the details, check, in advance what are the consequences of imaginable laws.

All over, the imagination will be the specific human impulse. In other words, philosophy.

If one considers prehistoric man, one is considering a scientist: knowing what was true allowed survival. Being seriously wrong did not mean one’s “paper” would be rejected by a prestigious journal, but that one would be torn apart by a Homotherium pack.

There was little time and inclination for wild guesswork about the nature of the universe. Now is just the opposite: Homotherium has got extinct 10,000 years ago, with a whole panoply of terrible predators. Machines, increasingly, bring food and medicines.

We have all the time in the world to go on a rampage of guesswork.

This is already happening in physics: Strings, Superstrings, Supersymmetry, and their ilk are theories that were launched on the thinnest philosophical fumes.

For example, symmetries allowed to guess the existence of a few particles. So why not suppose that there is a symmetry (whatever that means) means the two main types of particles, Fermions and Bosons? That would remove an “infinity” or two which plagues the computations. Thus the idea of “Supersymmetry’.

Here is another example of stealth, wild philosophizing in physics, the idea of “A Universe For Nothing”.

(That’s described in the eponymous book of a professional salesman, Lawrence Krauss.) Wild guessing, if there ever was any. It makes Middle Age theologians, with their angels on pinheads, sound boring.

The Universe-for-nothing folks have prestigious chairs in the most prestigious universities in the world, and got multi-million dollars prizes (from plutocrats, of course). They use, in their despair, a completely idiotic argument about potential energy. Or, let’s say, a philosophical argument. That allows them to pretend it should cost nothing, energy-wise, to create a universe. Or a zillions of them per nanometer, actually, in every instant of time.

15,000 years ago, thinkers that crazy, arguing that Homotherium was created from nothing, would have been promptly swallowed by a pack of the saber tooth, social felids.

Science used to keep us alive, now we can afford to live by ridiculous philosophies. All the more reason, as the Seventh Extinction, the one of the Anthropocene, looms, to create some which are as serious as our ancestors needed to be.

And to those who thought our ancestors were not brainy: it seems their brains, all things equal, were 10% larger. Fortunately, things are going to get very serious, very soon. And while machines will do most of the science, our thinking, and guessing, will have to be wilder and deeper, than ever.

Philosophy is the new science.

Patrice Ayme’

SEXISM HOBBLES CIVILIZATION

November 4, 2014

DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FEMALES IS UNSAFE FOR CIVILIZATION:

Why did Athenian direct democracy fail? A case can be made that it did, because Athens was too sexist.

Some will raise their eyebrows, as I accused Aristotle to have fostered monarchism and plutocracy, by teaching directly the plutocrats who extinguished Greek democracy (for 22 centuries!) Thus, Aristotle destroyed democracy.

However, in the history I narrated, Sparta, urged by the (Athenian philosopher) Demosthenes and his friends, went to war against Macedonia’s Antipater, and his army of mercenaries… And Sparta nearly won. Athens sat on her hands (Athens went to war later, way too late, after Sparta had been completely defeated).

Why did Athens not support Sparta in a timely manner against Aristotle’s Executor (that’s Antipater)? It may have had to do with sexism.

Delphi's Sanctuary Of Apollo (Who Spoke Through The Pythia)

Delphi’s Sanctuary Of Apollo (Who Spoke Through The Pythia)

[The Pythia was a woman; the sanctuary started with the worship of Gaia. Ethylene vapors helped…]

Sparta was a fascist system, but, in some ways, it was way more advanced than Athens, or all other Greek cities. In particular, Sparta was a very anti-sexist society: girls were trained like boys, in the nude, for the toughest physical activities. They had lots of freedom, in many ways.

The enmity between Athens and Sparta may have been born from the former being sexist, and the other, just the opposite. The crowd of thinkers around Socrates, which was very attracted to Sparta’s charms, may have been so, because of this trait precisely: see below.

In any case, Athenian society suffered from an excess of aggressivity at the start of the Peloponnesian war, and  more caution from a feminine input may have made the difference (Athens’ annihilation of Melos, and attack against Syracuse, after throwing Alcibiades in Sparta’s arms are example of ill conceived aggression which voting mothers in the Assembly would have certainly voted down).

A sexist society is at a disadvantage: not only are the women forced to be moronic, but they can only teach their children moronically, being morons themselves.

