Trump: Deradicalize Islam. Good.

May 21, 2017

Remember that whereas an army marches on its stomach, a people is ruled by its mind, and minds can be fabricated industrially. Except for tiny soap boxes such as yours truly, the media in the West is controlled, or owned, by the world’s wealthiest people. And wealth is power.

Trump gave a speech in Saudi Arabia to an assembly comprising 50 “Muslim majority countries” heads of state. A Muslim friend of mine heard the beginning of the discourse and concluded:”He put some water in his wine!” Which is French for getting reasonable.

But I expected no less. Trump was not doing his first foreign trip, starting with Arabia, to call for a Muslim ban. But his message was nevertheless radical. Trump basically called to de-radicalize Islam. That may look innocuous, but de-radicalize means to tear of the roots. There are practical ways to do it, fast.

Flower Power! Oh My Terrifically Great Friends Again Thanks For These Gigantically Beautiful Blossoms! President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Radicalized Islam In 1945. At Great Bitter lake. Me, Trump Shall Deradicalize Islam Now. Saudi King Salman on the right. Real king Ibn Salman, his son, on the left. US Nuke Officer Hidden Behind Trump.

To understand the plot between plutocrat FDR, Wall Street, Oil Men, and Saudi Arabia Founder, the colossal warrior, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, one needs to be aware of the Great Bitter Lake conspiracy:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/great-bitter-lake/

(That plot was established days after FDR gave half of Europe to Stalin at Yalta, not so much to make Stalin strong, but rather to make Europe weak.)

A picture can teach a thousand ideas. Melania Trump and Ivanka Trump went all over the highest spheres of Saudi Arabia, glamorous hair all out. Here is Melania Trump visiting a school in Riyadh.

Three Americans Females Showing Hair  In This Picture. First Lady Melania Trump visits the American International School in the Saudi capital Riyadh on May 21, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / GIUSEPPE CACACE

Other essays reflecting some of my moods:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/perspective-islamophobia-is-not-racist/

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/god-here-dog-there/

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/how-plutocracy-fosters-islamism/

Obama gave a speech in Cairo, at the beginning of his eight years of service to the established order.Obama’s pseudo-intellectual claim::”Islam is great!”, a cosmetic change from “God is great!”, the rallying cry of the radical Muslims. Islam is great because Islam invented all this things which, actually came from Greece, Persia, India, etc. Obama insisted that he knew “as a student of history… civilization’s debt to Islam was great”. “Islam“, said Obama, “carried the light of learning through many centuries and paved the way for Europe’s Renaissance and the Enlightenment” These are basically lies: contrarily to what Obama claimed, Arabs did not “invent the order of algebra“. The (mostly) transmitter of that Greco-Indian knowledge was from Central Asia! The (part) inventor of the Zero AL KHWARIZMI was from present day Uzbekistan,  nearly 3,000 Kilometers from Saudi Arabia. Attributing algebra To “Islam” is even more stupid than attributing Analytic Geometry To Christianism!

Obama utterances were devised to sound educated, but they are conducive to a mood which is all lies. Basically Obama was trying to persuade us that religious obscurantism is conducive to intellectual enlightenment. It’s total poison, which has poisoned Western minds, ever since the Western plutocrats determined that there were few things better to make us all stupid…

From left to right, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, first lady Melania Trump, and U.S. President Donald Trump open the Global Center for Combating Extremist Absolutely Beautiful And Touching! Just One Caveat: All New And All Superior Thinking Always Starts Extreme!

Trump’s deradicalization proposition is more correct than Obama’s hypocritical professiorally professed admiration..

Christianism was deradicalized: this enabled civilization to take off again. Deradicalization did not happen in five minutes: it started when the Franks established a secularist emperor, a school teacher. That was well before the end of the Fourth Century.

Christian deradicalization is nearly complete.

Good.

Took 16 centuries.

High time to do Islam now.

What moral right do we have to? Well, our distant ancestors had a hand in Islam, because, if nothing else, Christianism mentored Islamism. Then, of course, Islam conquered half of the Greco-Roman empire in a few decades. Islam did so because it was so radical.

Four centuries later, the Turks converted to Islam. Islam, radical Qur’an version, says that if one dies, fighting for Islam God, one goes to sit next to Islam God thereafter (what’s the difference between that and a sort of denied homosexuality?). In any case, Islamized warriors are as dangerous as they can get (short of being clever, of course!). The Turks moved thousands of miles, and, in a few decades conquered all. Or, at least Armenia, Kurdistan, Anatolia. The rest of the Middle East, including Arabia, and then North Africa, followed.

All very good, but then the Qur’an Fascist Principle (S4; v59) says all dictators should be obeyed as if they were Muhammad (that gave an opening to Sufi, Philosophical, Islam, and, more prosaically, Islam as dictatorship).

Now, of course, with modern weapons, peace is not a choice, but a necessity.

Yes, time to de-radicalize.

And how to de-radicalize? First, top intellectuals have to realize that radical, literal, fundamental Islam is as much a catastrophe as radical, literal, fundamental Christianism, which is basically synonymous with the Dark Ages, of which it was part, cause and consequence. That will change the mood importantly. Arabia has to understand that fossil fuels are on their way out, and it may happen much faster than expected: desalination using massive energy from photovoltaics can keep Arabia livable, but then what to do? Well, become more intellectual, as Abu Dhabi is already trying to do. Clearly a superstitious obscurantist interpretation of a Dark Age religion is in the way.

Secondly, radicalization has proceeded from TV channels such as Al Jazeera. I have linked to Al Jazeera more than once on this site: it has some good articles. But it also has horrendous fundamentalist, knife between the teeth, preachers. Time to change this. All the Fundamentalist, Wahhabist, extreme Islamism transit through Western owned and launched telecommunications satellites, a vivid demonstration of Western plutocracy and Fundamental Islam of the worst type.

De-radicalization of Islam has to go through the domestication of many a Western plutocratic individual or institution. No doubt the media, owned by the same “moral” persons, will find therein another secret reason to hate Donald Trump even more…

Muslim potentates should mull all this carefully: they, too, are being manipulated!

Patrice Ayme’

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENTS MAKE TIME AN ARROW

May 19, 2017

Through Wave Collapse and the ensuing Entanglements it sometimes brings, QUANTUM PHYSICS CREATES A CAUSAL STRUCTURE, THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE, THUS, AN ARROW OF TIME.

Actually it’s more than a simple causal structure: it is an existential structure, as localization creates materialization, in the (Sub-)Quantum Theory I advocate. (It’s a theory where there are no dead-and-alive cats, but particles in flight are not particles… Contrarily to what Einstein thought, but more along the lines of Niels Bohr, horror of horrors…) It also means that time, at the smallest scale, is a nonlocal entanglement. This is not a weird new age poetry, but pretty much what the raw formalism of Quantum Physics say. I throw the challenge to any physicist to contradict this in any way. It’s completely obvious on the face of it.

You read it here first, as they say (although I may have said it before). Is time absolute? How could time be absolute? Where does the Arrow Of Time (Eddington) come from? Is there something else which grows with time?

The old answer is entropy, traditionally denoted by S.

Boltzmann’s equation S = k log P says that entropy augments during the evolution of a system. P indicates the number of states accessible by the system. Entropy was a construction from later Nineteenth Century physics, a successful attempt to understand the basic laws of thermodynamics (mostly due to Carnot).

A big problem for classical thermodynamics: what’s a state? That’s not clear.

However Quantum Physics define states, very precisely. However, very specifically: a situation, defined in space-time, what Bohr and Al. called an “experiment” (rightly so!) defines a number of possible outcomes: the latter become the “states”, a basis for the Hilbert Space the “experiment” defines.

Classical statistical mechanics does not enjoy such precisely defined states. So why not to use the states of Quantum Physics? Some could object that Quantum “experiments” are set-up by people. However Quantum Interactions happen all the time, independently of people. As in the Quantum experiments set-up by people, those Quantum Interactions grow something: Quantum Entanglement. ( Self-described “Quantum Mechanic” Seth Lloyd from MIT has also mentioned that entanglement and the arrow of time could be related.)

