Aphorisms End October 2010



The fashionable word "rant" is ubiquitous, to qualify essays. The idea is not to take oneself too seriously, in self deprecating Anglo-Saxon fashion. But it is abused. Subtly, confusing a discourse, any discourse, with a rant, allows most people to say anything whatsoever, because, supposedly, everybody is ranting. Ranters get rent from ranting, and intellectuals get despised as ranters.

Intellectuals don’t generally rant. Intellectuals generally reason. And reasoning is not ranting.



Montesquieu in "L’Esprit de Lois", in 1758, celebrated trade ("commerce"). Wherever there is commerce, the ways are sweet ("les moeurs sont douces"), and, wherever the ways are sweet, there is trade. However, by the end of the 19C, it was considered as obvious, in England, that German travelling salesmen were bringing England down, and should Germany disappear, England would be much richer.

We know what happened next.

A prime motivator of the German fascist aggression in August 1914 against France and Russia (and Belgium, Luxembourg, etc.) was the certainty that the Prussian generals had, that the terms of economic expansion were unfavorable to their economic advantage.

The fact that Russia was democratizing while developing economy at an extremely high rate, from French investment, in the world context of the French world empire (let alone the empire of its "cordial ally", Great Britain) let the fasco-plutocratic structure inside Germany and Austro-Hungary facing its own demise at the hands of its own parliaments.

So the "Prussian Staff" generals (encouraged by the government of USA president Wilson) decided that, the earlier a war against Russia and France, the better. As the assassinated Archiduke, the Kaiser’s closest friend, was a very strong, albeit grim, partisan of peace, his disappearance spelled opportunity.



The question of being relates, in the most skeletal fashion, to the foundations of mathematics. That, in turn has consisted in trying to find out what the basic concepts are. For example, sets. However, category theory concentrates instead on relations.

The basic law of category theory is associativity: f(gh) = (fg) h. This, of course, has a direct neuronal interpretation: the interconnection between neurons, and how electrical impulse goes along associatively.


From the Oxford web site:


Archive reveals public enthusiasm for Anglo-Saxons

considering the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britannia in a war which lasted generations, and the British army fled to Celtico-Roman Armorica, thereafter named "Bretagne" (from Britannia)… This is a bit of a stretch.

Charlemagne finished the Anglo-Saxons in a 30 year war (coagulating them finally with Christianity). The Northern Germans had stopped Rome, with a heavy defeat under emperor Augustus, when three elite legions, their auxiliary troops, and fellow travelers  were annihilated  in an ugly three day battle in the drenching rain, between a swamp and a forest, made possible by betrayal. In his testament, Augustus recommended to his successors to leave the unconquered parts of Germany alone (a strategic mistake, as Julius Caesar knew).

The Franks, themselves Germano-Celts, spent three centuries conquering the entirety of Germany, and then more.



Jimmy_sanfrancisco wrote:

English speaking philosophy employs the resources of modern mathematical logic (particularly the predicate calculus, but others as well: intentional logic, modal logic, etc.) when doing philosophical thinking, and Continental philosophy does not. Another important difference is this: many English speaking philosophers don’t believe in the traditional demarcation of philosophy from science: philosophy IS science looking at itself; otherwise put, philosophy IS nature looking at itself.

Ergo, playing Socrates, I have deduced that nature being philosophy, is also science, thus demonstrating that everything is absolutely all.
An aside: most research mathematicians know nothing about modal logic, as a theory. But they are expert practitioners of it, for their daily bread. I would assume that so is anybody who seriously thinks.
Finally: analyein "unloose, release, set free," from ana "up, throughout" + lysis "a loosening," from lyein "to unfast". Everybody seriously thinking is analytical.

I will propose that "Analytic philosophy", also known as the "linguistic turn", is just a trick to shun most of philosophy, thus making it compatible with the USA imperialist machine known as "American exceptionalism" (aka "Wall Street").

Linguistic “philosophy” turned philosophers into delicious mussels, clinging to the base rock of imagined certainty, to be tasted at leisure by the plutocrats.


One of my readers makes fun of me. After I said something positive about the Franks "Dearmother" lets go the usual derision of all too many Americans relative to anything reminding them of France. Said she: "The French did everything good, didn’t they?"

