Cheating In Science: Fix It By Boosting Funding

Cheating can be emotional, spiritual and semantic, and it can affect science on a millennial scale, the obvious example being the progressive collapse of Greek science under fascist regimes (320 BCE until the closing of the Athenian academies in the Sixth Century). Science seeks to ascertain the truth, so mentioning cheating when seeking truth is not surprising, as the powers that be, except in democracy, have interest to lie, and thus learning how to eschew truth is a paramount notion when educated under such regimes. Once again, a blatant example was Aristotelian physics, which overlooked the existence of friction, and then proceeded to pretend a force was needed for motion to persist. Buridan proved that wrong in the Fourteenth Century. Why it did not happen before was precisely because Aristotelian physics was a blatant lie, a big lie, hence its utility (the Nazis, following other autocrats, insisted “big lies”were great).   

Cheating in physics starts apparently small, and ends up very big. For example the Anglo-Saxons evoke “Newton Laws” and “Maxwell Equations”, as if the Englishmen were the only ones who contributed to these laws. In truth, Newton may have added the Third Law, and Maxwell found part of one of the equations. Many other physicists, over centuries, found the rest. Ignoring them is not just unfair and racist, it obliterates logic… and not just the logic of historical discovery, but also the logic of epistemological discovery, how one goes from appearances and obviousness, to more cerebral considerations one is forced into, and how, and why.

I focus here on “physics” because the term actually it comes from “nature” in Greek, and so physics is actually the master science: biology is *just* Quantum Computing writ large. And thus biology itself is why it’s important to find out what “quantum” is and what “computing” is. 

To find what these concepts entails is no mean feat: they will require inspecting nature to new depths… Including the nature of our obscure selves, and how and why it is that we thought some ways about some things. For the concept of “computing” there is, among other things, an activity, a field of science, called “proof theory”. More generally there is logic… and, although some forms of logic are well established, overall one does not know what logic is… And yes, there is a field called “Quantum Logic”, yet, although it is different from conventional logic already, it is by no means clear it really covers all of Quantum Physics (which could be weirder). From my point of view logic is very general, it is whatever goes (which is basically the fundamental idea of Category Theory)… Should that be true, and it is, the consequences on the nature of reality will be farfetched

So it’s important to under-stand the Quantum. We need to stand under, we need something from which the Quantum emerges. However, as Ian Miller points out: 

Most people probably think that science is a rather dull quest for the truth, best left to the experts, who are all out to find the truth. Well, not exactly. Here is a video link where Sean Carroll points out that most physicists are really uninterested in understanding what quantum mechanics is about: https://youtu.be/ZacggH9wB7Y

This is rather awkward because quantum mechanics is one of the two greatest scientific advances of the twentieth century, and here we find all but a few of its exponents really neither understand what is going on nor do they care. What happens is they have a procedure by which they can get answers, so that is all that matters, is it not? Not in my opinion. What happens thereafter is that many of these are University teachers, and when they don’t care, that gets passed on to the students, so they don’t care. The system is degenerating.

But, you protest, we still get the right answers. That leaves open the question, do we really?

Under-standing the Quantum is the deepest question. Fully answered, it will probably bring an answer to the nature of consciousness.

The Quantum is about the infinitesimally small. To expect that “smaller” would ever be “smaller” just the same way was first philosophically solved by the Greeks, by denying the idea smaller is ever the same. Instead they the Greeks invented a-toms, which could not be divided. The Greeks claimed to have observed the atoms (or assemblies thereof) moving around haphazardly, so they also invented (or discovered) Brownian motion (or the effect of Brownian motion on larger particles).

But what was what could not be divided, these atoms, be made of? All forces we know augment inversely to distance, they become infinite at zero scale… so the smaller the portion of an object, the more crushed it is going to be, ultimately, so crushed light would not come out (as Laplace found out in the 18th Century). So we shouldn’t be able to see what is incredibly small, because the gravitational field goes to infinity. That was not really a problem… although a variant of this, when applying the idea of Quantum Field to gravitation and its gravitons (excitations of the gravitational field) is a problem, because gravitation should black holed itself, although it obviously does not.(I made a very famous mathematician in the field a friend actually, completely furious in his Stanford office when I pointed out this simple fact; he was the world’s top specialist in that generation, learning his field was empty was not a pleasant experience…)

A road to scientific cheating is misattributions. Misattributions are important, because they falsify the logic of discovery, thus the ontogenesis of epistemology. For example, Anglo-Saxons tend to elevate Newton to a quasi-divine status which he himself explicitly rejected, using a medieval aphorism several centuries old:”I stood on the shoulders of giants”. Roughly 90% of what is traditionally attributed to Newton was not discovered by Newton or when Newton was alive.

For example, the 1/dd law was derived by Boulliau, with an analogy to light which keeps its simple force to this day. Boulliau, aka Bullaldius, became a member of the Royal Society before Newton learned calculus (an invention of Descartes, Fermat, etc…). The first and second laws are pretty much in Buridan, three centuries before Newton (when geometric calculus, abandoned since Archimedes, got relaunched). Buridan, an iconoclast very familiar with kings and queens of France, addressed the question of the Cretan paradox… which is at the heart of the incompleteness theorem of Godel and Tarski… So not only was Buridan burying Aristotelian physics, he also addressed logic. 

There are so many misattributions, it’s frightening. Emilie du Châtelet, correcting Newton (again!) demonstrated the concept of energy (with contribution from Leibnitz). That was a tremendous advance (Newton had confused mv with ½ mvv, momentum, Buridan’s impetus, with energy… Emilie corrected that). 

The attribution of Relativity to Einstein has to do, ironically enough, with Anglo-Saxon-German nationalism, aka Nazism. This dubious amusement had the other grave consequence of burying Poincare’s careful ontogenesis of whatever happens to be relative (local time)… which was much more careful than Einstein’s prestidigitator style…

Another form of cheating, in which Feynman himself indulged, was to claim that philosophy has nothing to do with physics, “shut up and calculate” as the slogan goes (the truly greatest physicists never made that mistake). That is roughly as intelligent as claiming that the heart has nothing to do with breathing. All the more silly as some of Feynman’s own excellent lectures in physics are sometimes more akin to prestidigitation than logic.

One way physics jump is by making a broad claim, and then checking its consequences. For example, Buridan invented “impetus” (= momentum), and then drew consequences.

With the Quantum, the two initial claims: E = hf (Planck 1900-Einstein 1905) coalesced with De Broglie sweeping generalization that any object that has energy E and momentum P *is* a de Broglie wave of frequency F and wavelength L:

E=hF

L = h/P.

Here, E and P are, respectively, the relativistic energy and the momentum of a particle.

When an interaction has occurred, what happens next? Doing physics consists in pushing the consequences of the De Broglie Hypothesis (DBH).

Turns out, if we are honest, we don’t know much. There has got to be some object O, that is, a wave, and we should apply DBH to O. That leads to predictions. The first obvious one is that O, being a WAVE, is NONLOCAL.