Quantum Entanglement has a direction: from where singularization (= localization = the collapse of the Quantum wave packet) happened first, to the distant place it creates the geometry of (yes, entanglement creates geometry, that’s why it’s so baffling to specialists!) 

Quantum Physics, Or, More Precisely, What I call QUANTUM INTERACTIONS are irreversible processes. Hence the Arrow Of Time

So we have two things which grow, and can’t be reversed: Time and Wave Collapse/Quantum Entanglement. I propose to identify them. (After all, Maxwell proposed to identify electromagnetic waves and light, just because they are both waves and went at the same speed; it turned out to be a magnificent insight.)

Quantum Wave function collapse is time irreversible (actually, the entire Quantum Wave deployment is time irreversible, because it depends only upon the geometry it’s deployed in). The mechanism of wave function collapse is philosophically a matter of often obscure interpretations, and arguably the greatest problem in physics and philosophy.

My position here is perfectly coherent: I believe the Quantum Waves are real. (So I do not believe the waves are waves of ignorance, and an artefact, as some partisans of Quantum decoherence have it). Those objective waves are real, although not always in one piece (that’s how I generate Cold Dark Matter).

By the way, it is the collapse of the Quantum Wave which “creates” the Quantum Entanglement At least that’s how the mathematics, the description of the theory has it! The picture it creates in one’s mind (first the wave, then the collapse, then the entanglement) makes sense. Actually I am arguing that this is how sense makes sense!

Quantum Entanglement is a proven experimental fact. All physicists have to agree with that. Thus the Quantum Wave has to be real, as it is the cause of the Quantum Entanglement! (I am pointing out here that those, and that’s now nearly all of them, who believe in Entanglement are incoherent if they don’t believe in the wave too!).

Jules Henri Poincaré had seen that time and space were not equivalent. That was meritorious, as Poincaré had proposed the original ideas of “local time” and “local space” theories, which are the fundamental backbones of Special Relativity (they are deduced from the constancy of the speed of light).

Even Einstein publicly frowned on the concept of “spacetime”, which identifies space and time; “spacetime” was proposed by Minkowski, Einstein’s own professor at the EHT… They may not have been friends, as Minkowski compared Einstein to a “lazy dog”; Einstein, of course, respected Poincaré so much, that he grabbed the entire theory of Relativity from him, including its name…

Quantum Physics does not outright treat time as equivalent to space, quite the opposite (although Quantum Field theorists have tried to, and do treat space and “imaginary time” as the same!). In fundamental Quantum Physics, time is a one parameter group of transformation, not really a dimension.

When a glass falls and shatters, Classical Mechanics is at a loss:’Why can’t it reassemble itself, with as little work?” Classical Thermodynamics mumbles:’Because Entropy augments’. (That may be a tenable position, but one will have to count the states of the glass in a Quantum way. Even then, the full energy computation will reveal a lack of symmetry.)

I say, simply:’A glass which has shattered can’t be reassembled, because Quantum Interactions, and ensuing entanglements happen.’ The resulting topology of cause and effect is more complicated than what one started with, and can’t be reversed. Quantum Interactions and ensuing effects at a distance they provide with, create a partial, nonlocal, ordering of the universe. Time. (Once a set has been physically defined, it has been thoroughly interacted with, Quantum Mechanically, and then it becomes a “well ordering”!)

So what’s time? The causal structure of the universe as determined by irreversible, causal Quantum Wave collapse and Quantum Entanglement.

Patrice Ayme’

WISDOM IS KNOWLEDGE Tempered By Value

May 18, 2017

Wisdom is taking measures to avoid getting hotter than in 450 million years. ASAP. (I have long brandished ominously that possibility, not just to frighten the Bourgeois, and poke them out of their jet-setter life style, but because there was a solid scientific reasoning behind it. Now, it turns out that the scientific community is starting to realize that there is something to my threats… More details in future essays.)

Wouldn’t that be nice for those who promote ignorance, if wisdom had nothing to do with knowledge?

It is often said that Socrates would have been told by the Delphi Oracle that he was the wisest, because he knew nothing. Actually, that statement, stricto sensu, is an invention. Socrates was not that dumb. Don’t let soporific plutocracy descriptions of Socrates lead you astray!

What Socrates actually said was that, in some particular cases, he was wiser than someone else, because, on that particular matter, he knew enough to know he did not know, whereas his opponent thought he knew, when he shouldn’t have had that feeling (Diogenes and Cicero later made a caricature of Socrates’ fully appropriate considerations, this is where the “error” comes from; I suspect said “error“was perpetuated, and is now repeated ad nauseam, because the erroneous statement that ultimate wisdom is to be as knowledgeable as a barnacle, promoted idiocy thereafter, a help to abusers; in particular, plutocrats).

If all we know is that we don’t know, we, indeed know just enough to know we don’t know: a good beginning to feel motivated by the spirit of inquiry. The assertion attributed to Socrates is just plain stupid, as it identifies wisdom with ignorance. Much of Socrates’ thinking consists into low quality running around in circles adjudication of thoughts, being decisive about nothing much… But not so blatantly!

Verily, wisdom is knowledge. Wisdom is a web of knowledge. Real knowledge, namely relating what’s not obvious to an ant, or a dog. Not knowledge consisting in cataloguing the appearance and location of grains of sand on a beach. So wisdom is knowledge tempered by value.

t There is more knowledge to gather in the sand on a beach than we, or anything, can ever know. But that kind of knowledge is not wisdom, but its opposite.

True, any knowledge comes with a context. Any logic comes with a “universe”. To know something, to know a logic, is to know that context, that universe. One should not be so stupid as believing that whatever one knows has universal value. If one jumps naked through a ten story window, one will die from the fall, at least, on Earth. If one jumps through a window on the asteroid Ceres, and then one will die from trying to breathe in a vacuum, blood boiling.

I will give examples in science and climate. The latter with an eye to policy. I have long advocated that, for climate, catastrophic calculus, computing only with the worst possible cases, was the path to wisdom. Indeed, we now know that, for three out of the five known mass extinctions, the process involved was exactly the same as now the unfolding catastrophe known as the Anthropocene we are contributing to: a CO2 exponentiation, a blow-up of CO2 (propelled, literally, by volcanic activity).

Wisdom then? A carbon tax!

Wisdom is a tax!

Wisdom can be simple. Wisdom can be just a tax!

Patrice Ayme’

Advanced Morality: First, Learn To Be Polite With The Truth

May 16, 2017

Another self-glorifying US historian explains in Aeon magazine that “Democracy needs politeness”. And what is the ultimate form of politeness? Political Correctness! Political correctness, or the transformation of reality into insanity. Indeed, the “historian” Steven Bullock claims that: “Autocrats shouted, cursed, and bullied, while American revolutionaries used politeness as a tool of radical politics.”

That’s statement is a piece of towering disinformation.

First, although kings and queens occasionally “bullied”, uppity peers, of the kingdom, they would very rarely stoop to shouting and cursing. That would be to admit weakness, dearth of “majesty”.

Second, the principal “radical” character of US politics after getting rid of British rule was that the frontier which the monarch in London had imposed was shattered, and Indian lands got stolen on an imperial scale.  

Look carefully at the “Proclamation Line” on the west side of the colonies. That was supposed to their frontier under the British Rule. That was the real cause of the war.  The Real Cause Of the War Of Independence Was the “Proclamation Line of 1763”. It prevented the expansion of the English American colony to the West, thus it blocked a very nice land grab. The “Boston Tea Party” is a system of thought designed to disguise the main motivation for what really happened.

Steven Bullock describes British and US plutocracy as if they belong to a universe where all rules are upside down. Says he:

Britons and Americans of the 18th century applied these ideals of sympathy and respect to public as well as personal relationships. Seeking restrained and responsive leadership, the 18th-century ‘politics of politeness’ offered a powerful challenge to angry and overbearing authoritarian rule. For many contemporaries, this critique often seemed broader and more compelling than the discussions of legal and constitutional issues that are better known today.