Well, everybody knows about the Roman empire. But the empire of the Franks, Francia, has lasted longer, named, and spawned what is commonly known as "Europe". The later word, under the present meaning was invented by the Franks, indeed. So was the place: 90% of the European Union is the Imperium Francorum (all but Scandinavia and Ireland, keeping in mind that the reconquest of Iberia from the Muslim hordes). " Certainly the Imperium Francorum and its descendant regimes (including the USA) have proven more important to civilization than Rome itself.

The Franks demonstrated that the Greco-Roman empire was a deviation from civilization, similar, but worse, than the American enslaving south, and for similar reasons. The Franks demonstrated that the Greco-Romans could be overcome, and that is why they claimed to descend from Troy.



The myth of the good savage was believed in the France of the Ancient Regime. However Captain Cook then got stabbed in the back, and was eaten. The Comte de la Perouse, the other great explorer of the Pacific of the time, was then savagely attacked in Samoa (among other places). La Perouse stopped believing in the “Good Savage”. But the later event was unknown, and the former not properly meditated when the French Revolution came around…

By 1793, the French Revolution has turned very bloody. Of course, a coalition of all the old regimes in Europe had attacked the French republic. Nevertheless one may wonder if the myth of the good savage did not influence the populations: if the savage was so good, would not being savage make someone good? A new crime to attribute to Rousseau, the disparager of civilization…



How does evolution induce progress? Though diversity, and then competition between the diverse forms, to select forms with superlative survival. Thus the interest of sex, and thus the interest of… racism. Interestingly, as archaic Homo Sapiens (H. Rhodesiensis and, or H. Heidelbergensis) split into Homo Neanderthalis and the other one(s), specific genes were evolved by the superior (as far as living in Arctic climate) Neanderthal form, to be then re-injected into the "main" Homo Sapiens Sapiens line.

Thus the engine of evolution is conflict, to determine who, and what is superior. Superiority being defined by annihilation, or infeodation.



Amusing development. Here is Richard Dawkins, around October 26, 2010: " My original purpose in introducing the concept of memes really was not to produce a theory of culture, but rather to say that Darwinism doesn’t have to be tied to genes. It can work wherever you have a self-replicating code. We should actively be looking around for other examples of self-replicating codes which are “doing the Darwinian thing.” The important thing is not to get too hung up on genes when you’re doing your evolutionary biology."

That reproduction is geometrical, not just about DNA, I have harped on for a long time, happy to see Dawkins insisting on it now.

All along I held that using the concept of "meme", at least in culture, was completely idiotic. Because "meme" tried to replace an existing concept, the IDEA. If we called the exact same things by different names, just for the heck of it, mass could become "krutch". The only thing to be gained would be confusion, and it has a name: slang. Or rather slang is too much a compliment to pay for this sort of confusion.

Now Dawkins has changed his story. In his new usage, though, meme comes across another existing concept, REPLICATOR. It is useless to duplicate replicator with meme. It is true that biology reproduces (sort of), and that DNA based genes and their 1990s genetics are only part of the story. Epigenetics also reproduces, and so do various geometrical structures (including little factories inside bacteria). But there is no need to create a new slang for it: we are confused enough, already.

Anyway, it is nice to win the war of memes…



Another war to win is the silly Anglo-Saxon identification of evolution theory with Anglo-Saxons in general, and Darwin in particular. Maupertuis invented the idea of natural selection through comparative advantage (and published it in books circa 1748; but of course these books are in French, the original English which the presently devolved Anglo-Saxon does not read). Lamarck invented nearly everything in evolution later attributed to Darwin, even doing to mollusks what Darwin imitated with finches.

Now of course, being fully penetrated of the grandeur of the Anglo-Saxon, then allows to justify the invasion of Iraq and its puppet, Anglo-Saxon friendly regime. Or hide below the carpet the considerable Anglo-Saxon support for Hitler, emanating from the same. Of these little plots, a civilization is not made, though…



Another point; by not having the correct sequence of who invented what, one does not get the logic behind it. It’s no coincidence that Maupertuis also invented the PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION. Who said that was less important than Newtonian mechanics? By the way Newton’s First Law was found by Buridan, 250 years earlier, and why this got forgotten has a very important bearing on the notion of civilization, and how to preserve it (the Catholic church came to hate the hyper famous Buridan, a century after he died).