Maybe that’s why the Middle East, thanks to the sexist interpretation of the Qur’an has been so stupid, for so long, overall. Sexism does not just oppress women, it oppresses boys: it makes them less intellectually performing than if their mothers were fully endowed. In any case, it clearly does not help. (The same argument can be extended in favor of direct democracy: in a direct democracy people vote directly on laws and decisions, as they did in Athens; so they are motivated to become more intelligent, creating a virtuous spiral up of ever greater smarts, as evidenced in Switzerland.)

Giant corporations imposing the notion that female nipples are unsafe, are not just moronic, but are themselves, considering their enormous clout and power, unsafe for civilization (be it only because they foster stupidity).

Why we need sexual equality to be institutionally imposed has to do, ultimately, with brains. Yes, female brains may be different in some genetic ways, from males ones (because, maybe, of different neurohormones, sometimes). And it’s true that, overall, female mental performance in the last 3,000 years, has come short.

The latter situation is entirely due to sexism, the poor man’s plutocratic impulse. Up to around 1850, even in the USA and Britain, a woman who married entered what was called “civil death.

The general abuse women were submitted to is in striking contrast with the long recognized fact that top female brains have been as capable as males ones: this is evidenced by the many leaders, who, even millennia ago, were women. The Magna Mater, Great Mother, Cybele Cult, which reigned over Middle Earth for millennia had God as a woman (the Virgin Mary of the Christians is a pale echo of that).

Carthage was founded by a queen, Dido, nearly 29 centuries ago. Even earlier, there had been famous, important, female pharaohs. When the Frankish empire became Western civilization, in the Sixth Century, replacing the decaying Roman State, there were no less than seven reigning queens in a century (I counted them). The last Frankish Queen, Bathilda, is the world’s first monarch on record, who had slavery outlawed. (That’s how slavery disappeared from Europe.)

Even Plato had recognized that females were the intellectual equivalent of men. And he may even have implicitly stated that they were superior: Plato adulated Socrates. And yet…

It is striking that all teachers of Socrates are women. And some are listened to religiously. By everybody. Pythia, the oracle at Delphi, was a towering figure of Ancient Greece: “Know Thyself and nothing in excess” was her motto. Delphi’s Oracle was actually an institution of wisdom managed by women over centuries. Delphic puzzling wisdom taught Socrates what came to be known later as the Socratic method. Socrates claims that the Pythia launched him on his quest for wisdom.

Asphasia of Miletus was Socrate’s teacher of rhetoric. She was a top philosopher (and became Pericles’ second wife, after he divorced, and married away his first one!)

In Plato’s symposium, Socrates says: “…the philosophy of love I learned from Diotima of Mantinea… [she] was my instructress in the art of love, and I shall repeat to you what she said to me….”

The Pythia invented the Socratic method, and Diotema Platonic love.

For the longest time, we were told women could not do science, or mathematics. However Emilie du Chatelet discovered ENERGY, and distinguished it from momentum.

Newton had confused momentum and energy; discovering energy makes Emilie more important than her boyfriend Voltaire… and a more original, and important, thinker than Einstein.

Energy is the core concept of contemporary physics. No less.

In the Twentieth Century, Emmy Noether was a towering mathematician.

There is a problem with women, though: Emilie du Chatelet went one boyfriend too far, and died from the birth of her fourth child, at age 42 (and, slowed down by three children, she had blossomed late as an intellectual; she was a global thinker). Emmy Noether died of an ovarian cyst at only 53.

The fragility of women’s health was greatly due to childbirth. In the European Middle Ages, the average child bearing woman would survive only ten years to the birth of her first child (who would die soon, too!) Now this is history, thanks to higher technology.

In prehistoric tribes, women collaborated intellectually as much as men. A civilization which can make female brains all that they can be, is a civilization with twice more brains… And intelligent children (as women are in the closest contact, and educate them for the first few years). Sexist societies are in contradiction with basic human ethology (the normal behavior of humans, their default state, what they are made to operate optimally in).

The easiest way to a superior civilization, is to let women become as brainy as men are allowed to be.

There are encouraging signs, such as more women registered now in universities of the USA than there are men.

Yet… How can we preach against sexual discrimination while discriminating against female skin?

Patrice Ayme’

Plutocrats Want You To Love Putin’s Nipples, & Hate Yours.