Politeness developed in Britain, and Europe as a whole, but its political applications became especially important in 18th-century British America…

Why upside down? Because there was nothing polite about the British and American empires. They both conquered large swathes of the planet over record time, and held to those. No morality was held back: to defeat France, Great Britain used Prussia as a weapon. Prussia was a hyper militaristic, extremely racist state. Now people bemoan Nazism: it’s fashionable. However, 1756 Britain made support for (what would become) Nazism a reality. Prussia murderously discriminated against Jews and Poles. That was part of what Mr. History Professor sees as “politeness”. Also, the reason why the french Revolution did not propagate to England was not so much that England was more democratic, as Voltaire affected to believe. Actually, England was more effectively plutocratic, under democratic disguise: French peasant owned their land, not the English peasants (in England, aristocrats held everything).    

Actually, there was nothing new about politeness: it was already expected in Republican Rome. What was new in the Middle Ages were the “Courts of Love” which made explicit what were polite relations between men and women. That surely did not exist in Rome: Rome was very sexist. The Republic was very sexist, and the empire, a little bit less so. Not as sexist as present-day Islam, but still one had to wait the extreme Late Roman Empire to see one “Augusta” meaning one supreme Roman leader who was a woman. The Franks and later the French and “Renovated Roman Empire” they created had many supreme leaders who were women, well before Eleanor of Aquitaine (queen of France and England).

In truth, what was “compelling” in Britain, is that, if an admiral lost a battle to the French he was shot and that was it. Idiots with a smattering of knowledge of perverted history will call that polite! Britain was actually a horrendous dictatorship relative to France in  more ways than one, and proved it by attacking France with its utmost in 1792, in at least two ways: by financing and exciting Prussia, once again; unfortunately for the cowardly British plutocracy, Prussia was defeated next to Paris at Valmy, September 1792; the other way was by directly invading Provence.

Bullock hints that we are not polite enough, that compromises democracy, when we call libidinous greedsters for what they are, leeches upon civilization, horses of the apocalypse of the biosphere, he disingenuously bemoans.

However, first there is no democracy as it is. About 2,000 people take all the important decisions in the West or the USA, and set the important moods. They are themselves puppets of the worldwide wealthy class of the.01%, or so.

Democracy in Athens meant a quorum of 6,000. That would mean a direct vote by around 20 million people for any decision, in a country such as the USA. Not just a few hundred baboons mostly selected by their ability to seduce the rich enough to run for elections.

Secondly, politeness is all too often a way to disguise viciousness: by affecting to treat others one speaks to kindly, surely, one could not be treating anybody shabbily. Surely, by talking falsely now, with exaggerated deference, one invites others to do the same.

And surely enough, most of the US Founding Fathers founded a pseudo-democracy which was the most successful holocaust machine devised in the last 6,000 years of known civilization. The American Natives were mostly exterminated and certainly evacuated, from an entire very nice, temperate continent. Hey, such polite people! Who could suspect the polite Jefferson to have sex with children, enslave, and grab Indian lands as vast as Western Europe, so that his tribe could colonize them after murdering the original owners?

When the Ancient Regime’s police in Paris told Jefferson that he could now keep slaves in France, and politely asked him to let them go, and, if they decided to stay, pay them wages, Jefferson politely agreed. But he lied, politely, because the best lying is very polite, and most productive that way.

Then, when asked politely by the children he had enslaved whether he would free them once they had returned to America, Jefferson politely said he would do so. Not because Jefferson was genuinely truthful, but because his disingenuous politeness made it so that the children he was abusing and enslaving would not run away in Paris, and ask for help from the French authorities.

Just as Christianism as founded by the so-called “Church Founding Fathers” around 400 CE, was the most polite, greatest anti-civilizational ideology in the history of known civilization. Thereupon, the Dark Ages. It is surely not polite to point this out.

Instead, one should set-up a “Muslim Appreciation Month” as California did it in 2016.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/california-recognizes-august-muslim-appreciation-awareness-month-n621851

Surely, if we appreciate Islamism, we appreciate Christianism, thus the Dark Ages! All very polite, with obscurantism! Appreciation as a principle is a manipulation, just as encouragement and punishment as principle are abusive manipulations. Especially when applied to non-handicapped children.  Encouragement, punishment are not ingredients in a recipe, to be kept in balance to taste just right (contrarily to what traditional Chinese pedagogy has it, which keeps a balance of 5:1 between encouragement, the wén 文, and punishment, the wǔ 武!). Verily, encouragement and punishment should be the fruits of reason.

To be frank is to be polite with the truth.

Appreciation for truth is what we need now. It’s the antidote for Political Correctness. Political Correctness is that, if it feels right, it’s right. Political Correctness, replacing truth by hedonism, is the exact annihilation of the essence of humanity. OK, it’s not polite to point that out. But it’s the truth, and it’s because of it that the greatest, most brutal life extinction in at least 65 million years is proceeding now (and it could get worse).

A small example: Yes the Bush government and the Bush family lied about why they invaded Iraq, and then lied about why they let Iraq be devastated. That was a violation of Geneva convention, and people who deliberately violate the Geneva Convention on a massive scale surely are criminals against humanity. Being “polite” in this matter would amount to become an accomplice of these grave violations.

Conclusion: One has to learn to be polite with the truth, not higher-ups, who are little more than thieving baboons who ran away with democracy.

Patrice Ayme’

Macron Needs To Declare War On Germany

May 14, 2017

Declare war to German policy, as it is, because it is not just driving us to war, but is already part of the increasing war against civilization we are experiencing in so many ways… The refugee problem, and the terror problems are, basically, military problems, and German, and pseudo liberal, or pseudo-leftist obscurantism have been the drivers (as they profit global plutocracy!) Fundamental French problems are global. And global starts next door with a selfish wealth captured German policy. Those global problems which affect the French Republic severely have to be solved, otherwise, la République se retrouvera en marche arrière….

The Need To Teach Those Who Are Supposed To Think, and Act, For Us. Whether we like it, or not:

Merkel, although she was endowed with a physics PhD, although she was raised in East Germany, the child of a pastor who emigrated there, in spite of all this, her world vision is limited (so is Macron’s, although he went to Nigeria as part of ENA in 2002). Nowadays, in this world endowed with lots of immigrants, some, like yours truly, have experienced, and have been raised in maximally opposed cultures (I was raised in Muslim countries with Islams wildly superior to the abominable Islam presently promoted by Middle East plutocrats, and their obsequious servants).

***

Wars, Colonialism, Built Civilization, That’s Who We Are:

Actually Macron basically said this, while… Macron expressed a childish, uninformed, wild hatred of colonialism (“a barbarity, a crime against humanity“). Clearly, Macron didn’t think, when he said that, that exhibiting a knowledge of history in-depth was crafty at that point. In truth, we live in a colonial world. Even basic European agriculture is a product of colonialism: Middle-Easterners migrated to Southern Europe, bringing wheat and the like. The Celts were also colons. Estruscan and Greek colons taught cow herders called Romans that reading and writing had its merits. Without Etruscans and Geeks to come around and teach greater intelligence, the Romans would still be living in thickets. Without higher and higher civilization propagating, cannibalism would still be the way.

Most of the world population descend from colons, all the way down to Bantu South Africa. Colonialism is not, per se, evil. The devil is in the details. German colonialism in present day Europe is complete self-destroying nonsense. It’s an economic war, in alliance with global plutocracy, and it’s destroying not just European civilization, but civilization itself.

Notice the explosion of German production after introducing the Euro. It has been a war, and a counter-attack is on the way. Brexit, in a sense, however nonsensical, is part of it. The rise of US production under Obama is related to spending freely money the USA created out of very thin air. Those who really don’t like it, and try to do something about it, will be shot out of the sky. Any question?