And this is why Quantum Physics is completely different from its limit, Classical Physics.

Very simple and very deep, simply philosophical, this (De Broglie) matter wave hypothesis leads to many predictions: besides matter behaving like waves, the so-called Schrodinger equation, which was in De Broglie thesis, pops right out.

But then, philosophically again, we observe interactions happen at points (both Quantum Field Theory, and non-demonstrated String Theory dilute this a bit). How do we get from waves to point? Obviously, nonlinearly. Observing water waves confirms that their linearity can be spectacular. Here we are prisoner to the lack of nonlinear theory, partly the result of a lack of efforts towards non linear mathematics.

Ian Miller explains that a lot of the computations in chemistry may be bogus, because the constants are manipulated to get the results. But then it gets better: 

“That scientists do not care about their most important theory is bad, but there is worse, as published in Nature ( https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01436-7) Apparently, in 2005 three PhD students wrote a computer program called SCIgen for amusement. What this program does is write “scientific papers”. The research for them? Who needs that? It cobbles together words with random titles, text and charts and is essentially nonsense. Anyone can write them. (Declaration: I did not use this software for this or any other post!) While the original purpose was for “maximum amusement” and papers were generated for conferences, because the software is freely available various people have sent them to scientific journals , the peer review process failed to spot the gibberish, and the journals published them. There are apparently hundreds of these nonsensical papers floating around. Further, they can be for relatively “big names” because apparently articles can get through under someone’s name without the someone knowing anything about it. Why give someone else an additional paper? A big name is more likely to get through peer review and the writer needs to get it out there because they can be published with genuine references, although of course with no relevance to the submission. The reason for doing this is simple: it pads the number of citations for the cited authors, which is necessary to make their CV look better and to improve the chances when applying for funds. With money at stake, it is hardly surprising that this sort of fraud has crept in.”

A monopolistic effect has been discovered: big institutions, that is, big universities, have big names on the big panels distributing big funds: they distribute to themselves. Nature 21 May 2021. Update 07 June 2021. Prestigious European grants might be biased, study suggests

Institutional affiliations of panellists seem to skew European Research Council decisions — especially in the life sciences.

How to fix all this cheating in science? Simply by providing enough funds. Multiply science funding by ten. We can do this: the COVID pandemic has shown much of the economy is “NON-ESSENTIAL”! Maybe it’s high time, to save the biosphere, to run a more disciplined ship, where the crew actually turns out to be essential?

Patrice Ayme

Ten stories high wave, Nazare, Portugal. Notice how the wave starts to make a singularity: the bigger the wave, the more energetic and the faster they go, like matter waves. The physics of nonlinear waves is poorly understood beyond solitons (KdV equation, Nonlinear Schrodinger) and the fact that faster waves catch up with smaller ones, being even bigger monsters (rogue waves).

Fascinated By Intellectual Fascism

A “moderator” on a social media foamed at the mouth against yours truly, in a public post reacting to my preceding essay on the semantics of “Quantum Supremacy“, it was weird:

“Do not direct your vile aspersions at me, nor imply that disagreement with your melodramatic phillipics [sic] is an indicator lack of wit. You know nothing of the conversation of moderators before action is taken, or how we reach consensus, nor can you hope to realize the amount of effort taken to give you leeway before speaking to you.“

Truly, I did not know the existence of that excited character, and I had been (mostly) speaking of the irruption of cheap racism in fundamental physics, so I was a bit surprised. Why so much excitement? My reply (very slightly modified); to avoid accusations of defamation, although she made her attack public under her name for at least 1,600 readers I know of, I would call her Ms BSS, for obvious reasons:

“Vile”? “To you”? Where did I mention you, Ms BSS? I was not aware of your existence, prior to this, as I am noticing it presently. Thus I notice mosquitoes when they sting. Let me scream intellectually, out of politeness to you. I had no idea someone thought so lowly of me to call me “vile” in public. I guess that’s a compliment: vile creature denounced by the righteous moderators! Facebook told me I was suspended for 30 days for “Hate” reported in the Facebook group that you apparently help to “moderate”. Facebook was specific about “repeated violations” at that group, III; and quoted one such violation explicitly referring to the policy of the Nazis regarding Japan.

I had to send Facebook pages on the Nazi policy regarding Japan. They then recognized their mistake, recognized I had the right to inform the public about historical racism, and apologized to me, reinstating me immediately… after their apology.

In the preceding context, it is fascinating that you refer to “philippics” as Demosthene, who uttered them, is a philosopher and martyr whom I admire, and whom all genuine democrats should admire (and that the Macedonian fascist plutocratic Aristotle hated, naturally).

A philippic is a fiery, damning speech, or tirade, condemning a political actor. The term originated with philosopher Demosthenes of ancient Athens. The term itself is derived from Demosthenes’ speeches in 351 BC denouncing the imperialist and fascist ambitions of Philip of Macedon. They later came to be known as The Philippics. Three centuries later the term qualified speeches of the famous lawyer and Consul Cicero of ancient Rome.

Demosthenes and his fiery philippics tried to get Athens to resist Macedon in a timely manner (the objective ally and ultimate insider and teacher of Macedon, Aristotle, had to flee Athens). Athens gave Demosthenes ambassadorial powers to argue with Macedon, but the philosopher was unsuccessful in getting Athens to go to war early enough. When finally Athens went to war belatedly she, Thebes and their allies nearly won, but a charge of Alexander won the day for Macedon. (The modern analogy is France accompanied by Britain, going to war against Nazism too late to avoid the Holocaust… But early enough to ultimately win thanks to their progeny, the USA…)

Fascinating as in fasces, of course. Democrat Demosthenes, an Athenian patriot and industrialist, was killed by the vile Macedonian fascists of the generalissimo Antipater, the senior general of (long dead) king Phillippe of Macedonia (in a refinement of cruelty, the Macedonian fascist, who had just defeated Athens militarily, actually sent an old friend of Demosthenes on an island to arrest him; so Demosthenes, after talking to his friend, expecting torture to death, committed suicide with the poison he carried with him at all times). The real history of philosophy is extremely violent: most of the great philosophers of the time were involved in the greatest forms of melodrama, including, but not limited to death, execution, large scale military action, fleeing for one’s life, or living with a husband who contradicted who may have been the greatest philosopher of antiquity, Aspasia. Aspasia’ life work was greatly demolished by her own husband… its greatest exponent!

Funny how some people get enraged… even when talked to kindly and reasonably, stooping down to lift the crushing ignorance under which they crawl. There again, it’s not an accident: ignorance causes pain to the beholders, so they hate. And they prefer to hate as a mob, that’s safer and mightier.

Here is a melodramatic example for you, Ms BSS, full of blood and gore.

Once I knew some racist fascists on another continent… I talked to them reasonably, several times, and they tolerated me: my arguments were powerful and their minds weaker. Ultimately, then, as the good Nazis they were, they resolved to use violence, the final solution. Moderated into oblivion, such is the way of the fasces.