November 2, 2014

PRECISELY BECAUSE LOVING ONLY PUTIN’S NIPPLES IS AN UNSAFE &  SEXIST DISTRACTION

Sexism can provide with comic relief, when it goes over the top. I went to a gym where guys would flaunt their naked chests, mighty muscles rippling. Women trying the same trick would be promptly arrested.

Getting “stopped” by the police, or, better, arrested, in the USA, is a serious thing. It is a test everybody undergoes, to see how you respect the Authority Principle. The slightest non-strict observance of police officers’ orders results in much higher charges… If one does not get terminated outright.

By age 23, 41% of USA citizens have been arrested at least once. Black guys tend to fail the test, and get addicted to incarceration. Strange? Things are getting stranger quickly: We now have a sort of plutocratic corporate moral police emerging. It determines what is “safe”, and what is not. Ravenous, ever more powerful billionaires are in the lead. They decide that their friend Putin’s chest is glorious, while female chests are “unsafe”.

Naked Truth: Safe, Handsome Putin, Ugly, Unsafe Female Breasts?

Naked Truth: Safe, Handsome Putin, Ugly, Unsafe Female Breasts?

[On left, showing a real man, maybe gay, and certainly evil, but that’s alright. On right “unsafe” female according to great philosopher Zuckerberg, owner Facebook, NSA collaborator. Glorious dictators, OK, unsafe females, not OK.]

The gym finally decided everybody would wear a shirt. The old practice, naked men, veiled women was discontinued.

Truly, any time a group is allowed to do something others are not allowed to, is a discrimination. It better have a good justification. (Justified discrimination exists: forbidding drunk people to drive is justified, for example.)

Chelsea Handler (an actress I never heard of before), poked fun at the photo of Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin, by posting the topless photo of herself on a horse above. Handler warned, alongside her photo: “Taking this down is sexist. I have every right to prove I have a better body than Putin.”

Female nudity goes against the Facebook-owned Instagram posting rules: the picture was removed. Silicon Valley’s silicon men have no problems with “gays”, but mammals are something else entirely.

“If a man posts a photo of his nipples, it’s ok, but not a woman? Are we in 1825?” Handler responded. Instagram removed the picture again, with the consummate hypocrisy of plutocratic mind control: “Please read our Community Guidelines to learn what kinds of posts are allowed and how you can help keep Instagram safe.

Keep Facebook safe from female skin! Safety is big in the USA ever since Bush flew bin Ladens around the USA in 2011. Presumably to keep safe, Bush flew dozens of feudal relative of bin Laden out of the USA. Plutocrats’ safety comes first, in the USA. Somehow, female breasts threaten it.

Why to keep the USA safe from female breasts? Are we not named after those? “Mammal” comes from the Latin mammalis “of the breast”. (In Latin, breast is “mamma”.)

In truth, safety is not the paramount consideration. As we will see, quite the opposite. One plutocratic principle consists in creating fake problems, so that nobody has ever enough energy to address the real ones.

That’s why, when the financial sector exploded from plutocratic abuse, we were told that the problem came from We The People spending too (although real salaries have not augmented for a generation in most of the West).

That’s also why, confronted to an exponentiating CO2 density curve, the plutocrats tell us the weather has always changed, and our uneducated paranoia is making us attach unwarranted importance to insignificant problems, such as seas rising in level and acidity, 2014 being the warmest year ever, while permafrost starts to explode on a titanic scale in Siberia.

That’s why Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg wants to keep the world safe from female breasts, but not from his Chinese (his wife and her mother are Chinese).

Both subjects, Zuckerberg’s obsession with breasts, and himself as a person, are insignificant, but brandishing them presumptuously is highly significant: it preoccupies minds with crushing insignificance. Exactly as planned by those masters of pettiness, the plutocrats.

And Putin is their hero, the brazen way he seizes whatever he can grab, from Crimea, half of the Black Sea, and the entire educational industry of Russia, as the New York Times exposes in a gigantic, detailed “Special Report”, November 1, 2014. “Putin’s Way. Putin’s Friend Profits in Purge of Schoolbooks.”

I am sure Mark Zuckerberg is drooling about Putin’s power, and manly ways.

Chelsea Handler did not quit, and rightly so: “If Instagram takes this down again, you’re saying Vladimir Putin has more 1st amendment rights than me. Talk to your bosses.”

Talking to Mark Zuckerberg is like talking to a NSA robot: it will go nowhere. (The head of the NSA was recently saying yes and no all over about the Snowden divulgations, making sure nobody could get a handle on his mind.)

The so-called “media service” removed the photo again. Handler left Instagram (she went to Twitter, which does not censor what is lawful). Hopefully her 994,000 Instagram followers will follow.

Instagram is owned by Facebook, the firm owned by a number of major plutocrats, some of them looking like total robots, others singing about how good they are (“Bono”)… And all of them giving dozens of millions to charity (to show they are good robots).

If I were the new Caesar, I would make them pay billions of dollars in taxes, instead (but then they would have me assassinated, just like they did Julius: can’t win). American plutocrats in general paid at most 15% tax, for more than a decade (now they pay nominally a bit more, but they cheat thoroughly through Dark Pools and “charities”).

The ever greater power of plutocrats to tell us what is “safe” to see, or think, is entirely due to them paying not enough taxes, and getting ever more monstrous, from their gathering power (a typical exponential: it feeds on its own growth).

My take? “Social media”, when large enough, ought to respect existing laws, and not impose their own rules. I am not aware of a USA Federal Law against female torso nudity.

Am I discriminating against large media outfit? Yes, I am. But I have a justification. Big is different. Any time that a company becomes huge (and it could be Facebook, Amazon, Google, TOTAL, BP, whatever), it becomes an institution.

Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook is treated like a king: wherever he goes he meets with heads of state (all knowing the CIA, NSA, and the likes of Lawrence Summers, Clinton and Obama administrations, and the entire American plutocratic machine is behind him).

In a democracy all institutions ought to be democratic institutions. That means they ought to respect the law, the whole law, and nothing but the law. They cannot invent their own laws. Because, if when they do, they are imposed on a vast part of the world.

Zuckerberg and his kind are closer to the Saudi religious “police” than the futuristic do-gooders they pose as. They have banned authors from Facebook, just on the ground that they believed the obvious, namely that there were no direct historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. As I explained above, this sort of behavior, on Facebook part, ought to be unlawful.

In the second part of this essay, I will show that discriminating against females is extremely unsafe for civilization.

So the anti-female propaganda of Facebook (“female flesh is not safe”) is not just distasteful, borderline hate speech, but also outright a threat for life on this planet. Because life on this planet is what is presently threatened by the rise of the uncontrolled chain reaction of plutocracy untaxed.

I deliberately cut the essay in two, because the second part is actually more important than the preceding one. Experience shows that the scattered brains we are all becoming nowadays, have not enough attention span to go through what is even more important after already reading 1333 words.

Patrice Ayme’

Krugman Rising From The Deep

October 31, 2014

Nowadays, I rarely bother to criticize, let alone advise, Obama (OK, I did it on Syria).

The One has become insignificant, it does not matter what he thinks, supposing he thinks at all. (Chuck Hagel, the Defense Secretary just called the policy of the USA in Syria strategically compromised, long term, as it profits the other enemy of civilization, Assad. Hagel is right. Attacking ISIL without taking out Assad is unbalanced. I am sure another Christain, or Druze strongman can be found.)

Soon the entire Congress will be Republican, and the Obama groupies will wonder what happened. Well, they have only themselves, and their reveling, to blame.

What happened is that, while Obama adulators were celebrating, when Obama became president he got surrounded by a thick cloud of plutocrats and their servants. Thus all Obama’s policies were all plutocratic, including (most of) Obamacare.

Unfortunately, the so called “Democrats” were not brainy enough to realize this. They believed that their beige hero would save them all. And, besides, superman like, find a solution to everything.

And, even if “Democrats” had brains, they had neither theory, nor a plan on how to handle the world.

The same problem has arisen with Clinton, Bill, earlier, and with the dimwits of the Socialist Party in power (supposedly) in France: no progress whatsoever.

I can’t reproach right wingers such as Cameron, or Merkel to be right wing. Even Abe in Japan does what he said he would do.

But the left, in Europe and the rest of the West has long been derelict.

Why? How? Lack of correct ideas. They did not think it through.

The best Krugman could suggest, for years, was more money for kleptocratic banks (“QE”), or devaluation (as Abe is doing in Japan). Fortunately, at last, Krugman is changing. As he is the most followed political economist in the world, it matters. Polls in Europe showed that the (Ex(?)-Europhobic Krugman) is the most trusted voice… On the left!

Then, of course, it all makes sense: if Krugman, the most trusted voice on the left, was actually on the right, or nowhere in particular, then no wonder the left was a right, and civilization got off the rails.