***

The French Are Getting Angry, The Last Warning against Pluto Europe Was Proffered:

In the last presidential elections, more than 46% of the French voted against Europe as it is. They are not “anti-European”, they are against plutocratic Europe. The official political establishment, the “Socialists” and the right were kicked out. Macron is the eighth president of the Fifth Republic. Why five republics? Because France is in the middle of Europe, across the three easy trade routes between the Mediterranean and the boreal regions. Thus France became the head of the European empire (which itself consisted of up to hundreds of states competing with each others, under complex treaties… Treaty, in Latin Foedus, gave the name of the period, Feudalism. It was launched by the Roman imperial State in the Fourth Century). On and off, France was the largest state, the most organizing, and the most involved in continual wars.

***

The pursuit of civilization has been indistinguishable with that of just and correct, successful wars, over the last six millennia:

This has to be said to Merkel. That poor know-nothing of much importance person, is blinded by pacifism, an inhuman streak. European leaders, in general, have learned an erroneous feel-good vision of the world, where all which feels good is best. Fundamentally, it’s a sort of hedonism.

The racist fascist murderous exploitative streak, culminating in Nazism, which came to rule Germany was not persuaded by flowers, but rendered inoperative by millions of tons of high explosives. Prussia had turned the way of the holocaust again in the Eighteenth Century, encouraged and financed by Britain. Its undoing came when France persuaded its ex-vassal Britain to join in militarily destroying the Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan, and explicitly in the end, the USSR).

Ultimately, the Romans, having become civilized, intelligent and progressive, thanks to them, kicked out their Etruscan and Greek overlords. The Etruscans were no pushovers: they had deliberately migrated to the iron rich region of Italy, from Syria, which they had previously invaded as “Peoples of the Sea”. The Greeks were the fiercest warriors of antiquity, with the most advanced tech.  

To master Greeks and Etruscans, the Romans had to become relative supermen, with a super “mixed” constitution. However, the Romans never reached the mental, intellectual creativity of the Greeks. That stay unsurpassed, until the Franks implemented the master strokes of outlawing slavery, tolerating all religions, making universal education mandatory, and minimizing the fascism needed to manage the state..

In the first two centuries of the Merovingians, the Franks fought wars to defend secularism, tolerance, and defeated the Huns, and other non-Frankish remains of Roman military power. Then Clovis’ Franks crushed the Goths in 507 CE, something the Romans could never do, however hard they tried. Then the Franks extended Roman power into Germany, where the Romans had failed to sustainably stay, and went beyond.

***

Germany Installed a European exploitation scheme:

The snakes around Kanzler Merkel will deny that they injected Europe with poison. But that’s an outrageous lie, just look at the facts: since the imposition of the Euro in 2002, German industrial production has climbed 50% relative to the rest of the Eurozone (contemplate the graph above). Therein a trick. It’s not because the Germans, who are increasingly old and decrepit, mutated into supermen. It’s because they, in cooperation with global plutocracy, instituted a super trick where only the wealthiest of the rich get financed, and the rest of society is left to die.

Not only did Germany practice social dumping for years, forcing slaves to work for one Euro an hour, in exchange for basic social services (this has been lately discontinued by Merkel, as a minimum hourly salary of 15 Euros or so was introduced; suddenly German labor costs are comparable to the French ones.. But there is lots of inertia in the system: once a French company has disappeared, it can’t re-appear…)

A 2017 Bundesbank report supporting what I said about German banks! (See EURO CHEAT)

Last year only 60% of German banks were not bankrupt according to GAAP. That means 40% German banks were bankrupt, but enabled to keep on financing the economy, thanks to hidden local state subsidy. That’s cheating in the same mood as making a fortune out of cheating the Jews out of their properties in the 1930s. Except now the Europeans are the new Jews.

Only 60% of German banks covered thru earnings their cost of lending (estimated at 8%).

Within 32 months, it’s expected that only 20% of the German banks will be profitable…. And it’s the Deutsche Bundesbank which says that… Not an enemy of German Euro Cheat, but a collaborator in setting-up that thievery…

https://www.bundesbank.de/…/2017/2017_01_27_dkp_01.pdf…

***

The Rebellion Clock Is Ticking:

The French have a long rebellious streak, that’s why so much democracy and human rights originated there. Even under the Romans, Gaul revolted, establishing at some point a “Gallic Empire”, complete with legions. Later, in 358 CE, Paris elected the philosopher and Caesar Julian “Augustus” (head of the Roman empire; Julian unfortunately died in present day Iraq, on the battlefield).

Let’s try positivism. Elected King Macron goes see head of Germany Merkel Monday. The Franks elected kings for 12 centuries (300 CE until Jean I in 1315 CE; a baby born a king and poisoned as a king, probably, 5 days later; this is when things went down big time). After that, elections were more sketchy. Hopefully King Macron is going to Berlin not to take orders, but to tell Merkel that she has to change her ways, right away.

Merkel has to start to be told the truth: her antics about refugees caused Brexit. The best way, when confronting an infamous regime, mass violating human rights is not to accept half of the population as refugees, but to go to war and destroy the regime. In other words, France was right to declare war to Hitler September 2, 1939.

I don’t fancy the concept of king. But let’s be positive, there have been good kings. Clovis was certainly a good king: in very difficult circumstances, he scored like 100%, philosophically, politically, religiously, militarily. Bathilde, Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Henri  III and Henri IV were also excellent kings, also in very difficult circumstances. So let’s float (once again!) some ideas which could make Macron a good king.

If Macron does not implement right away the right, and biggest ideas, he will fail, and quickly. In a way, he is well positioned: the biggest most important ideas pass through Berlin. So Macron should give Berlin a very hard time, while going easy on the French population before the legislative elections.

Indeed, the problems of France have to do, first of all, with how the currency and money making finances the entire economy.

Many do not understand this. France SHOULD NOT BE a household with only so much money at her disposal (given by the Gross Mutter somewhere). The American, Indian, Russian and Chinese economies work by creating money where and when needed strategically.

In the USA money is created in many ways. Federal government spending is just one of them.  

Sure enough the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who is in a wheelchair because he was shot long ago, let it be known that France could get her (Federal) State Deficit below 3% (Euro rule). France is at 3.4%. What Schäuble forgets is that it is the French Republic, not Germany, which is fighting fascism. That costs money. Not just the fighting, but financing the military-industrial complex which makes the weapons.  

In 1940, the French Foreign Legion, then 33,000 strong, disembarked (twice) in Norway, which had been invaded by the Nazis. The French tried to cut the Iron Road”, which was bringing the world’s highest grade iron from North Sweden to Hitler. The french defeated the Nazis, and got ready to cut perfidious Sweden in two. (However France fell then, thanks to the crazy Hitler throwing most of his army, undetected on three small roads in the Ardennes mountains… a performance to be half repeated four and a half-year later!).

***

Germany has to share the economy, and give France the means to ensure the defense of civilization, beyond Trump (and the incoherent Theresa May).

Germany has also to let France have the means of her social policy. One cannot tolerate any longer that US, or world laws which put France at a disadvantage, are tolerated by Europe. For example, the US closes its government markets to EU goods, but not reciprocally. GMO foods of non-EU origin are sold in France, but the French are forbidden GMOs.

In the USA, when money is needed, it is made. By the GOVERNMENT: that’s how the US swallowed French giant Alsthom. Swallow enough French giants and France will become a dwarf, clearing the way for the final victory of plutocracy, 225 years after French guns won at Valmy.

That frre creation of money is called the deficit, and, as Trump would be happy to tweet you (and any US policy makers behind closed doors) debt is OK, as long as you are the one with the gun, and the only sheriff in town. In the USA, the deficit is allowed to run wild.

Germany, of course is different. Like many countries who have done very bad, it prefers to die off, with a dismal reproduction rate. So it’s not friendly to debt.

A French helicopter, the Airbus X3, has the world speed record of 487 kilometer per hour (fast copters generally do not make more than 300 km/h). High technology is where the future of Europe, if any, lays. It has to be fed by the best science (Enrico Fermi who discovered the neutron inches ahead of Irene Curie, later became scientific head of the US nuclear bomb project).