In an academic setting (!), according to generally accepted classification, the world’s top college prep (8 Nobel Prize laureates), the Neo-Nazis attacked. Such was the paradox: the top school, attacked by the vilest minds. They threw a homemade bomb on me, and it was quite powerful. I lost my hearing for days. Very eerie. There were pieces of human flesh everywhere. From the guy who stepped in the way of the bomb. And that was not even the worst, which came later. So here you have it: supreme viciousness, and supreme goodness, entangled. Relativize, but don’t compromise on the basics, that’s should be the way (and was Demosthenes’).
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/aristotle-destr

Aristotle was the philosopher of monarchy (although his Macedonian buddies were more of a fascist oligarchy). In any case, he was favorable to intellectual fascism, hence his enduring favor with anti-democratic politicians in the last 24 centuries… But the “vile” critics are still around…

Emotion is more basic than reason, and the emotion of the sheep is all the reason it needs:

The ferocity people deploy in purely intellectual matters illustrates well the importance of intellectual debate for human beings. Intellectual supremacy is arguably the deepest specifically human instinct. Intellectual supremacy is the essence of humanity, it is always in conflict with the herd instinct with its countless sheep, barking dogs, and opportunistic fleas.

Patrice Ayme

Supreme Idiocy: Claiming “Quantum Supremacy” Is A Racist Concept

Leonie Mueck, Carmen Palacios-Berraquero, Divya M Persaud wrote:

“In 2012 the theoretical physicist John Preskill from the California Institute of Technology coined the term “quantum supremacy”. It was introduced to represent the ability of quantum computers to solve problems faster than conventional supercomputers. The term quickly caught on and, after years of research in the field by scientists at universities and companies, Google in October 2019 announced it had achieved the breakthrough. The result sparked optimism about the future of quantum computing, but something was missing in the debate that followed, namely the uncomfortable association of the term with “white supremacy”.”

su·prem·a·cy: “the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status.”

The white race obsessed (thus racist) authors instead propose to use “Quantum Advantage“. This is a mistake as far as physics is concerned: the Quantum is not just “advantageous”. It is a misunderstanding of physics to think so. Quantum Physics is not just advantageous relative to Classical mechanics, it thoroughly EXTINGUISHES it. Quantum Physics is the final solution of the problem of localization in classical mechanics. The joke is on us, the hilarious woman below, Divya Persaud “the third”, a doctoral student, claims a supremacy she does not have in science, because she obviously does not understand Quantum Physics:

Divya M. Persaud is a planetary scientist, writer, and composer. She is obviously NOT a physicist specializing in the foundation of physics. She is not afraid to leverage her brown skin by claiming Quantum Supremacy has to do with the white race. Reciprocated racism is still racism…

Refuting Quantum Supremacy on purely semantic grounds, because one does not like the notion of “supreme”, and call it racist is supremely stupid, indeed.

And idiotic, because those condemning “supremacy” do so by alleging their own supremacy. I recognize just one race: that of imbeciles.Tends to be hereditary too. It’s culturally, and epigenetically inherited.

I got some taste of this when some “moderators” complained  to Facebook that I was full of “Hate” because I reported (as an anti-Nazi) some well-known Nazi ideology. I got suspended for 30 days (!) as a result… Untill, several pages of complaints on my part later, Facebook recognized that reported Nazi ideology was not reason enough for suspension…

Superior and inferior simply mean one is in the presence of an ordered set, in the mathematical meaning of the term. Such sets are all over, and even bacteria recognize them as useful, when they swim up a food gradient.

But the supremos of muddled, dark thinking don’t recognize any order which they do not themselves rule…

The correctors of semantics want to achieve their own supremacy, through intellectual fascism, as the Nazis and Soviets wanted to do. Please read the excellent:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01475?fbclid=IwAR32IEDRmU2Xk7uqnAKAtZ7z32Bik4sJiJLyM3H7zBw3ANdPjQX8DzbhIzw&#

“Quantum Physics” is not just advantageous. It is true, and classical physics is not. In some situations, say Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Physics CANNOT be replicated by classical effects: this is the essence of the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (“EPR”) effect and the the John Bell theorem. And it has been experimentally demonstrated in thousands of experiments. Nor can the Casimir Effect, or the Bohm-Aharonov effects be duplicated by classical mechanics. There, in those various effects, which all involve forms of mysterious local-time flaunting nonlocality, Quantum Physics rule supreme.

In nonlocal matters, Quantum Physics rule not just supremely, but absolutely. Let’s then introduce the concept of QUANTUN ABSOLUTISM! (This way the silly ones will call me a monarchist!)

It is supremely fascist, idiotic and ignorant to try to cancel the purely physical concept of “Quantum Supremacy”, but I expect no less of those so inferior that they need to leverage their skin color to gain advantage in society.

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: John Preskill, professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology who coined “Quantum Supremacy”, proposed it to describe when a quantum computer performs a task that a classical computer never could. Preskill rejected the term ‘quantum advantage’: the word ‘advantage’ implies that a computer with quantum supremacy would have only an edge over a classical computer while the word ‘supremacy’ better conveys complete ascendancy over any classical computer. As I said, it’s not just ascendency, but also Quantum Computation which can’t exist classically.

Tax To Block Private Power Absolutely. The Example of Republican Rome.

Roman Democracy Failed From Private Power Escaping 100% Taxation

Too much power in a family is iniquitous, dangerous for the society at large. Thus, tax power. The fundamental reason for taxation is not, contrarily to common opinion, to raise money for the government.

The fundamental reason for taxation is to prevent a few families from grabbing all the power of society for themselves, making an oligarchy... 

Money and power exponentiate: they grow proportionally to themselves. So if power is not limited in a timely manner, one individual, the monarch, will grab all power.

Fully sovereign states can decide where power shall be directed, by passing appropriate laws: the Inca empire worked very well without tax or currency. Just like the Roman empire and the feudal system, the USSR, or the UK or USA in WW2, workers or companies, in a fully sovereign state, can be mobilized to do necessary work, by command and control. A fully sovereign state has so much power, it does not need to purchase it.

However, if families acquire enormous wealth, they can acquire so much power that they can direct the public discourse to their liking, and, ultimately, purchase armies. This is exactly what happened in the Roman republic, in violation of old Republican laws which limited power, and wealth absolutely. This happened greatly because global Roman plutocrats were able to escape Roman taxation and jurisdiction by going and thriving overseas [1]. 

Coming back quickly the overseas Roman plutocrats used propaganda to buy for themselves a large part of Italy, and manned those monopolistic agribusinesses with armies of slaves. Gracchi laws passed too late to stop the phenomenon [2]. We are in exactly the same situation. Tax power now!

The imperial Roman Republic could have been saved, and transmogrified. First it needed a different attitude to ideas, by realizing and emotionally integrating, that one should be ruled by a society where nothing can, and should, beat a superior idea into submission. Instead emperor Vespasian paid an inventor to not reveal a machine which could have saved enormous amount of work. So, by 80 CE, the official Roman policy was anti-tech investment.