Krugman is realizing, slowly, that the debate has been framed by the plutocracy, especially about the lack of investments.

So now Krugman realizes that he and his kind (ex-Fed chief Bernanke) owe apologies to Japan. Says he:

TOKYO — For almost two decades, Japan has been held up as a cautionary tale, an object lesson on how not to run an advanced economy. After all, the island nation is the rising superpower that stumbled. One day, it seemed, it was on the road to high-tech domination of the world economy; the next it was suffering from seemingly endless stagnation and deflation. And Western economists were scathing in their criticisms of Japanese policy.

I was one of those critics; Ben Bernanke, who went on to become chairman of the Federal Reserve, was another. And these days, I often find myself thinking that we ought to apologize.”

Well, indeed, you should: to keep its economy up, the Japanese government engaged in a gigantic effort (its debt is now 240% of GDP… Slightly more than the 90% of Britain or France).

And Krugman to diagnose: “… the West has, in fact, fallen into a slump similar to Japan’s — but worse. And that wasn’t supposed to happen. In the 1990s, we assumed that if the United States or Western Europe found themselves facing anything like Japan’s problems, we would respond much more effectively than the Japanese had. But we didn’t, even though we had Japan’s experience to guide us. On the contrary, Western policies since 2008 have been so inadequate if not actively counterproductive that Japan’s failings seem minor in comparison. And Western workers have experienced a level of suffering that Japan has managed to avoid.”

If it were only workers! Grandmothers and everybody not a banker or hedge fund managers also suffered from Quantitative Easing (which brought savings’ interest down to zero).

So what happened? Krugman again:

”What policy failures am I talking about? Start with government spending. Everyone knows that in the early 1990s Japan tried to boost its economy with a surge in public investment; it’s less well-known that public investment fell rapidly after 1996 even as the government raised taxes, undermining progress toward recovery. This was a big mistake, but it pales by comparison with Europe’s hugely destructive austerity policies, or the collapse in infrastructure spending in the United States after 2010. Japanese fiscal policy didn’t do enough to help growth; Western fiscal policy actively destroyed growth.”

And Krugman to evoke the austerity mistake even in Sweden, and to conclude:

“I’ll be writing more soon about what’s happening in Japan now, and the new lessons the West should be learning. For now, here’s what you should know: Japan used to be a cautionary tale, but the rest of us have messed up so badly that it almost looks like a role model instead.”

I added the following in a comment:

The case of Japan is special: it has collapsing demographics, not compensated, as it is in many Western countries, by a vigorous immigration. Japan also has no indigenous energy to speak of (even its nuclear waste recycling long depended upon France).

It was long obvious to yours truly, that the conditions we are in are worse than in 1930s. The Great Depression of the 1930s happened mostly accidentally; it was a succession of obvious mistakes: a boom, followed by a crash, made worse by a tariffs war, leading to industrial shrinkage, and a liquidation of banks.

Nowadays, it’s different: the planet is crashing, a more serious problem. This could be stopped, but for that the general mindset would have to be different. However, said mindset is constructed by an ever more powerful plutocracy, a few hundred individuals who order the world around.

In particular, the plutocratic mindset has seized the financial sector and the government. The former does not need the public to make money: the financial sector has tricks such as Quantitative Easing up its sleeve, boosted by the continual authorization for banks to cooperate with, or engage in financial piracy.

The latter, the government, refuses to engage in massive public investment, from top notch free public schools, to massive infrastructure to massive public healthcare (if you brandish Obamacare, contemplate its deductibles). Simply because, as a proximal reason, if government goons hold that line, cushy jobs are for them to take when they come out of government.

The way it connects with the financial pirates is simple: money creation is a zero sum game, when pushed to the max. If more money went to the real economy, it would be as much not going to the financial pirates.

Krugman, and his eminent colleagues have not understood this yet, that all the money created for financial thugs, is as much not going for vaccine research, schools, bridges, healthcare, etc. Hopefully, they will, some day. Before that day, do not expect progressive polices to bear fruit, or, even, to exist.

The media, everywhere, is little better than FOX News: it’s a giant propaganda machine which has interest to make the rich richer, and the poor, stupider.

Plutocracy is the metastatic cancer which has invaded, paralyzed all the minds. Before a stunted economy, and decaying society, we are confronted to decomposed minds. And mostly on the left. The right, at least, the plutocratic right, knows how to take care of its own.

Patrice Ayme’


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 348 other followers