Merkel has no choice. Macron is the last warning. She better listen to him carefully, there is infinitely worse getting mentally ready out there. Next time the patriots are not going to be as dumb and unprepared as Marine Le Pen, or Melenchon were in the last campaign. It’s not just a question of being anti-German, or anti-EU. As it is, the present EU governance and the present German governance are anti-Europe, and pro-global plutocracy. If we explain it long enough, and if official censorship can be turned around (not an easy task!), We The People is going to get the picture. Sparks will fly.

In retrospect, there was nothing terrible about the First French Republic. It was a mistake for the world’s plutocrats to have unified against it (as British PM Loyd George would admit, 120 years later…) However, at the time many (such as the Rothschilds) crowed for all to hear that they acquired government control from it, no less. Alright. But history does not quite repeat itself, when people know about it.

***

Conclusion: Institute Quantitative easing for We The People (instead of the present form, which is only for the wealthiest). Let French deficits run, while feeding the French military money as needed (and lots is needed, because it’s to Europe to re-establish order in its own suburbs like the Middle East, Africa. Accepting 500 million refugees is not the humanitarian solution, the humanitarian solution is just wars, and imperial control by higher civilization). Another interest: it would bring the Euro way down, something needed considering the overall employment crisis.

Block and, or tax, all imports into the European Union from countries doing social dumping. Such as T-shirts made by children in Bangladesh, or Medical Doctors imported from India. Impose a carbon tax, massive (it’s OK with the WTO).

Macron should also impose the referendum habit, by modifying the Constitution (Referenda are what make Switzerland and California rich) . Why not organize pan-European referenda, for example about the carbon tax, or a tax on financial transactions?

Macron can’t make any serious reforms in France in the next month. But he can operate a sickle move, by cutting the grass under queen Merkel’s feet. That would increase Macron’s popularity in France. So what’s not to love?

A man character is his crate. Macron wanted to become king. He is. I believe kings are so yesterday. Meanwhile, advanced philosophy shall collaborate with reality, namely that people want kings, and queen. Since it’s all about the power, make the forces of oppression and regression feel it. The Republic has to march, or it will falter, and so will civilization.

Patrice Ayme

We Think, Therefore Not Straight

May 13, 2017

In the history of science, and even mathematics, crazy theories which prove correct, and theories long considered correct, which prove crazily idiotic, are legions. To wit:

(I) Anaximander and other Greeks, more than 25 centuries ago, viewed evolution, and selection, natural or artificial, to be a given, amply demonstrated experimentally. Later Christian Jihadists burned all books and intellectuals, to erase the theory of evolution, from the collective psyche. Actually the Christian fanatics erased science, and even the will to knowledge, outside of a few crazed fascist intellectual books. (Paradoxically, some intelligent scholars, hiding from the prying eyes of the Jihadists, in the depth of monasteries, succeeded to save around 150 works of antiquity… Another ten survived through Persia and the Arab occupiers… Many works were saved as a single copy, for example Lucrecius’ De Natura Rerum, the single solitary surviving Roman work summarizing Greek science as a poem; it was found deep in a Frankish monastery by the Popes’ secretary, in the late Middle Ages; many copies were immediately made…)

(II) Theorems of Non-Euclidean geometry both hyperbolic and elliptic were known before Aristotle. However, a century later, Euclid erased the very notion of Non-Euclidean geometry, in the name of simplemindedness. If not self-glorification.

(III) Aristotle, a very valuable scientist in biology, rolled out a completely idiotic theory of force and motion. Neglecting friction, he considered that, to maintain a motion, one needed a constantly applied force. As Aristotle was pro-monarchy, and monarchs and other plutocrats were the force behind Christian theocracy, Aristotle was saved, reproduced and celebrated. Thus this erroneous physics held sway until Buridan (circa 1350 CE). Curiously, Aristotle was aware of the necessity of the experimental method in biology: he sent his students to make a catalog of living species. Fossils of dinosaurs caused great perplexity, which would last until Cuvier (see below). A meteor which landed in Northern Greece and was visited for centuries demonstrated there were space rocks zooming in the heavens. 

(IV)  The Atomic Theory and its constantly moving atoms was viewed as proven 2,000 years ago. Because what is now called “Brownian Motion” was claimed to have been observed repeatedly in peculiar lighting conditions. It’s now considered they didn’t interpret correctly what they saw. It’s not because we see it, that we really understand it.

The earliest stages of the Universe, according to, and before the Big Bang, are what set up the initial conditions that everything we see today has evolved from. Image credit: E. Siegel, with images derived from ESA/Planck and the DoE/NASA/ NSF interagency task force on CMB research.
We see it, we interpret it, but that does not mean we got it right.

(V) Archimedes accomplished at least one infinitesimal calculus computation, using the correct, ultra-modern method. That was lost, until resurrected by Fermat, 19 centuries later.

(VI) Aristarchus rolled out the heliocentric theory. The ensuing debate is now lost (see Christian fanatics above).

(VII) Ptolemy and Al. came out with a crazy theory of the Solar System, and discreetly cheated to impose it. (Count Tycho discovered the cheating 15 centuries later.) The natural theory was the heliocentric theory, be it only because the Sun was known to be pretty far, and it made no sense it would go that fast around, being obviously much bigger.

(VIII) Buridan introduced “impetus”, inertia, and the notion that, without force applied, an object would go either straight or keep on going around (planet, satellites). Buridan, head of the university, adviser to four French kings, could afford to contradict Aristotle. Buridan discovered much physics later attributed to Newton, born three centuries after. Not only did Buridan anticipate General Relativity, but his treatment of the Cretan Paradox was new, and modern. More than a century after Buridan’s death, the fanatical Catholic Church condemned his entire works, under the penalty of death. However, Buridan’s work stayed a mandatory part of the curriculum in Poland/Ukraine, where Copernicus went to school. Abbot Copernicus, having been taught Buridan’s heliocentric theory as a teenager, regurgitated it carefully on his deathbed. In 1600, the Vatican burned alive Giordano Bruno, an astronomer, after torturing him seven years, for suggesting the possibility of exoplanets and little green men.  

(IX) Laplace, before 1800, suggested a theory of the Solar System and galaxy formation by the flattening, under conservation of angular momentum, of vast dust clouds. This theory was considered completely false later. Instead astronomers prefer to think a passing star had torn material away from the Sun, and the debris created the Solar System.

(IX) The Cretan paradox was refurbished and digitalized by a number of mathematicians, in the 20 C, including Kurt Goedel, and made very clear and rigorous. This demonstrated the incompleteness of standard arithmetic containing logic. Shattering the illusions of Hilbert and most mathematicians.

(X) After 1950, Robinson and Al., using Model Theory, built non-standard arithmetic, by uncovering an axiom implicit in Archimedes (see above). This enabled to make Leibniz’s long derided “infinitesimal calculus” with real, number-like infinitesimals, rigorous. 250 years after Bishop Berkeley had made fun of it.

(XI) In the same 1950s, new evidence surfaced that, after all, Laplace was right, and galaxies and solar systems formed from collapse of gas clouds. 

(XII) Huygens, paid by France’s Louis XIV, suggested the wave theory of light. He was disproven by Newton’s particle theory of light, before being proven right by Young, an MD, around 1800, thanks to the latter’s discovery of the 2-slit experiment. A century later, Einstein scrambled the whole thing with (what I view as) poorly considered statements, in the photoelectric paper which earned him the Nobel Prize. Those indigestible ideas led straight to the Multiverse madness, in my opinion.

(XIII) Last, not least: biology research professors Lamarck and Cuvier suggested antinomic theories of evolution, circa 1800. One believed in intelligent evolution, the other in catastrophic evolution. They really didn’t like each other, although they worked in the same prestigious institution. Cuvier, member of the French Academy was really abusive to Lamarck after his death (so was Napoleon, face to face; Lamarck was hated by Christian fanatics, because he replaced the intelligence of God by intelligent animal evolution). Both Cuvier and Lamarck were made fun of later, and rolled out as bad scientists doing bad science (never mind that they had also made colossal, uncontroversial discoveries!) However, not only Lamarck and Cuvier have now been demonstrated to be more important biologists than Darwin, but, surprisingly enough, their antinomic theories of evolution have also turned out to be correct! (How correct is a matter of research!)

The evolution of science is the evolution of thinking. Nothing straightforward about it!

It goes without saying that the same twists and turns apply in all the fields of knowledge and wisdom civilizations ever had to consider.

Patrice Ayme’

Cosmic Inflation Hysteria, Bio Evolutionary Hysteria

May 12, 2017

What If Cosmic Inflation Is Wrong? Where It Is Shown That Scientists Are Prisoners Of What Looks Good:

How plausible is a piece of knowledge? How does one establish the plausibility of a piece of knowledge? This is the sort of meta theory of knowledge (meta-”epistemology”) which the progress of science unceasingly reveals.

Thus, establishing new science is not just a revelation of the world out there, but a revelation of how we think, and, even better, how we could think, if we wanted to be even more clever than we already are.

In particular mass sociological effects control the “data” all too easily, the more subtle the “data” is.

Here we consider evolution and especially the attitude relative to Lamarck, and then the so-called Big Bang, or as it is now fashionable to say among the cognoscenti, in a bout of poetic mystifying jargon, the ΛCDM model. (Much more sophisticated than Big Boom theory!)

In both cases, silly, and thus all the more enthusiastic, herd effects are involved.

***

Nothing Real New In Darwinism, But Lots Of Insufferably Shattering New Ideas In Lamarck:

The debate about biological evolution was exemplary: Greece was making lot of money from having mastered selection of species, both natural and artificial, 25 centuries ago. Anaximander, earlier, informed us we all evolved from fishes. Then came the Christian Jihadists, burning books, libraries and infidels, cutting intellectuals alive with oysters shells until they succumbed. Fast forward 23 centuries, and research professor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, having ruined his eyes by spending thousands of hours studying mollusk, and other invertebrate fossils behind his microscope, came up with several new insights.

Lamarck thought that evolution was urged along by two other forces. Teaching evolution was outlawed in England, Lyell and Darwin went to learn it in Edinburgh, Scotland. Next Darwin rolled the basic Greek theory out, claiming to have observed it in Galapagos finches as Lamarck had observed it mollusks. Darwin’s basic theory, purged from its Lamarckian elements, became widely accepted.    

There was no proof that the further additions suggested by Lamarck were wrong, though. However, believing that there was anything in evolutionary theory beyond what the Greeks already knew 25 centuries ago, became “unscientific”. Since when is believing that something could be true which we have no proven is not true “unscientific”?

Since science is a church with great bishops?

Nothing was really completely new in Darwinism, but lots was really new, and religiously shocking, in Lamarck. After lots of ridicule, Lamarck took 2 centuries to be proven right.

We know now that Lamarck was right on one of his two suggested mechanism. And I am pretty sure he is true on the other. Underlying both is full bore Quantum Physics.

Thus spoke Zarathrustra.

***

Here comes the Bible, latest version! Perfectly correct, if one supposes their suppositions about their suppositions just as correct…

Inflationistas’ Hysteria:

I am for more mild inflation in matters economical, and also in matters cosmological, but not beyond that.

For decades, cosmologists have screamed from every rooftop that cosmic inflation was right. I was dubious, because they made an hypothesis which was astounding, to explain something rather mundane. (And extremely natural, if one entertains the fancy that the universe is hundreds of billion years old, not just 13.8 billion!)

The short of it is that the universe is huge, at least 45 billion light years across, but looks everywhere the same, as if it originated from just one place (or as if it were immensely old). To explain the discrepancy, some cosmologists, starting in the USSR, assumed the universe expanded at enormously faster than light speed. The speed of light along loops in space is locally limited. The speed of space, though is not limited (a curved manifold of dimension n embeds in one of dimension (2n +1) so that the curvature of the former is a trace of the flat one of the latter).

This was a huge hypothesis to explain a smaller problem. Basically, it looked as if cosmologists had got the temporal dimension of the universe wrong. Or maybe the Big Bang was wrong. Or maybe both, a bit.

Instead, cosmologists assumed a completely new force, Cosmic Inflation, and thus a completely new source of energy. They went for a phantasmagoric “explanation”, instead of modestly admitting that they did not really witness the proverbial “First Three Minutes”, from their position, on the right of God.

If CI existed, why should CI appear just once? Why not here, there, and everywhere, now, yesterday and tomorrow? Could one make universes out of nothing? Yes, yes and yes, screamed hysterical cosmologists from all rooftops.

A rule in thinking is that when one has a problem with a ready class of explanations one should not explain it with supernatural explanations from the get-go, before the more obvious explanations have been proven wrong.

Here conventional theories of the Hot Big Bang may not be not quite correct, so hysterical physicists decided that everything-we-know makes no sense, to start with. It turns out that their arguments amounted to hand waving (OK, a gas cools down when expanding; however a quantum fluctuation is not a gas!) fabulous mathematician cum physicist Roger Penrose claims that obtaining a flat universe classically without any recourse to inflation out of a quantum fluctuation is 10^100 more likely.

A casual look shows that conventional Big bang theory makes a lot of assumptions we have no proof of (for example in astrophysics). Absence of logical contradiction is no proof of experimental existence. Especially when, in the end, the theory one gets (the conventional Hot Big Bang) seems incorrect (because nothing can solve the flatness problem, short of immense age!)  

The philosophical problem became even more acute when an experimental cosmological inflation was discovered, Dark Energy. The conjunction of CI and DE made the universe expand tremendously, brake down, and then re-accelerate. Weird. Both inflations differ by a factor of 10^27 in their energy density.

So why not go with Dark Energy alone? Then the universe maybe hundreds of billions of years old.

Why not? Just to say that can’t possibly be true, because one has seen the universe expands very fast, in a tremendous cosmic inflation, amounts to starting with one’s conclusion.

***

The Common Denial Mechanism About Evolutions Either Biological Or Cosmological; We Know, You Don’t, & What We Know Pleases Authority:

The Big Bang cosmology is in the exact mood of the Bible: nothing really new in that mood. They can say they have numbers, I can see there is a lot of completely circuitous logics, where the end proves the beginning. In any case, if it’s in the Bible, it’s right, and God cares about creating a little universe for us.

What hurt with Lamarck’s insights was the God of the Bible again (and the entire empires resting on it). Lamarck basically said intelligence, animal intelligence and an increasing mysterious complexity organizing force intrinsic to life, organized the universe. In any case, smarts, but not those of the God of the Bible. That was therefore censored from the Anglo-Saxon world, where God is a question of national security, or, at least, manifest destiny, grabbing entire continents… When the forces of obscurantism had to surrender, they embraced an obscure amateur gentleman researcher of good English stock. (Not to demean Darwin, but Lamarck, and even his enemy, competitor, contradictor and colleague Cuvier, did the heavy lift, 60 years prior…)

Insights about what truth could be never comes from herds, especially herds of mandarins, when they are genuinely new.  

Patrice Ayme’

French Already Too Corrupt To Care If President Is Corrupt?

May 9, 2017

Plutocracy is to civilization what metastatic cancer is to individuals. It kills just as well, with malignant growth. How this cancer appears and generalizes as the new normal is of the essence.

France has a new, 39-year-old president. The younger, the more they can be influenced. When that president was in his twenties, after doing ENA, a school for those who want to order around the baffled French populace, Macron was named inspector of finances, an elite government group. That group should now fall under extreme suspicion. That inspectorate of finance, a body of half a dozen “untouchables” chosen each year, is in apparent charge of making sure that the extremely wealthy don’t pay taxes, and that the poor tremble in fear at their sight. This way the French contemporary nobility perpetuates itself. As the common rabble crumbles under crushing taxes, they don’t pay any, and some enormous corporations have stayed in the same families for centuries (yes, since before the Revolution of 1789!)