Second the nefarious side of the entanglement with slavery should have been revealed. Slavery perverted society in more ways than one, including not just from its inequity, but by favoring an ever more oligarchic society leveraging inequity, and thus discouraging technological progress, an absolute good (everything else being equal). When the Latin speaking Queen Bathilde from the Roman successor state, the Imperium Francorum, outlawed slavery in 657 CE, the forces of progress were unleashed: not just tech, but mandatory secular education.

(Outlawing slavery was not just a Frankish idea, Chinese emperors tried it several times; but differently from what happened in Francia, the reform did not hold.)

The monopolists who now dominate the world propaganda and most of its information economy, have acquired those positions in the worst possible way: through complicity with the darkest part of the state of the dominant nation-state, the US.

The fabulously powerful plutocrats and their worldwide conspiracy, which include the dictatorship in China, have to be stopped now. No more excuses. The “Democrats” control the Congress and the Senate. The least they can do is to try to break the power of the most powerful families, their countless plots, foundations, and accomplices in academia. Yeah, just try, that’s the decent thing to do.

One should not want to risk the Republic, as Rome did by trying to control too late the wealthiest, the self-described “best” (as the Gracchi did).

Notice that Trump’s Justice Department launched pursuits against Google and Facebook…. And couldn’t do more, because the “Democrats” then focused on Trump instead of focusing on the monopolists. That was a bad mistake, but no doubt, as the monopolists have greatly helped the “Democrats” they saw it as the right move at the time. Well, this is now, no more excuses…

If the power of the wealthiest is not curbed immediately, civilization is in peril. Tax severely very great wealth, enough to prevent exponentiation of society into degeneracy and Armageddon for everybody. As happened so many times in the past.

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] Roman rentiers became wealthy during the Second Punic War: to escape Hannibal’s forces, peasants took refuge in the cities behind fortifications (Rome’s walls were so formidable, Hannibal didn’t even try to besiege it)… But they had to rent lodgings. An aggravating factor is that many, if not most of the most noble families died on the battlefield, and with them, their Republican, democratic mentality. If anything, it was demonstrated that high republican spirits kill, and base mentality enriches. 

Rome also found itself with an empire after defeating Hannibal and his Macedonian ally. The Republic had a light touch, and preserved local elites and local laws (in most cases). Roman generals expanding the Roman civilization’s security sphere were able to enrich themselves considerably by acquiring, say, mines in Iberia, as Marius did (that enabled him to run for Consul).

Conquests made Rome, and especially its elite, very wealthy. Roman public land had been acquired by wealthy members of the Senate starting in 180 BCE. Senators used the public land to create large farms worked by slaves, to produce cash crops, such as olive oil and wine. These giant farms became known as latifundia and the Senators or wealthy individuals (Equites) who owned these were not concerned with feeding the city’s populace, but instead were obsessed to become ever more wealthy. They could leverage this further by escaping the Roman absolute wealth limit from making money in other jurisdictions, overseas.

***

[2] The plutocrats of Rome who wanted to override the spirit of the laws of the 350 years old Republic called themselves, ironically enough, the “Optimates”. Those self-declared optimal types, were the exact opposite of what their description entailed. They used massive propaganda to depict themselves as they were not. In truth, they were the most vile and degenerate. They were an offense to the spirit of countless noble Romans of centuries passed, including the six (elected) Roman kings (the one who was not, Tarquinius Superbus, the assassin of the great king Servius Tullius, caused a civil war, and was the last king), and (elected) dictators Camillus, Cincinnatus, tremendously courageous generals such as Regulus, etc. The propaganda worked…

***

That the Roman Republic lasted as long as it did, five centuries, is greatly attributable to limit put on the wealth and power of individual families:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/no-limit-on-wealth-no-democracy-roman-limit-22-million-why-rome-collapsed-part-iii/

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/computation-of-roman-republic-absolute-wealth-limit-caesar-a-revolutionary/

Wealthiest Pay NO TAX: THUS, Tax Wealth According to POWER

The truly wealthy pay (basically) no tax. That’s why they are truly wealthy and powerful: they have manipulated laws so that, like monarchs of old, they escape taxes. 

Yet, the only reason for taxation is to prevent the exponentiation of wealth. Because wealth and thus power, grows proportionally to itself, ABSENT taxation.

Recent tax codes in so-called “democracies” were passed by politicians in the employ of the wealthiest (one way or another, past, present, or future, themselves or their significant others or avatars). 

The wealthiest and most influential persons in the USA, and the world, are basically thieves. They pay no tax but their employees, the politicians, have made it so that average people are getting ever more poor. We are therefore led by thieves. Hence the highest ideals of our society have to do with stealing, lying, dissemblance, inequity, greed, and worship of the most evil personalities. Call that the Plutocratic Thesis.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Its Secret IRS Files found that: The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax

“In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.

Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.

Soros spent a huge amount of efforts fomenting insurrection against “populist” elected officials in recent years, financing in particular “Antifa” rioters.  

ProPublica: “Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.

Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, amassing little wealth and paying the federal government a percentage of their income that rises if they earn more. In recent years, the median American household earned about $70,000 annually and paid 14% in federal taxes. The highest income tax rate, 37%, kicked in this year, for couples, on earnings above $628,300.

The confidential tax records obtained by ProPublica show that the ultrarich effectively sidestep this system.

America’s billionaires avail themselves of tax-avoidance strategies beyond the reach of ordinary people. Their wealth derives from the skyrocketing value of their assets, like stock and property. Those gains are not defined by U.S. laws as taxable income unless and until the billionaires sell.” 

They don’t need to sell anything: they just go to the bank and borrow… billions. Those loans are NOT taxed.

***

I PROPOSE TO TAX LOANS TO THE HYPER WEALTHY… Say above 50 millions of combined income… At the normal maximum income rate. 

How to fix that evasion of the spirit of taxation by the plutocratic class? A problem progress has is that the present so-called representatives, and the administration and executive branches are owned by hyper wealth, and so is the media (with few exceptions). The first key, as usual, is knowledge. 

First by having the right analyses and the right solutions. Selling both to the 

TIME TO TAX HYPER WEALTHY PLUTOCRATS ACCORDING TO THEIR TOTAL POWER (In particular tax their loans and their foundations).

*** 

To Keep The Middle Class Impotent, Tax It Away:

ProPublica: “According to Forbes, those 25 US citizens saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

It’s a completely different picture for middle-class Americans, for example, wage earners in their early 40s who have amassed a typical amount of wealth for people their age. From 2014 to 2018, such households saw their net worth expand by about $65,000 after taxes on average, mostly due to the rise in value of their homes. But because the vast bulk of their earnings were salaries, their tax bills were almost as much, nearly $62,000, over that five-year period.

No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grandfatherly centibillionaire. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. According to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 billion between 2014 and 2018. Over those years, the data shows, Buffett reported paying $23.7 million in taxes.

That works out to a true tax rate of 0.1%, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth.”

Buffet is typical of the liars of the Democratic Party: saying one thing, doing the opposite, such as Biden advocating 28% corporate tax inside the US, and then fighting to get the G7 to propose a global 15% rate (logically enough, France wanted 21% which is the present US and French rate).

***

Techniques that the hyper wealthy use to reduce their tax bills, take advantage of a complex web of loopholes and deductions that are perfectly legal and can enormously minimize tax liability. That includes borrowing huge sums of money backed by enormous stock holdings. Loans are not taxed and the interest that the executives pay on the borrowed money can be deducted from their tax bills.

The wealth tax as suggested by Senator Warren would not fix the evasion by using borrowed money. She proposed to tax 2% the absolute total wealth of individuals worth more than 50 million dollars. 

That’s a joke: according to Warren, then, one could be a billionaire, borrow another billion from (complicit or not) banks, invest it in a variety of supposedly money losing ventures, and then one would owe no tax.

Actually this is exactly how Larry Elison, CEO of Oracle,  did it for many years: he would borrow so much, year after year, using Oracle’s stock as collateral, that he did not have to pay any tax. When the local city tried to force him to pay a tax on his house, like everybody else, he refused. His house was a reproduction of the Japanese emperor’s imperial palace, and was known to be worth an enormous amount of money, and then he should have paid nearly 1% annually of that enormous amount (the money goes to schools). Well, he celebrated by buying the Hawaian island of Lanai.   

Another tax trick is foundations: foundations do not pay taxes, but the founders of foundations can keep control. And what is control? Power, exactly what money purchases. 

This is why plutocrats when they mature turn into “friends of man”, philanthropists: they can keep power, but their power, and that of their heirs, will not be taxed. 

As this power grows, the plutocratic philanthropists can afford to buy ever more politicians, and rig the laws to serve themselves. This is how the Roman Republic was destroyed by its plutocrats, who called themselves “the best” (“Optimates”).    

In 2007, Mr. Bezos, the chief executive officer of Amazon, paid nothing in federal income taxes even while his company’s stock price doubled. Four years later, as his wealth swelled to $18 billion, Mr. Bezos, adding insult to injury, reported losses and received a tax credit of $4,000 for his children, according to ProPublica.

Mr. Buffett, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway who has long hypocritically bemoaned that the tax code should hit the rich harder, paid just $23.7 million in taxes from 2014 to 2018, when his wealth rose by $24.3 billion. So Buffett got taxed at the rate of .1%….

In 2018, Mr. Bloomberg, who controls the media giant Bloomberg L.P., reported income of $1.9 billion and paid $70.7 million in income tax. That’s about a 3% rate. According to the Propublica report, Mr. Bloomberg was able to reduce his tax bill through deductions, charitable donations and “credits for having paid foreign taxes” (probably in tax havens).

Full of hatred and vengeance, the Politically Correct Mr. Bloomberg, once elected king of New York, said he would “use all legal means at our disposal to determine which individual or government entity leaked these and ensure that they are held responsible.” Since Bloomberg and his ilk represent basically the government, the threat is not to be taken lightly.

Lily Adams, a Treasury spokeswoman, confirmed that: “The matter is being referred to the Office of the Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, all of whom have independent authority to investigate.”

The plutocratic republic is in danger!

Mr. Biden and his advisers have declared a wealth tax unworkable: it would force the top sponsors of the Democratic Party to pay taxes. Instead, Biden has sought $80 billion to beef up the Internal Revenue Service so it is better able to go after tax cheats of the middle and lower classes… who sometimes have to pay more than they earn in taxes  

This is how to save the plutocratic republic.

How can one pay more than one earns? Simple, have no fancy income and no fancy lawyers… and enjoy the redistribution of Obamacare, which has caused tremendous health care costs increases… I know some cases, personally, with people who are well below the official poverty level.

So where are we here? This is a world where the guy in charge of fighting pandemic worldwide finances lethal worldwide pandemics, and then accuses pangolins. This is a world where the president screams against inequality, racism, but then does all he can to help his sponsors, hedge fund managers (such as Renaissance funds related individuals). Warren and other pseudo-inequality fighters, who are actually very wealthy multimillionaires, propose pseudo-reforms which would tax and harass the inferior classes. It’s more of the same.

Instead, I propose to tax power. So, for example, tax the Gates Foundation, which promoted companies fabricating devastating poison, by having the Gates Foundations invest in those companies… And also the same Gates made the Virus Dictator Xi stronger, by providing him with surveillance technology (and keeps on doing that)… The Gates Foundation is a Tax Foundation: there is no significant difference with Microsoft in the sense of the power it provides these extraordinarily powerful individuals, the Gates… whether married or not. 

By the way, the world wealthiest person is a Frenchman. In a country where the middle class is taxed to death. How come? Well, French plutocrats are as good, if not better, they actually seems to be better, as their US colleagues in paying the politicians to tweak the taxation laws as required to make the wealthy wealthier. The same exact problem happened in Republican Rome, the Gracchi did what they could…. But they and their thousands of colleagues and collaborators were assassinated (at least 5,000 in just the second wave of assassinations)… 

Lest we are careful there is a risk that we will repeat that performance. Because there was already a repeat; the fascist movements of the 1930s were propelled by the same class and mentality… Even Hitler said it and bemoaned it, complaining to his associates, Marshall Rommel, while in Italy, that he had to sit and entertain “plutocrats”.

So we need to tax the power of the wealthiest before it’s too late, and they have fully captured hearts, minds, politics, sociology and civilization itself. How do we tax power? Good question. The same problem at the level of individuals, taxing power, exists with corporate entities (which are also legal “persons”). 

For corporations, the radical solution is to tax their revenues, country by country… instead of trying to tax their profits, as normal taxation has it (the other way would be to impose a worldwide minimum corporate tax, but Biden allowed only 15%, about half of what he proposed inside the USA, making a bad joke of the whole thing). 

A wealth tax does this, by taxing the assets directly. The model here is the Roman Republican one, which worked for centuries and imposed a 100% tax above 50 million dollars. The Roman tax could be duplicated  progressively on the extremely wealthy, starting at the Roman Republican level, 50 million dollars (I computed that in the past)… BUT, by adding assets and loans… So taxing the entire revenue (so to speak).

Patrice Ayme  

There Is No Enlightenment Without Violence

Violence, like folly, has been unfairly criticized by ingrate thinkers. Both methods are central to proper mental creativity. Any serious change of mind is a form of crazy violence, this is why great thinkers have been so thoroughly hated throughout history.

The list of the martyrs of thought is long. Socrates, condemned to death, Plato and Aristotle barely escaping execution, Demosthenes suicided by Aristotle’s BFF, the Gracchi and thousands of their collaborators assassinated for fighting the “Optimates”,  Caesar treacherously and stupidly assassinated, Christ crucified, Domitians killing all philosophy, except supine Stoicism, Julian mysteriously stabbed, Hypatia flayed alive (and her torturer in chief made into a Christian saint!), Boethius executed by having his bones broken (because the Ostrogoth in chief heard some rumors which he recognized later were erroneous)… 

… and then when one gets to medieval times, many of the most important western thinkers were involved in life and death struggles, for trying to reconcile the Christian madness with reason, the most famous being Abelard’s fighting the genocidal upper society maniac Saint Bernard… but Hus, Dolet and Bruno were among the many top teachers burned alive by the Vatican… Descartes had to run for his life… But the guillotine caught up with Lavoisier, the world’s top chemist… Of course, under the Nazis many intellectuals died the hard way. The situation was worse on the Muslim side, and got actually so bad that, when the west got finally thoroughly islamized (that took centuries), so did intellectual life (which thus died).

Why we need lions (as Nietzsche, last of a long line, pointed out). Wisdom needs claws. I prefer to master the lion, as the lady above… then feed him my enemies. I made it so that I have enough of those, my lion will not go hungry…

Why so much violence against thinkers? Because violence is force and it requires enormous force to change minds. This all arises from the fact it takes enormous amounts of energy to make up a brain: baby brains consume up to 25% of a body’s energy. Thus, when a mind is made up, they are nearly impossible to change… before rebuilding a brain one would need to demolish it, and it’s not clear how to do this: thoughts and emotions are literally physical objects, highly nonlinear neural networks of axons, dendrites perfused by emotional topoi from various organ, organelles, and even neurons. Let me quote one of my frenemies, celebrated by Critical Race theorists, Frantz Fanon, a very smart Martiniquais psychiatrist FLN-Soviet-CIA agent who exerted violence for the liberation-destruction of Algeria: “Violence is man recreating himself.” I explained that neurologically.

Socrates and Machiavelli are generally held to hold vastly different views on violence and violent actions, the former advocates strongly that it is always better to be harmed rather than to harm while the latter argues that violence is essential, when used correctly, in order to gain and maintain power. The former was a real warrior, killing and saving people in combat. Machiavel was just a paper-pusher with boyish admiration for Cesare Biorgia. 

However, Socrates was put on trial for injuring the Athenian democracy, corrupting the youth: several of his followers and lovers, decades younger than him, engaged in high treason against Athens. So Socrates was basically accused of exerting violence against democracy. And that’s pretty much what some of his philosophy does. (As with anything Socratic, much of this may have been “fiction”, as indicated by Aristotle…) Thus Socrates, bathing as he was in violence, demonstrates, by his own life, that violence is everywhere. His own attempt at showing showy non-violence is itself a violence: Socrates insisted to punish Athens by making her sin… As a fleeing Aristotle himself pointed out, as he chuckled, fleeing, that he would not let Athens sin against philosophy again….

So I say: sometimes the ends justify the means. For proof I direct you to contemplation of aerial Allied bombings in World War Two. Including the nuclear bombings and deaths by irradiation, those bombings on Germany and Japan killed less than 1.5 million people, most of them sort-of innocent, or even completely innocent (children). However their effects on the war were so great that those two fascist powers were unable to pursue the war. Without prior aerial bombing for years, which weakened it considerably, Nazi Germany would have had, ironically enough, to be atom bombed into submission… 

Plato claims that often it is better to get injured, that’s how to be more open, and submit to others and other things. But, although the view has merits, within bounds, it cannot be absolute. As an absolute, it only reflects Plato’s inclination to dictators (namely the tyrant of Syracuse) and dictatorship (“philosopher-kings”). So Plato makes Socrates mouth this sort of opinion, focusing on rape (“eros”)… As if normal people had to make a philosophy of rape… to guide daily life… Levinas was more subtle: on the first page of Totality and Infinity,he writes: “being reveals itself as war—even more, war is “the very patency, or the truth of the real.” (TI, 21/9)

As I said, neurological war, if nothing else. Socrates recognizes things around us are tumbling in and out of being. In spite of his dissemblance on violence, Socrates was more real on folly. He considered it 2440 years ago that:”the greatest blessing granted to mankind comes by way of madness, which is a divine gift.” Erasmus followed, 19 centuries later.  

The source of the madness is simple: when genuinely new neural circuitry is erected, old erroneous circuitry has to be destroyed. This violent act requires so much, one may feel it makes no sense, hence the appearance, at the very least, of folly. 

Incitation and redemption comes from humans being, instinctively, truth machines. For this we have to enjoy changing our minds, hard, painful and energetically expensive. So we have to enjoy pain, at least that way. 

So here you have it:

Sometimes the ends justify the means. Those who claim otherwise are just posing without knowledge of the most eminent facts.

There is something such as new and better thinking, and that is defined as thinking that is closer to reality, and feed the beholder better. Ultimately superior thinking will be all proven by destroying the enemy. Same old same old. (That does not mean I am advocating to go out kill people 24/7: Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, destroyed their enemies pretty well… by marching.)

Energetic violence inside one’s mind implements new and better thinking, starting with oneself, but it’s more fun when imposed upon others. 

Folly, or the appearance, and the appreciation thereof, is an indispensable method to implement the systematic and systemic doubt Descartes advocated. Even Socrates/Plato got that one right. 

It’s a complicated world out there, best dealt with subtlety greater than what has been previously described in the classical imagination… Descartes, a man of the sword, a captain, had forgotten, or did not dare, to make explicit a few methods indispensable to thinkers. He knew those methods all too well, and the accusations they led to, thus why he had to flee France for his life.

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: It may, and will be argued that, in truth, the “violence” and “folly” I am talking about is not really either, since they are fully legitimate as part of creativity. Was Van Gogh violent and mad? We don’t know, as we don’t know how he really died (OK, a gunshot, but who fired it and how?). But whatever his mental status, thank you. However, I was reflecting on various bans I received over the years on the Internet, several of them permanent and forever (“we have the means to know who you are, etc.”). The most recent ban for “hate” being in May 2021, for alleged “hate” on Facebook, the punishment being for 30 days. The reason for the alleged “hate” was a case of shooting the messenger because Facebook didn’t like the message. Facebook recognized it was in error and suspended its own suspension. Meanwhile I sent a few comments to the New York Times, including to some famous pseudo-intellectuals, and they got banned, and I was wondering what goes through the minds of such people, pretending to think publicly while enabling trite comments and banning important and intelligent ones.

So the verdict was that, in any case, mental creativity will often show up as violent madness to some. Authentic tolerance is, then, to tolerate the appearance of intellectual violence and madness… As long as it doesn’t really hurt those who can’t defend themselves.

Authority Principle Enforces Systemic Racism

The persecution of a black veteran, Mr. Wright, who climbs buildings and takes pictures, is systemic racism at work. See: A Rogue Climber Running From the Law Was Fleeing His Own Trauma. His crime? Climbing a few buildings, taking pictures… He was proposed to choose between admitting to a felony (as a felon he would be blocked from most quality employment thereafter) or going to prison twenty-years… For a crime where most white people in the USA would not be even arrested from (yes, I know builderers, and may have even practiced it… long ago; excellent training for Yosemite’s smooth walls…)

How is systemic racism enforced? Through abuse of the Authority Principle. The Authority Principle is necessary in an army, because the army depends upon acting as a single individual with sacrificial elements (unless when the AP conflicts with military and international law… even the Nazis respected that one. When a German soldier refused to obey illegal acts, such as shooting captured US commandos, they would discharge the soldier from the army, as the Nazis did not want to risk a trial and then attending publicity; starting in 1944, the US military code was changed [1]).

The Authority Principle should not be used in civilian society, except proportionally to the seriousness of the situation (for example ordering people to be vaccinated should be an OK application of the AP).

The AP enables someone in a position of authority to demolish an inferior (which is, by definition, someone not in authority, and without protective connections, a web of powerful friends, family, or tribe). The Authority  Principle is often used just for keeping it in shape, and to have everybody be reminded of it. Mr. Wright, a black veteran, endowed with special forces training, having experienced Post Traumatic Stress, from all the friends and people he saw killed, was moreover disposed of, as soon as he got injured in training. So people in authority decided to make an example of him, punishing him extremely hard for nearly nothing. Such a wanton punishment should bestow respect for authority to the next blacks serving in special forces. Thus works the Authority Principle. The Nazis had something close to that, the Fuhrerprinzip, the principle of the guide, according to which those in authority had to be absolutely obeyed, no matter what. Authority Principle and Fuhrerprinzip do not recognize humanity and common sense, just blind obedience. Blind obedience to authority is perfect, then, to violate both humanity and common sense. Systemic racism couldn’t do without it.

Patrice Ayme

***

[1]  Army had amended the war code manual in 1944, and at the time of Wehrmacht 3 star general Dostler’s trial it stated that an individual who violated “the accepted laws and customs of war may be punished.” However, it made more precise, “The fact that the acts complained of were done pursuant to order of a superior or government sanction may be taken into consideration in determining culpability, either by way of defense or in mitigation of punishment.”

***

P/S: Mr. Wright took the picture above… Some white climbers have made a profession of “buildering”, worldwide, including in the USA. However being white made them apparently much less dangerous… to the Authority Principle

Buildings occupy the landscape. They may be on “private” property, but they force themselves upon everybody. Why could not then be climbed, absent extraordinary reasons not to? In any case, buildering is a crime akin to crossing a street away from pedestrian crossings: the main risk is to the perpetrator. Thus destroying the life of the perpetrator in the guise of saving it should fool no one: it’s systemic racism.

Facebook Suspension For Informing Of Nazism. Facebook Calls True Facts About Nazism “Hate”

Two truthful (and not flattering) historical facts about Nazism, one of them in a private group, got me suspended from Facebook (one of the suspension was for 30 days). It is as if Facebook did not want its two billion participants to know about Nazism as it really was (that is even worse than people think… and all too familiar…). There are Holocaust Memorials, like there is matter. Now we have apparently anti-Holocaust anti-Memorials, like there is antimatter.

I am in no way a Nazi sympathizer: my family resisted to Nazism, some in uniform and in combat (an uncle, an officer was in uniform for 6 years, combating the Nazis in anti-tank units; he told me about successful “hedgehog defense” by using villages as fortresses in June 1940). The Gestapo hunted my family on my mother’s side through the woods for saving Jews and others. My father fought the Nazis in Italy and France and was bombed twice by Me 262 jets (he was in a flak unit).

On March 13 I said the Nazis praised the Japanese (as a master race, Herrenrasse). This is a historical fact. On June 1 I quoted the main Nazi slogan in 1933: “Deutschland erwache” (Germany awake). Facebook considered this “multiple violations”. Got history? We see violations!

Facebook suspended me for quoting the Nazi slogan of 1933-35: “Deutschland erwache”.. As if just quoting it made me approve of it! The rape victim is now identified to the rapist, after all, she mentioned rape! Violation! Facebook seems to be unaware that the main force behind Nazism, on the psychological level was sheer stupidity, like confusing reports and advocacy. 

Interestingly, Facebook uses the same exact colors, red, white and black… Of the Nazi flag. On the face of that book, it looks like Facebook will ban those who say bad things about Nazism…

If someone mentions Trump’s slogan MAGA, that doesn’t mean they are for Trump. I do not approve of Nazism, just the opposite: I have written hundreds of pages very very strongly AGAINST Nazism. I absolutely excoriate Nazism, and want to explain to other people why exactly. Facebook told me that mentioning a despicable Nazi “racial” policy constituted “hate” and that I “violated community standards”. So, if one explains what the Nazis did, that constitutes “hate”… even if one disagrees vehemently with what the Nazis did! 

My family resisted the Nazis, and suffered immensely as a result. Am I to understand that Nazism is a subject to be absolutely avoided at Facebook? Are we supposed to ignore what the Nazis said, felt and thought? Are we supposed to ignore the part of history impacted by the Nazis? As Santanya said, that would invite repetition. 

Facebook could check “Deutschland erwache”, and the other fact which Facebook defined as “hate” on my part, that the “Nazis extolled the Japanese”. Indeed, the Nazis claimed that the Japanese were a “master race” (Herrenrasse”). That claim enabled the Nazis to constitute with the Japanese what they called the “Axis”. I would have no problem publishing those well-known historical facts in, say, Israel. Saying what the Nazis did is not “hate”. If one describes the thousands of extermination camps the Nazis had (and to which part of my family was sent), that does not mean that this is hate speech (just the opposite). But now I am afraid that Facebook may decide that mentioning death camps is “hate”… On MY part. The end result of being unable to ever say what the Nazis did and held is going to be the exact opposite of what all Holocaust Memorials have been build to do, inform everybody of what happened under Nazism. 

Describing, and condemning, infamy should not be described as “hate” (as my descriptions were). This confuses facts and the one who reports them. I urge Facebook to reconsider and not describe descriptions of Nazism as “hate” on the part of those who report them. Otherwise, next we will be unable to describe what the Holy Inquisition did, and so on. 

If someone describes the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, that doesn’t mean that one approves of it, and a mention of the crucifixion should not be described as “hate” and earn a violation of community standards. I urge Facebook to remove both of my alleged violations, which were just descriptions of what should be well-known historical facts.  

My guess is that I am on a secret banishment list at Facebook, and it is just trying to ban me by claiming I am full of “hate” (and Nazism!)

Facebook functions as the world debate forum. Unfortunately it is also a private company with one man at the helm, who did not do more than a few months of formal college studies. How Facebook connects to the US Deep State is a matter of debate, but some believe that Facebook is an outgrowth of the US Deep State spy and dagger agencies. Having the whole world expressing ideas in one forum is ideal for spring, cataloging threats… And neutralizing them (some of my posts were discreetly removed; my public probably restrained). If one can never quote the Nazis, one cannot make analogies between the present situation and Nazism.

Over the years, I have been banned by many publications which claim to be guarantors of democracy and debate (say The Guardian in the UK, which got enormous sums of money from… Bill Gates; I was told one condition was to ban me from comments). In some cases powerful individuals intervened… Some of them bankers, or tech titans, to get me specifically banned. The list is long, the effects drastic, as I disappeared from much of the Internet…

I believe that I was not blocked from Facebook for these two quotes, but because I am on some sort of black list, and other statements. The account was blocked after I posted this:

Finnish homelessness solution can’t be duplicated here, too many influential “Democrats” being way right of Trump… even at city council level (that’s why they claim to hate Trump so much). My local (“democrat”) city is finally building the cheapest housing ever below my eyes, and some of my neighbors think it’s just to bug me personally…

Like I saved the forested hill from developers of hyper wealthy homes, by organizing grassroot protests, and now the hill has been entirely poisoned…  Hundreds of trees are dead in one of the last western monarch butterfly refuges. Gee, I wonder how that happened… The city has hired a consultant to inquire…

https://www.weforum.org/…/how-finland-solved…/…

Or then:

Tech Monopolies Killed The Patent System And Innovation

Actually the worse there was not revealed; the judge who was offered 5 million dollars by FB (and more!) the very day of his last judgment hurtful to small tech companies… That judge is the friend of a friend…

And then of course:

Are Many “Liberals” Hiding Their Segregationism With Loud Vociferations?

I believe that it is essays, analyses and comments of mine like the preceding ones which truly triggered the ban… Because they have appeared on Facebook. Although Facebook cannot admit that it my domestic observations they are after. Because it will show itself for what it is: sheer political censorship, and steering of Democratic Party opinion towards simplifications compatible with plutocracy and tech monopolies…. and only them….

The Facebook review board is headed by Nick Clegg, the artisan, with David Cameron, of the Brexit referendum… Small world of violence and oversimplification, where, when one says what the Nazis did, one is a Nazi.

Intellectual fascism, pure and simple, arguably even worse than under Mccarthyism.

Patrice Ayme 

***

P/S: The next day and after many pages of protest letters in various places in Facebook:

Support Message
Today at 10:12 PM
Your post is back on Facebook
We’re sorry we got this wrong. We reviewed your post again and it does follow our Community Standards.
We appreciate you taking the time to request a review. Your feedback helps us do better.

[It was not just a post: some of the suspension were for entire capabilities, for 30 days… The fright that suddenly one cannot tell the truth about the Nazis: nothing like it…]

 

Saving The Animals, Thus Ourselves

Animals die in great numbers trying to cross human transportation systems. When one provides the animals with crossings, they rush to use them (so are used even before they are finished, by a Noah’s ark of species). Respecting nature is not just about the beauty and naturalness it provides us with, it is about respecting how we became who we are, at our best. We have to learn to share the planet with animals. Not just because we are smart, but also because they are smart and our smarts evolved from interacting with their smarts. So interacting with wild animals is smart all around… and it has made our species smarter! Wildlife interaction is how we evolved our smarts. Not book smarts, but the deepest smarts.

Hence by respecting animals, we respect how we became human… and it keeps on being human to do so.
Economy means managing the house, in particular, managing earth, which is our common house. As the greenhouse heating proceeds at an accelerating pace, we then have to reserve an increasing part of our economic activity to save the animals by helping them to cope with the changes we have brought.
Morality comes from the mores, the old ways, the ways which perdured, and thus, insure survival. Having a natural environment, full of animals, is the ultimate morality. If we can’t save them, how can we learn to save ourselves? So it is not just smart and economic to save the animals, but also moral. The money engaged so far is quite small. But the price of an unbalanced environment tottering towards ruin, is incomparably higher. For a nice article with nice videos of animals using their smarts crossing freeways and roads, consider:

As a badger digs, say for ground squirrels whose borrows have many exits, could not it be that the coyote would seize a fleeing squirrel, and share the meal? This is basic economics and strategy, and it turns out that coyotes and badgers have figured out that behavior, and cooperate together. The next question would be this: do the individuals concerned figure it out by themselves, as cephalopods do, or is the behavior culturally instigated, namely both badgers and coyotes learn elements of interspecific cooperation from teaching by their elders? I believe the latter.

After all, I trained the (wild) nesting birds on my balcony to benignantly ignore my weird and intrusive ways… which thus had to learn to be a bit more respectful than they usually are. But of course these ways tend to incite the red tail hawks to not land on this particular balcony on a determined culinary mission (as they have been seen doing…) And the birds know this [1].

Saving the animals is first of all about saving us… Not just our sense of beauty.

Patrice Ayme

[1] Hummingbirds set their nests below hawks’ nests, as this protects them from gays. Local hawks do attack nests of birds who are big enough (like gays, crows, etc).And I have seen them pass 10 feet from me, eyeing me suspiciously… Their feathers can be two feet long…

https://www.audubon.org/news/why-hawk-hummingbirds-best-friend

Tribalism Is Only Common Sense For The Meek. The Mask Example.

Real common sense is uncommon. What’s common is tribalism masquerading as common sense. Tribalism is only common sense, because if you don’t sense and go with the commons, it’s common sense to be scapegoated, ostracized, hated, alienated and ridiculed. If you don’t want to get stoned, go with the commons.

A striking example has been the mask masquerade, which had plenty of scientific anti-sense associated to it. (BTW I have been fully vaccinated against COVID ASAP, for many months, early on, and I have a high, not to say superb, science education, so no trying to torpedo me that way., one would risk utter mental destruction…)

COVID viral particles are the same size as cigarette smoke, 100 nanometers. If you smell cigarette smoke, you can smell COVID (and indeed dogs do that very well). Only HEPA filters can intercept COVID viruses floating in the air (by a form of quantum gluing).

Worse: Masks transform covid viruses inside 3 micrometer droplet into aerosol virus (by stopping the water droplet, and evaporating the water of said droplets). So, far from being barriers, masks transform wet, ballistic medium carrying COVID, which would have fallen quickly to the ground, into aerial aerosol too small for masks. Masks should be COVID DIFFUSERS, not COVID barriers. There, the mystery of how the pandemic got out of control in countries full of masks, has been solved.

(It gets even worse than that, when one goes into the details: masks slow down airflow five times, giving a better chance to SARS CoV2 viruses to latch onto olfactory bulb neurons which they can infect directly…)

So people, common people, think masks protect against COVID GAS, because they wear paper on their face, that’s only common sense… Then they gather in mobs, all breathing the same gas… COVID GAS if one of these persons has COVID already. What could go wrong? I am not saying that masks are worse than useless in all situations, certainly not for a surgeon, but worse than useless in common group situations involving SARS CoV2.

But most of the tribals have not caught on that common sense yet, because, well, it’s common sense science to wear paper against cigarette smoke, the great male white chief said so, and that makes us democratic to believe him religiously. It’s only common sense: right or wrong, the tribe is always right.

Humanity progresses because of heroes, not because of the commons, who are all too common to be anything but weak, scared, vulgar and irrelevant groupies.

Today’s common sense is yesterday’s infamy.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/mask-masquerade-kills/

SARS CoV2 (yellow) infecting a human cell.