The exact history of sciences is tightly related to the valuation of the notions which give rise to the science.



Some Harvard smoke and mirrors historian comes up with the Harvard-serving theory that Obama is this rare breed, a "philosopher-king“. Good to learn that there are kings, and a fortiori philosophers, in the USA.

The historian who had organized a conference on the subject of Obama’s mind, sniffed that: “There seemed to be skepticism regarding whether Obama’s intellectual background actually translated into policies that the mostly left-leaning audience could get behind,” the historian, Mr. Hartman said "Several audience members, myself included, probably view Obama the president as a centrist like Clinton rather than a progressive intellectual as painted by Kloppenberg.”

Clinton was not a centrist. He was a Goldman Sachs puppet (he nominated Rubin CEO of Goldman as Sec of Treasury), Reagan loving (he nominated Rubin’s pet and Reagan adviser Summers as Sec of Treasury), and Clinton sold the future for an illusory prosperity. When he went into Bosnia, it’s because the French and the British had been there militarily for a very long time, and the French were shooting back heavy guns at the Serbs. Better to control them?

Clinton actually sold futures for the future, literally. Now Clinton is immensely rich, as his friends the worldwide dictators and plutocrats made sure he would get rewarded, for encouraging his successors (the Obambis to come). Clinton has carried a bag of rice for Haiti, to show his heart is pure, true. But the heart is not pure, the prison should be obscure, but so it is as the leopard has spots, hiding itself with light and shadow..



Osama bin Laden had a new message. This time it was addressed not to the French government, but to the French "PEOPLE". "If it is your right to force free women to not wear veils, it is our right to cut off the heads of invaders." Progress: bin Laden implicitly recognizes the "equation" (the word he himself uses). On one side the French People, on the other, the regal "we" of Al Qaeda, a would-be theocracy.



Obama comes on John Stewart’s Comedy Central show. Trying to imitate O’Reilly’s “The Factor”, Obama uses countless times the concepts of “folks” and “frustration”. There are never problems; those are being solved, but the “folks are frustrated”.

Stewart reminds Obama that he had said during the campaign new ideas needed new people, and then he brought in Larry Summers, and it looked like the one Larry Summers Stewart knew from the past (when the republic was sold to the plutocrats, under Clinton; and in exchange those who sold it became very rich and influential). For the one time in the interview, Obama is forceful. Says he decisively:"In fairnessLarry made a heck of a job!"

Fairness? Summers is the plutocratic servant who destroyed the separation of bank and speculation. He should not just have no job, he should be in jail. Instead the incompetent, unknowing Obama offered him a job, and the job, it turned out, was to fork trillions (yes trillions, whatever the propaganda is saying) of dollars to those who had created the crisis. Obama claims the financial crisis cost just 1% of GDP (which is not true, but he uses the occasion to imprint that notion; whether he believes in it is not clear).

Then as the audience of Jon Stewart’s show gasps, laughs incredulously, and grumbles its disapproval about "In fairnessLarry made a heck of a job!", Obama starts to chuckle uncomprehendingly. Stewart tells him:”You don’t want to use that phrase, DUDE!”

One can see Obama’s eyes spin. What did he get himself into? Are the folks resisting all the lies? Then Obama pirouettes and backpedals with acrobatic coolness, his comedian skills in full view. He flashes his giant seductor’s smile says:”I am sorry!” He adds hurriedly:"pun intended!" Sure. You can see him swimming desperately for the proper countenance that a man who would have been, after all, joking, would have had.

All of Obama’s ethical sense, displayed in fifteen seconds, in his sense of “pun”: say what they want to hear, whoever they are, whatever it is, it’s all a joke anyway. Thus the cockroach runs unerringly, waving its antennas. Jon Stewart may be the most powerful man in the USA, but it’s all too clear what he thinks. Obama is a better comedian: it is a rare moment when his guard is down (as long as one plays in the sand box delimited by his doctored data, which I do not).

Some will say: all politicians lie. No, not necessarily. Themistocles did not lie. It’s rather modern politicians, ever since Adolf Hitler promoted his "Big Lie" technique, who have been into lying. The most amazing part was that Obama thought that the audience would not object to Larry Summers, the number one architect of modern plutocracy. He probably thinks only who he calls with spite the "Ivory Tower Left" would know about the derivative universe which shipped all the jobs to China.