The Republic Is Dead, Long Live the Plutocracy!

Macron’s father was a neurologist, so the plutocracy found a nerve to strike: Macron declared he had to become wealthy before engaging in politics. Henry Hermand, a small-time but lively plutocrat, offered to the young, civil (self-) servant, an apartment in Paris worth  around a million dollars (550,000 Euros when the Euro was much higher than now). Hermand was operating all around Africa, and was part of this pseudo-left which condemns “colonization as a crime against humanity, a barbarity” (Macron, April 2017, speaking from Algeria)… While those same plutocrats were exploiting Africa way worse than they could have done under a colonial administration (the whole idea of proffering “left” ideas, while cashing in!)

When a “civil servant” accepts a million dollar gift, in his twenties, plutocracy knows it has found an ideal tool. Once he knew how to cheat taxes by giving the right phone calls, Macron went to Banque Rothschild to earn 50,000 Euros a week (that we know of).  

Small fries, said the French electoral process. Now, I am not too naive to believe corrupt individuals cannot do good. After all, Montaigne, the philosopher himself, was very close to ultimate power in France (he was in the highest circles around Henri IV). In Russia, characters such as Czar Peter The Great did lots of good, even though Peter personally broke some people he knew all too well, on the wheel, all by himself, in spite of their pleas.

And corrupt Caesar, the most corrupt of them all, may well have saved the Roman Republic, had he lived.

However, Macron seems to be no Caesar. It seems unlikely to conquer Rothschild, Goldman Sachs and their ilk. Rather like Obama, he looks anxious to cash in. Apparently Obama, not content with getting 400,000 dollars from Cantor-Fitzgerald, got just as much, in exchange for talking with an “historian”, says presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. She informs us that Obama was “in very good spirits”, while he talked to them wealthy historians, for 400,000 dollars. Indeed, if every time he opens his mouth he gets 400,000 dollars, he should be in good spirits. Far removed from us the times when President Truman retired: he then asked ten, or twenty dollars for a speech. “Otherwise it would demean the office of the presidency”, Truman said.

There was a time for true men.

Now is the time for fake men.

To go along with fake news, fake cognition, fake wisdom.

Macron spent his youth going from one “pere de substitution” (substitution father), to another (this “substitution father” concept is a quote from French State TV, Antenne 2/Tele 5 Monde, May 8, 2017, I am covering my legal butt! Macron hooked old men, they said…) Hooking up with these elder gentlemen, including the famous philosopher Paul Ricoeur, and a galaxy of the powerful in Paris, enabled him to navigate for his personal best. The ultimate value, Obama told us.

But not a value the earth, let alone civilization, can afford.

Indeed, financial corruption, and the corruption of politicians, a class which should not exist in democracy, ultimately creates intellectual, even mental corruption. Including the inability to know what corruption is. Or to guess what reality could be. Thus, a corrupt political system in the end make idiots of the whole population. And the more corrupt, the more idiotic. So the corruption and the idiocy go hand in hand, down the abyss of dysfunctionality. When that corruption has weakened the civilization enough, a slight breeze is enough to bring it down. Idiots will, of course, accuse the breeze.

Patrice Ayme’

Why To Climb? Because It’s a Life Which Makes Us Gods

May 8, 2017

Climbing is hard, and it’s a life. That’s why it’s there. But it’s a there we climbers chose, not one we just submit to. Normal life, the life common people live through,  is something we have to submit to. Climbing life, and the potentiality of the death it is attached to, we chose.

God While You Last. South Face of Annapurna, Ueli Steck, Solo. He has a Rope, and A Friend Taking the Picture. Why so? It is often safer to solo steep slopes where one cannot the slightest mistake in the mountains, to go faster over dangerous terrain. I soloed faces nearly that big, up, and down, in the name of… safety. After nearly dying in two pesky avalanches, I have discouraged the habit by encouraging less adventurous climbing…

Climbing is a chosen life-universe. This is why, deep down inside, more than for simple bragging, people pay $65,000 to drag themselves up Everest. They are helped by countless servants, and various technical devices, from gel insulated boots to carbon fiber axes, bottled oxygen, dehydrated foods, bottled methane, fixed ropes, and looming helicopter service and rescue. Still more than 400 climbers have died in the giant horseshoe formed by Chomolungma (Everest), Lhotse-Nuptse horseshoe. Many of them most famous, and the best. My best friend, also at the time the best mountaineer, died not too far from there, when part of a mountain he was doing the first ascent of, broke. Climate change can strike the heart.

The 2017 climbing season in that highest of all horseshoes, was inaugurated by the death of Ueli Steck, 40 years old. At the time he started to careen down that icy abyss, Mr. Steck, a Swiss, was viewed by many as the greatest living mountaineer. One of the many greatest living mountaineers to die within a few miles of there.

All true and genuine breakthrough philosophers are solo climbers, they risk death. And if not death from their contemporaries, they have to create the threat, because menace is the essence of human existence.

Nietzsche was climber, and a solo climber. He would regularly climb Corvatch, a peak which is still glaciated, from the Upper Engadin valley floor, a mile down. I have skied there in summer: a cable car brings the modern faineant up there. When Nietzsche was climbing alone, it was clearly dangerous: no helicopters at the time.

The extremely gifted Ueli Steck fell a full kilometer on Nuptse, a peak on the Western side of the horseshoe-shaped Everest-Lhotse-Nuptse CWM. Steck was apparently within 200 meters of the summit, and had climbed up there, starting at 4:30 am, with astounding speed. The face is very hard, very steep. During such solo climbs, if one slips on an ice lens, or one is hit by a fist size rock from up high, one will fall, and, most probably die (although some have survived falling all the way down the Matterhorn, this sort of feat is rather rare).

Dangerous physical activities such as climbing require full cerebral engagement. Paradoxically, although such tasks look like the less intellectual, they are exactly the opposite, the ones where the intellect is fully engaged in a massive way, which no sedate activity ever brings.

Climbing often requires full neurological mobilization, especially when soloing is involved. This is an important aspect of its charm. It makes one feel fully alive as nothing else does!
This full neurological mobilization is all too often the only way to avoid death.
Once I complained, while climbing, to two female mountain guides in the Alps that so many of my friends died climbing, and they scoffed that, once one reaches 40, many of one’s climbing friends are dead.

Yet, feeling that full neurological power, is feeling divine.

The climber, especially in a desperate situation, especially when falling towards certain death (as happened to me once after being hit by a rock avalanche) has incomprehensible powers. Those powers come from a fully mobilized brain, all neurons firing out commands with superhuman power. It has to be experienced, to be believed.

As part of the Dru spire fell on me, and I therefore thereafter tumbled down an ice chute, I was able to stop myself. However, should anyone else tell me the same story, I would not believe it (being short of believing in God-ordered miracles). Without any question a philosophically stimulating experience.

Climbing is not a game. Or then, it is the game of life. Each Climb is miniature life, but with the climber free to select it, as she, or he, were God. Each climb is an entire life, an entire universe, in miniature. It starts with hope and power. It ends with fatigue, accomplishment. Yet, all along, death can strike said life

Aristotle claimed that man was a political animal. Whatever. In truth, Aristotle was the animal, an animal, a ravenous beast, whose friends, the worst of the worst, fed out of politics, like pigs out of a through. Aristotle didn’t know that Polis, the City, Civilization, was less than 10,000 years old, and humanity, millions of years old. All Aristotle wanted is to foster monarchy, especially when, as was the case, those monarchs (Alexander, Antipater, Craterus, etc.) are family.

Humans are creative, labouring, and this thanks to hard and very deep thinking, the essence of humanity.

The point of life is to survive it. Day to day. We, and who, and what, we love. Such is the engine of human motivation. But “life” itself has to be defined. The discovery of those who seriously climb is that they are the ones who define what life is. In climbing, it’s the climber herself, or himself, who decides what “life” is going to be: climbing this, or that peak, or this, or that route. Climbing with this, or that, companion(s). 

The mountains are there. More exactly, the potential lives they offer are there. They are there for us to pick. If we so decide, as if we were gods. Which we are, in a deep sense, as far as climbing is concerned. We may be the only free agents in the universe, and we are free, because we chose what the universe is. And this is what the climber does. Hence the fascination and importance of climbing, which is found in all civilizations, from South America, to Africa, to China.

We can’t yet reach for the stars, but we can reach for the peaks, and this is what humanity has been about, all along. Going where no stupid animal would ever go. Precisely because their brains are too stupid to make the universe what they want it to be. Climbers make universes as others make pizzas, just because they can, and no other agent in the universe is crazy enough to do so.

Patrice Ayme’

Macron Adresses “Republican Salute” to Marine Le Pen

May 7, 2017

Macron Says: Le Pen Neither President Nor A Fascist

Macron was elected in a landslide in France after an astounding worldwide tempest of lies and infamies. I say this, but I am not, not at all, National Front, quite the opposite. Macron celebrated Marine Le Pen, addressing to her a “Republican salute”, and basically saying her voters had good grounds to be worried..

There was a general mobilization of the Plutocratic Party (PP), worldwide, against Marine Le Pen. Let me hasten to point out that I am all globalist, anti-nationalist, anti-tribal. And I have long despised aspects of French nationalism. For example, I despise Joan of Arc, or, more exactly, the cult of Joan of Arc’s ideas. Joan was a fine, remarkably educated and smart young lady. However I condemn the will of hyper tribalism she incarnated and was an instrument of. Notice that this is a globalization issue: I was, still am, for the unification of France and Britain. The Queen Of the Four Kingdoms, Yollande of Aragon, and the party of southern plutocrats who financed, and used Joan of Arc as a device,  were a notorious sort. Their aim was power for themselves, at the price of war. Joan of Arc is the central symbol Jean Marie Le Pen erected for the National Front.

Latest elected presidential monarch of France, Emmanuel Macron. The French elected monarchy is 17 centuries old. Still, that question above has to be answered: why would We The People want to be led by a golden boy of the establishment, making more than the median annual income, every week? Just because he was in charge of inspecting taxes in government, before entering a private bank? All right, so it was with the Merovingian, 17 centuries ago: golden boys tended to end elected as kings. But is that enough of a reason? We need to ask this question, be it only to encourage President Emmanuel Macron to transmogrify into a world-saving form…

A Closer Look At Nationalism, Joan Of Arc (thus FN) Style:

At the time of the ephemeral apparition of Joan of Arc, plutocrats, then called “aristocrats”, that is, the best, were fighting each other dirty in France (and vassal England). An extravagantly libertine queen was strangled, in a distant castle, another married five days later. Yes, 5 days… Top monarchs and aristocrats  were poisoned, in very quick succession, before, during and after the (well-known) Joan of Arc trick: Louis X, Jean I, an infant, Philippe V (who supposed died from playing too much tennis… But obviously poisoned). Even the mighty empoisonner of kings, Mahaut, Comtesse d’Artois and de Bourgogne, was herself poisoned, followed by her own daughter, two months later.  

Of these terrible times, all that the French nationalists remember, is that Joan of Arc was great, for denying the legitimate king of FRANCE AND ENGLAND, then a very young child, his rightful succession. So Joan stole from a baby. Is that French nationalism relative to England! It is! Well, that’s very wrong.

So, no I am no rabid French nationalist, National Front style… The National Front is never criticized for its Joan of Arc cult. Instead, it is condemned for very dark, yet imaginary crimes (a condemnation in which Macron associated himself… But maybe that was not sincere and just disingenuous, thus, forgivable…)

***

Let’s Not Celebrate Division For Division’s Sake:

Now Macron wants to “recover the spirit of conquest“. Very good. But it has to be well-directed. Under Joan of Arc, and her sponsors, the spirit of conquest was oriented towards a useless split which caused a nearly 500 years long between France and England… Such splits happened before and since. The split between France and Germany lasted 1,000 years. The split between France and Algeria is an infant, relatively speaking. Such splits are useless… Except for the powers which profit from them.

We struggle, thus we are! This site is a struggle! Macron promises a struggle! Good! “For Good” is an elusive concept, and it’s not enough to see it, to believe it… For example, many think Joan of Arc was a force for good… I don’t, and I have excellent reasons for that, the exact same reasons which Macron brandishes (although he has more or less compared himself to Joan of Arc already, not to let the FN occupies all that terrain…) Yet Joan was no doubt personally good.

Joan may not have been executed, somebody else may have been: history is full of mysteries. For example the baby Jean I, mentioned, above may have survived. The child of his wet-nurse would have secretly substituted and poisoned in his place, when he was presented to the highest nobility; at least so confessed Marie de Cressay, the noble wet-nurse in question… on her death bed. At least so says Maurice Druon‘s historical novel series Les Rois maudits which dramatizes this theory. In La Loi des mâles. The reason to believe this is the profusion of unsavory behaviors and poisonings at that precise period in history which are thoroughly proven (just a small example: when Edward II, king of England, was painfully assassinated by the associates of his wife Isabelle, Louve de France, he could be heard screaming, a mile away, it was said… Not all deaths were discrete at the time.)

History is complex, and the minds it creates, even more so. The aura surroundings some of the main characters of history, are not just French, they are all too often importantly wrong (or right!) in ways twisting minds, to this day.

***

The Party Of Truth Is The Only One Worth Having:

The way to rule people is by ruling their minds. The way to exploit people is to exploit their minds, to the point that they exploit themselves for you.

To rule minds against themselves, one has to persuade them that lying is the new normal, and in their best interest.

Thus, reciprocally, if one is for progress, one should be for truth. This is why I denounce particularly outrageous lies. Wherever they come from. The architecture of lies is pretty much the architecture of power.

For example, there is no evidence from her mouth that Le Pen is a racist homophobe. Quite the opposite, she was very clear on this. So where does the need to express such lies come from? Don’t forget that humans are Machiavellian animals.

***

As Macron Recognized, in a very serious victory allocution , Those Who Voted For Le Pen had Very Serious Points:

Some of the policies advocated by Le Pen, such as national preference in government deal making have been US LAW for generations. Nobody calls the US names for that, and the EU, and France are fully open to US abuse in this respect. How much “left” is it to keep on ignoring US nationalist abuse of Europe? But that is exactly what the left has been doing for decades now.

French peasants are supposed to farm, hands tied in the back. They can’t use plenty of modern methods, by French “left” law, or European “law”, but then the French market is open to unfair competition. For example, GMO grains and beans are forbidden in France, yet, if produced overseas, they swamp the French market.

GE, with enormous help from Obama, bought Alstom, and Macron said alleluia. No wonder Obama who loves fat checks, loves Macron.

As far as accusing Le Pen of Vichy, those sort of hateful, racist accusations are grotesque. Jean Marie Le Pen (not a friend of mine!) tried to enroll in the FFI (Force Francaise de l’Interieur). However, Colonel Tanguy, the Communist head of the FFI, told him he was too young to do so. The FFI was killing Nazis.

Yet, ever since, he entered French presidential politics, Le Pen Senior was denounced as a Vichy collaborator… Especially by that real Vichy collaborator, French president Francois Mitterrand.

Another thing is that a casual look at what happened shows that the Vel d’Hiv round-up was ordered by GERMAN NAZIS, not by “Vichy”. Although I hate the junta in Vichy, the truth is Vichy did not give the top orders north of… Vichy. The round-up of the Jews in Paris, thanks to chief of Vichy police Bousquet (a collaborator who was also life long friend of Vichy Francois Mitterrand) was reduced to foreign refugees: 13,000 Jews instead of the 200,000 French Jews the Nazis initially wanted.

The self-declared “left” cannot get mileage from outrageous lies. The more of those, the greater the risk that people will realize they have been manipulated into the exact opposite of what they should be, and the more democracy will go Trump in the night.

Patrice Ayme’