As the interview goes on, Obama declares that the "special interests" have the right to express themselves in a democracy. So they will always be there. No kidding. Plutocracy forever. A billionaire in California spends 150 million dollars of her own money (yes, 150, millions), trying to buy her election as governor. It’s expensive to lie on TV to that extent. Cool.

Obama calls that democracy, no doubt. But it’s venality, corruption, and unlawful in most countries. As it should be. Officially the USA is now 22th country in corruption, sinking fast, but that does not count what Americans view as legal. Four or five years ago, the USA used to be number one, the less corrupted country, but of course it was a self evaluation, because as I said what is legal there and nowhere else, does not count. So we are talking about an upper bound with that 22th rank. The arm of USA corruption is long: watch Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, for waging war, but American war, no doubt a higher calling.

By the way, the democratic politicians are getting even more money from the “special interests” than the republicans…

Two-thirds of Iraqis killed were civilians: no inquiry. Could Obama get another Peace Prize next year? For pacifying the idea of justice?

A memo with the secret deal between health care plutocrats and the White House in writing, with the four main points, in black and white, has come to light. That included the engagement, by the White House,  of not expanding Medicare Part B.

The deal basically shows that Obamacare was rigged by the plutocrats, for their own benefit (as the progressives suspected, but the fools were arrogant enough to put things in writing).

(There are more than 14,000 officially registered paid lobbyists in Washington, for 535 lawmakers. That’s 30 lobbyist for each lawmaker. Just in Washington. "Special interests" is a euphemism for big money. It seems clear that Obama, just as the Supreme Court of the USA, confuses plutocracy and democracy, the greed and the soul… although they are not compatible.)

Jon Stewart presses Obama for having run as a reformer, and turned to superficial papering over, whilst the corruption festers below. Then Obama, apparently as always, anxious to please and seduce, recognizes that his slogan should have been :"Yes, we can, BUT…".

He emphasizes the “BUT”, and leaves it at that for a moment: “BUT…” Yes, we can, BUT…I am not kidding, that is what he said. Case closed. Yes, we can’t? Move on.


Patrice Ayme


In full fairness, ultimately Obama added, finally, on his second try:”It will not happen overnight.” Certainly. What happened overnight was that nothing was done which is clearly attributable to the Obama administration (most programs were started under Bush, and those were, understandably favorable to the plutocracy).


3 Responses to “Aphorisms End October 2010”

  1. JMcG Says:


    I have no quarrel with “rant as reason”. My point was only to poke a little fun at too long essays that waste time getting to the point. I believe in the idea that good writing is terse. Trouble is, most writers don’t rewrite something enough to boil it down to the essentials. I’m interested in the real economy (and economy when it comes to prose), not so much in arguments between editorialists.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I did not want to present my disagreement with Krugman as just a conflict between editorialists. Krugman has a real influence on his ex-colleague Bernanke, and countless others. When I said what I said about ranting I was not thinking of you, but of the general attitude of the media in that respect. They started with derision relative to reason, then called derision reason, and now they are derisive.

      I agree that to be terse can be very good. But then, the smaller the logos, the greater the possible misinterpretation. It’s like the Heisenberg relationship between position and momentum. Fundamentally, it’s the same thing. OK, it’s bit more complex, in the same that the logos has to be reduced to non redundant elements first. But, a problem is that people need to be repeated new ideas forever before they even get that they are new. Some mentally challenged chipmunks got hyper furious against me because of my “Quantum Will?” essay… (I did not reproduce the insults, to not confuse readers, let alone thr fact that I was threatened if I publish them… Bizzarely). In truth, they did not undestand a thing.
      So I will have to repeat myself… I tried to explain the basis of Quantum physics in a way a 10 year old could understand… Or 5 year old, I hope, in the case of a really bright little girl…

      In any case, a piece of logos has a length, and gets interpreted continuously. (length logos) (interpretation logos) > H. (H for hysterics, or major plank constant, like walk at the end of the plank…


  2. Plongée Crouesty Says:

    Yes it’s really good writing!!


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: