Archive for October, 2011


October 29, 2011


Why Relativity Is Not That Relative: A Theory Of Velocity?


Main Idea: Theoretical triage on Special Relativity leaves the theory in shambles at high energies. A precise mechanism to blow up the theory is produced which may cause Faster Than Light (FTL).


Abstract: I don’t know whether neutrinos go faster than light or not. The OPERA neutrino anomaly rests on some guess work on the shape of long neutrino pulses, so its superluminal results may well be a mirage. (The experience will soon be run with very short pulses.)

However neutrinos may go Faster Than Light. Why not? Because the idea has caused obvious distress among many of the great priests of physics?

In science one should never suppose more than necessary, nor should one suppose less than necessary. Faith is necessary in physics, but it should reflect the facts, and nothing but the facts. Such is the difference between physics and superstitious religion.

There are reasons to doubt that the leanness of Relativity reflects appropriately the subtlety of the known universe. This is what this essay is about.

OK, I agree that the equations of what Henri Poincare’ named “Relativity”,  seem, at first sight, to lead one to doubt Faster Than Light speeds. Looking at those equations naively, and without questioning their realm of validity, it looks as if, as one approaches the speed of light, one gets infinitely heavy, short, and slow.

However, adding as an ingredient much of the rest of fundamental physics, I present below an argument that those equations ought to break down at very high energies.

As my reasoning uses basic “Relativity” (Special and General), plus basic Quantum physics, one may wonder why something so basic was not pointed out before.

The answer is that, just as in economics most people are passengers on the Titanic, in cattle class, so it is in physics.

Most people have a quasi religious approach to “Relativity”, and their critical senses have been so stunted, that they even fail to appreciate that Einstein did not invent “Relativity” (as I will perhaps show in another, gossipy essay). This is of some consequence, because Einstein had a rather shallow understanding of some of the concepts involved (as he proved aplenty in his attempts at a Unified Field Theory… Pauli called them “embarrassing“… well, may be, my dear Wolfgang, all of Relativity was embarrassing, another collective German hallucination…)

The logic of the essay below is multi-dimensional, but tight. As it throws most of relativity out, I am going to be rather stern describing it:

1) At high energies, absolute motion can be detected. This renders Galileo’s Relativity, and its refurbishment by Poincare’, suspicious.

2) Time dilation is real. There is no “Twin Paradox’ whatsoever; fast clocks are really slow. This is well known, but I review the physical reason why.

3) Length contraction is also real. Moving rods really shrink. It is not a question of fancy circular definitions (as some have had it). I show this below by an electromagnetic argument which makes the connection between relativistic transformation and Maxwell equation obvious.

4) A contradiction is derived. A particle would suffer gravitational collapse if its speed came close enough to the speed of light, as it would get confined within its Schwarzschild radius, should the equation of “Relativity” remain the same at all energies. A particle gun, at high enough energy, would become a black hole gun. That would violate all sorts of laws.

Thus “Relativity” breaks down. The simplest alternative is that some of the energy spills into acceleration (beyond c!) instead of mass acquisition.

5) Einstein’s conviction that Faster Than Light is equivalent to time travel is shown to be the result of superficial analysis. If the equations of relativity break down at high energies, they cannot be used to present us with negative time. Although I will not insist on this too heavily in this particular essay, Einstein got confused between a local notion (time) and a non local one (speed, and its parallel transport around loops).

As an humoristic aside, should high energy neutrinos go faster than light, it should be possible to measure time beyond the speed of light, using a high energy neutrino clock.  

Thus a reassessment of “Relativity” is needed, starting with the name: if all the “Relative” laws blow up at high energies, that is, at high velocity, uniform motion is not relative, but absolute. The theory of Relativity ought to become the Theory of Velocity (because, at intermediate energies, all of the laws of the present “Theory of Relativity”, including fancy rotational additions of velocities, do still apply!) Mach’s principle, already absolute for rotational motion, and already favoring a class of uniform motion, would become absolute for any motion.



Poincare’ named the theory that he, Lorentz and a dozen other physicists invented, “Relativity“. Yes, Poincare’, not Einstein: this essay is about truth, not convention to please a few thousand physicists and a few billions imprinted on the Einstein cult. (And I like Einstein… When he is not insufferable.)

That name, “Relativity”, may have been a mistake. A better name, I would suggest, would be “THEORY OF VELOCITY“, for the following reasons:

In 1904, summarizing the experimental situation then, Henri Poincare’ generalized the Galilean relativity principle to all natural phenomena into as he wrote:

The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether to an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform motion of translation, so that we have not and could not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in such a motion”.

A first problem is that the American Edwin Hubble, and others, ten years after the precocious death of Poincare’, discovered cosmic expansion, which defines absolute rest. OK, Galileo would have said:

“Patrice, just don’t look outside, I told you to stay in your cabin, in the bowels of the ship.” Fair enough, but rather curious that inquiring minds ought to be blind.

However, fifty years after the death of Poincare’, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was discovered.  That changed the game completely. You can stay in the bowels of the ship all you want, Galileo, when you move fast enough relative to the CMB, the wall of your cabin towards your uniform motion, v, will turn incandescent, and then into a plasma, as the CMB will turn into gamma rays, thanks to the Doppler shift. Even burying Galileo’s head in the sand will not work. Even a Galileo ostrich can’t escape a solid wall of gamma rays.

Relativity fanatics may insist that they are correct in first order, when they don’t go fast enough. OK, whatever: the equations of “Relativity” do not change shape with v, but, as I just said, the bowels of Galileo’s ship will always disintegrate, if the speed is high enough.

When equations don’t fit reality, you must them quit. That’s why it’s called science.

But let’s forget this glaring problem, as I said, I have found a much worse one. To understand it requires some background in so called “Relativity“, the theory of Gravitation (so called “General Relativity“, an even more insipid name), and Quantum physics.

We have to go through some preliminaries which show that time dilation and length contraction are real physical effects. There is nothing relative about them. So it’s not just the relativity of uniform motion which is not relative. It is the other two basic effects of relativity which are not relative either.  

People can write all the fancy “relativistic” equations they want, a la Dirac, and evoke some spacetime mumbo jumbo . Those equations rest on, and depict, the three preceding relative effects, and if these are not relative at high energies anymore, one cannot use them at very high energies either. Paul Dirac can sing song that they are pretty all he wants, like a canary in a coal mine. Physics is not a fashion show. It’s about what’s really happening. If the canary is dead, it’s time to get out of there.



One central notion of standard relativity is “Local Time“, which Poincare’ named and extracted from the work of Lorentz (sometimes calling it “diminished time“). We have:

t’ = t multiplied by square root of (1- vv/cc)

[Because of problems with the Internet carrying squares and square roots properly, I write cc for the square of c, instead of c^2, as some do, etc… After all, it’s exactly what it is. In the end, mathematics is eased, and rendered powerful by abstraction, but it is all about words.]

So when v= 0, t’ = t and when v = c, t’ = 0, or, in other words, t’ stops. Here t’ is the time in the coordinate system F’ travelling at speed v relative to the coordinate system F, with its time t. More exactly t is what one could call “local electromagnetic time“. Some physicists would get irritated at that point, and snarl that there is nothing like “local electromagnetic time”. In science precision is important: we are more clever than chimps because we make more distinctions than chimps do.

How do we find t’ knowing t? We look at a light clock in F’ from F. If we look at a light clock perpendicular to v, in F’, from F, we see that light in F’ will have to cover more distance to hit the far mirror of the light clock. That clock will run slow. If we suppose there is only one measure of time in F’, that means time in F’ will run slow. (This unicity of time is a philosophical hypothesis, but it has been partly confirmed experimentally since.) This is what Poincare’ (also) called “diminished time”, in his 1902 recommendation of Hendrick Lorentz to the Nobel Prize in physics (for what Poincare’ called the Lorentz transformations).

The math to compute t’ from t use nothing harder than Pythagoras’ theorem. The idea is to compare two IDENTICAL light clocks, both perpendicular to v, one in F, standing still, the other in F’, moving along at v, and separated by some distance that light covers in time t. We look at the situation from F. When the F’ light has gone from one mirror to the other in the moving clock, it has covered ct’. Why that? Well we don’t know (yet!) what t’ is, but we know light is supposed to always (appear to) go at the same speed, the astronomers’ practice, as Poincare’ reiterated in 1898.

Meanwhile the origin where the light emanated from in F’ has moved by vt’. By Pythagoras:

(ct’)(ct’) = (vt’)(vt’) + (ct)(ct). This is the relation between t’ and t above.



The Irish physicist Fitzgerald suggested that, to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the arm of the instrument was shortened, as needed. What is the Michelson-Morley device? Basically two light clocks at right angles, one perpendicular to v, the other along v. These two arms allow to make light interfere, after it has gone back and forth either along the direction of v, or perpendicular to it.

No difference was found. The way I look at it, it shows that electromagnetic time is indifferent to direction. The way it was looked at then was that there was no “ether drag“.

What is going on physically is very simple: F’ moves relative to F. Light released at x = x’ = t = t’ = 0 is going to have to catch up with the other mirror. (notice that this is a slight abuse of notation, as the xs and ts are in different dimensions, and F and F’ in different coordinate systems…) Suppose v is very high. Seen from F, it is obvious that photons will take a very long time to catch up with the mirror at the end of the arm. Actually, if v was equal to the speed of light, it would never catch up (if someone looked in a mirror, when going at the speed of light, she would stop seeing herself).

Well, however, the M-M device showed no such effect. Thus the only alternative was that the length of the M-M interferometer shrank, as Fitzgerald proposed in 1892 (13 years before Einstein’s duplication).

Poincare’ introduced “Poincare’ stresses” to explain the effect as a real physical effect. That was explored further in 1911 by Lorentz, and then worked out in even more detail in the 1940s, using Dirac’s quantum electrodynamics.

The reason I am giving all these details is that Einstein could not understand Poincare’s insistence on “mechanical” models. That’s OK; not everybody can be super bright.

Einstein preferred the more formal insistence that the arm along v had to shrink, because c was constant, and that was it. This was exactly Fitzgerald’s initial reasoning, and it does not explain anything: true it seems necessary that the arm will shrink, but is it really happening, and if so, how? Einstein’s platitude about the mind of god, who he was most apt to seize, are just plain embarrassing… Especially as it turns out that, in this case, the one who got the idea was Poincare’. Maybe a god to Einstein, but to me, just a man. (All the more confusing as Einstein tried to refer, and defer, to Poincare’ less than justice required.) By clinging to Fitzgerald’s original vision like a rat to a reed in the middle of the ocean, Einstein aborted the debate with a hefty dose of superstition.

As the detailed development of Quantum Field Theory showed, the mechanical models were the way to go. They reveal a lot of otherwise unpredictable, unanalyzable complexities. Just as we are going to do below.

So what is happening with the relativistic contraction?

Maxwell equations tell us how the electromagnetic field behave. In ultra modern notations, they come down to dF =0, d*F = q (d being covariant differentiation). Very pretty.

Maxwell is not all, though. The Lorentz  force equation tells us how particles move, when submitted to the electromagnetic field. It is:

Force = q(E + vB)

[E, B are vector fields, vB is the (vector) cross product of the particle velocity, the vector v, with B.]

Let’s suppose the particle moves at v. As it does, it will be reached simultaneously by the electromagnetic field from two different places. Say one of these field elements will be a retarded component, Fretarded, and the other is obtained from Pythagoras theorem, using the same sort of diagram used for a light clock. One can call that component Frelativistic. Frelativistic is proportional to the usual gamma factor of relativity, namely 1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). The total field incorporates Fretarded plus Frelativistic. The relativistic component basically crushes any particle sensitive to the Lorentz force in the direction of motion.

In particular, it will crush electronic orbitals. So atoms will get squeezed. That reasoning, by the way, explain directly, physically why the Lorentz transformations are the only ones to respect the Maxwell equations. It is better to achieve physical understanding rather than just formal understanding (by the way, professor Voigt found the formal argument for the Lorentz transformations in 1887, 18 years before Einstein).

How do formal relativists a la Einstein look at this? They look at it eerily, not to say… ethereally. Max Born, a Nobel Prize winner (for the statistical interpretation of the Quantum waves), a personal friend of Einstein expounds the formalism with coherently infuriating declarations around p 253 of his famous book “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity“.

“For if one and the same measuring rod…has a different length according to it being at rest in F, or moving relative to F, then, so these people say, there must be a cause for this change. But Einstein’s theory gives no cause; rather it states that the contraction occurs by itself, that is an accompanying circumstance to the fact of motion. In fact this objection is not justified. It is due to too limited view of the concept “change”. In itself such a concept has no meaning. It denotes nothing absolute, just as data denoting distances or times have no absolute significance. For we do not mean to say that a system which is moving uniformly in a straight line with respect to an inertial system F ‘undergoes a change’ although it actually changes its situation with respect to system F.

The standpoint of Einstein’s theory about contraction is as follows: a material rod is physically not a spatial thing, but a spacetime configuration.”

This sort of theology will remind some of Heidegger’s writings, when the pseudo philosopher looks for the “ground” and never finds it. Too much relativity will do that for you. Stay with confusion, end up with Auschwitz.

Could it be that, according to Born, a bird which flies by does not change, as it ‘actually changes its situation as a spacetime configuration’. Thus the bird at rest on its branch has not changed into a bird flying. Maybe Born should have received another Nobel for this other wonderful theory?

What Born forgets is this: 1) let’s suppose there is something as absolute rest (given, once again, by the reality of the CMB). 2) then a fast frame passing by has been colossally accelerated first before reaching that high relative speed when vv/cc approaches 1. So the fast frame has undergone an absolute change… And I explained what it is.

3) trying to play relative games between relatively relativistically moving frames does not wash, as there is privileged state of rest (or quasi rest: the Earth moves at 370 km/s relative to the CMB).

The derivation I sketched above provides with a cause for the change. It shows that, by reason of the uniform displacement, a real boost in the e-m field occurs which causes the contraction. So, basically it’s the electromagnetic geometry of uniform motion which causes the Lorentz transformations. It’s deep down not mysterious at all.

The reasons for real time dilation and real length contraction are plain, and absolute.

This is all about the geometry of electromagnetism. When Einstein wrote down in marble his formal considerations about relative this, relative that, a full generation would elapse before the discovery of the neutrino, which responds to weak interactions (OK, there is an electroweak theory, but we are not going to remake all of physics in this essay!)

By the way, I can address in passing another confusion: some will say that by standing on the surface of the Earth one undergoes an acceleration of one g (correct!), and thus why would an acceleration of one g in a straight line for a year (which is enough for high relativistic speeds) cause all these absolute changes I crow about?

The reason is simple: in one case no energy is stored, the acceleration is purely virtual, as the ground is in the way. In the other case, a tremendous amount of energy is concentrated piles up inside the moving body.



The Schwarzschild radius is given by R = 2GM/cc, where M is the mass of the body, G is the universal constant of gravitation, and c is the speed of light.

The energy of a particle is E = hf, where h is Planck’s constant, and f the frequency of its matter wave. Plug in Poincare’ mass-energy relation: E = M cc. Now E/cc is inertial mass M. Thus it causes, by the equivalence principle, the gravitational mass: hf/cc.

Thus the Schwarzschild radius of a particle of matter wave of frequency f is: R = 2Ghf/cccc.

But now comes the clincher: As the particle accelerates, at ever increasing speed v, its matter wave will shrink ever more, from (Fitzgerald) length contraction. At some point the wave will shrink within the Schwarzschild radius of the particle.

If one takes the gravitational collapse of the particle within itself at face value, the particle would exit physics, never to be seen again, but for its gravitational effect. That is obviously impossible.

So something has to give in the equation f = ma; here f is the force through which one pumps energy in the system (an electromagnetic field, or a muon jet, whatever), m is the relativistic mass, and a is the acceleration. What we saw is that m is bounded.  Thus a has to augment, and the particle will accelerate through the speed of light. QED.

Some could object that I used the photon energy relation: E = Hf, instead of M = (Rest Mass)/ sq. root (1 – vv/cc). But that would not change the gist of the argument any.

[Neutrinos are suspected of having a non zero mass, because they oscillate between various states; but the mass is so small, it’s not known yet. Similarly the question of the photon rest mass is an experimental problem!]

Another objection could be that I used the Schwarzschild radius, but it does not apply to single particles. Indeed, the initial argument (Tolman Oppenheimer Volkoff), was that the gravitational force would overwhelm the nuclear force inside an extremely dense star. The nuclear force is repulsive at short distance.

[I tried to show a picture of the nuclear force, but I had to give up as the WordPress primitive system does not allow me to.]

A rough sketch of the force between two nucleons shows a strong repulsive peak, which is, however finite. The force depends upon gluon exchanges, is very spin dependent, etc… The idea of TOV was that gravitation would overwhelm it, and neuron degeneracy, under some circumstances. The basic ideea in this essay is the same, although it is the all too real Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, not gravity, which does the crunching.]

Previously Einstein had tried to demonstrate the Schwarzschild singularity had no physical meaning. His argument was contrived, erroneous. TOV succeeded to prove Einstein wrong (Hey, it can be done!)

Besides, all these subtleties can blown away by looking at particles the strong force is not applied to, such as photons or neutrinos. They both have mass, as far as creating geometry is concerned.

In the Schwarzschild computation, a term shows up, causing a singularity at a finite distance. The term is caused purely by the spherical coordinates, and the imposition of the vacuum Einstein gravitational equation. It is indifferent to kinetic effects (an important detail, as I put the Fitzgerald squeeze on). That term is identified to a mass for purely geometrical reasons. That mass will appear through Poincare’s E = mcc, or m = hf/cc, after plugging in the de Broglie relation.  

This allows to circumvent Hawking style, trans-Planckian arguments (which, anyhow, Hawking superbly ignored in deriving Hawking radiation).

In any case f = square root [ccccc/2Gh]. Plugging in the numbers, one gets trouble when the frequency gets to ten to the power 43 or so. That’s about ten to the power 16 TeV, or 2 tons of TNT.  About one million billion times more energetic than the CERN neutrinos. But then, of course, the effect would be progressive, somehow proportional to energy. (Also see Large Dimensions below.)



Conventional physicists will make the following meta objection to the preceding. According to lore of the standard theory of Special Relativity, the preceding scheme is completely impossible. Countless physicists would say that if one had a particle going faster than light, one could go back in time. Einstein said this, and everybody has been repeating it ever since, because Einstein looked so brainy.

Or maybe because he was also German. Thus he had got to have invented the Poincare’-Lorentz relativity! (We meet here again the Keynes-Hitler problem, that, in much of the Anglo-Saxon world, blind admiration for anything German, reigns sometimes to the point of spiting reason. I am myself fanatically pro-German, but there are lines of prejudice I will not cross).

OK, granted, there is some mathematical superficiality to support Einstein’s confusion between speed of light, time, and causality. Those mathematics are reproduced in the next chapter, where the mistake is exposed.

There are three problems with using the Grandfather Paradox to shoot down my reason for FTL.

The first objection is that Einstein’s General relativity itself makes possible The “Grandfather Paradox“. So it is rather hypocritical to use it to fend off contradictions of (Special) Relativity.

That grandfather paradox increasingly haunts standard fundamental physics. The paradox arises from “Closed Timelike Curves“, which appear in (standard) Relativity (not in my version of Relativity). Hawking was reduced around 1992 to the rather ridiculous subterfuge of a “Time Protection Conjecture“.

The second objection to the objection is that, in practice, experimentally, the objection has proven irrelevant, by years of increasingly precise experiments. Basically what happens is that Quantum theory allows Faster Than Light teleportation of some sort (“states“, as the saying goes). And experiments are confirming this, leading to claims that time travel has been achieved, experimentally. There are many references, here I give one from July 2011, one of the authors, professor Lloyd from MIT is a Principal Investigator, on just this sort of problems.

Personally I have no problem with the results: they fit my vision of things, which is very friendly to Faster Than Light. But I have a problem with the standard semantics of “time travel“, which comes straight from the way Einstein looked at time.

Einstein was, in my opinion, very confused about time. He notoriously said: “time is nothing but a stubbornly persistent illusion“. In my vision of physics, time is fundamental, and it has nothing to do with space. I believe the notion of spacetime applies well to gravitation, at great distances, such as Earth orbit. I used above one of the staples of “General Relativity”, the Schwarzschild radius, but very carefully, from first principles. When people argue “time travel“, they argue from later principles, later day saints, so to speak. They confuse cornucopia and utopia.

I believe this: Time is the measure of the change of the universe. It’s not subject to travelling. But it is subject to confusion, and Einstein is the latter’s prophet.

(I also believe that the second Law of Thermodynamics applies even at the subquantal level (the subquantal level is what those who study entanglement, non locality, in Quantum physics, such as the authors I just quoted, tangle with). OK, the latter point is beyond this essay, the main theme of which does not use it at all.)



The third objection to using the grandfather paradox to contradict me is much more drastic, and revealed by my own pencil and paper (the following is just an abstract of my reasoning). The conventional reasoning due to Einstein is faulty (and faulty in several ways). 

Most specialists of relativity subscribe to statements such as “it should be possible to transmit Faster Than Light signals into the past by placing the apparatus in a fast-moving frame of reference“.

Einstein’s argument rests on equations for time such as  t’ = (t – xw/cc)/square root of (1- vv/cc).

In this v is supposed to be the speed of a moving frame, and w the speed of an alleged Faster Than Light signal. One sees that, given a w > c, there is a v close enough to, but inferior to, c, such that t’ becomes negative.

t’ is time. So what we have, given a Faster Than Light signal w, frames moving with enough of a speed v in which events seem to be running in reverse. Thus Very Serious Professors have argued that the putative existence of that FTL w reverses causality. They abbreviate this by saying that time travel a consequence of FTL. And what do I say to this howling of the Beotians? Not so fast.

Indeed, this ought to be physics, not just vulgar mathematics. One argument was overlooked by Einstein, who apparently believed blindly in Poincare’s Relativity Postulate even more than his author himself did.

We have discovered above that there is a limit energy, beyond which Relativity breaks down. Thus the Lorentz transformations break down.

Let’s look at the situation in a more refined way. What happens to the traditional transverse light clock encountered above, and in all traditional Relativity treatises? Well, in this thought experiment, admitting my reasoning above as valid, the light clock, if made energetic enough, will start to accelerate faster than light. So it would stop functioning, because light will not be able to catch up with it. This may sound strange, but it’s not. In the mood of the preceding, it just says that the light used is limited in energy, and the clock is not. To still keep time for a while, we may have to use a high energy neutrino clock (supposing that neutrinos, indeed, travel Faster Than Light; a neutrino clock is build exactly like a photon clock, with the photons replaced by neutrinos).

This is why the Lorentz transformation fail; because the clock fail, as the light cannot catch up with the mirror. Pernicious ones could claim I self contradict, as my argument used the Fitzgerald contraction. Yes, I used it, because it failed. In my logic, the contraction fails first.

Another argument is that the alledged violations of causality hard core relativists find in the apparition of negative times are much less frequent than they fear, because time dilation dilues the statistics. A relativistic point they absolutely ignore. Also, as I have argued in the past, in, Quantum physics non locality, in conjonction with Faster Than Light space expansion implies violations of local causality. Basically Quantum entanglements can happen beyond the space horizon given by the cosmic FTL expansion (which is an experimental fact).

Thus causality has to be taken with a grain of salt, and plenty of statistics (a characteristic of modern physics, at least since Boltzman).



In physics, these days, a thousand theories blossom, and nearly a thousand fail miserably. So, on the odds, it ought to be the case with the preceding theory. However the preceding rests on fundamentals, whereas much of the fashionable stuff rests on notions nobody understands, and few bothered to study (such as the interdiction of FTL, which rests just on the shallow logic of Einstein exposed above).

An interesting sort are the Large Extra Dimension theories (pertly instigated and made popular by the famous Lisa Randall, a glamorous professor from Princeton, Harvard and Solvay, author of the just published “Knocking On Heavens’ Doors”). They would help the preceding arguments, by lowering considerably the threshold of relativity’s high energy failure. Thus, if superluminal neutrinos are indeed observed, in light of the preceding, they would suggest the existence of Large Extra Dimensions.

Many of the theories which have blossomed are “not even wrong“. The obsession with superstrings was typical. Why to obsess with those, when basic Quantum theory had not been figured out? Is it because superstrings cannot be tested?

Basic Quantum theory is subject to experiments, and some have given spectacular, albeit extremely controversial results. There was curiously little interest to confront those tests. If nothing else, the OPERA experiment illustrates that the failure of Relativity at high energy can be tested (OPERA was really out to test neutrino oscillations, which are, already, a violation of Relativity in some sense, as they confer a (rest?) mass on a particle going at the speed of light!)

The preceding theory, and its absolute frame, fits like a glove with the idea with an absolute (but stochastic and statistical) space, constructed from Quantum Interaction (or “potential” as Bohm has it). That would partly cause the CMB. That theory rests on the predicted failure of standard Quantum theory at large distances, and the existence of an extremely Faster Than Light interaction. It’s getting to be a small world, theoretically speaking…


Patrice Ayme


P/S: The reasoning above is so simple that normal physicists will not rest before they can brandish a mistake. So what could that mistake be? Oh, simply that the perpetrator, yours truly, did not use full Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, obviously because s/he is ignorant. But referring to Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, by itself, would use in the proof what one wants to demonstrate with the proof. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics assumes that Relativity is correct at any speed. I don’t. I don’t, especially after looking outside.

OK, that was a meta argument. Can I build a more pointed objection? After all, Dirac got QED started on esthetic grounds, while elevating relativity to a metaprinciple. But beauty is no proof. Nor is the fact that Dirac’s point of view led to several predictions (Dirac equation for electrons, Spin, Positrons).

One could say that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) would prevent the confinement of a particle in such an increasingly small box. However, the HUP is infeodated to general De Broglie Mechanics (GDM), and there is no argument I see why GDM could not get confined..

God Is Weak

October 24, 2011


Abstract: In India, religion allowed the reign of racist terror and racial segregation for three millennia. The Celtic religion had also a metaphysical lock on privilege, and human sacrifices helped enforce that. Christianity prevented democracy in the parts of Rome it ruled, for more than 11 centuries. 

As in India, the genetic make-up of the elite which professed Christian values came to diverge from that of the general population.

Similarly, Islam has prevented democracy for up to 13 centuries in the areas it ruled. Some Muslim dynasties have reigned for centuries. The Gaddafi dynasty has been brutally cut short, but Assad’s or Mohammed VI of Morocco (with his Shariah state!) are surviving. 

Clearly, elites can profit from the appropriate metaphysics. And that is why metaphysics can promote the worst exactions, just those the elites need to rule. However the pernicious metaphysical influence can be more subtle.

Nietzsche, the son of a pastor, evoking Christianity, spoke of a “slave religion“. Hitler declared Islam to be superior to Christianism, because it was more war like. So the Guide Adolf advertized “Gott mit Uns” as a slogan for his military and SS (never mind that the translation of “God With US”, is contracted in the Hebrew name “Emanuel“).

However, there are even worse perspectives. Not just what is subhuman, but even, inasmuch as it may stretch the imagination, subcanid. As we will show below.

As the Arab-Muslim revolutions roll in, the organized Islamist parties, long in opposition, stand ready to profit at the ballot box. There are more than a thousand parties trying to get elected in Tunisia. But only one Islamist party, Ennahda (“Renaissance”). Its chief went to vote, passing in front of the line, accompanied by bodyguards. He was booed.

Ennahda got 90 seats out of 217 in the Constitutional Assembly. Then fighting broke out in the city where the Tunisian revolution started. Why? Because many in the Arabo-Muslim area know that Islam is more a problem than a solution. But many are also imprinted on what subjugates them. 

Plutocracy has reigned through theocracy in much of Western Eurasia, for millennia. Europe improved considerably when God was put in a cage by the Franks, or, even better, when he was outright killed in the modern era. The death of superstition in Europe has a lot to do with European superiority.

Many have wondered why Europe became so dominant in the last millennium. The main reason is very simple: the cult of reason replaced the cult of superstition.

Deprived of its main justification, mighty God itself, the reason without any reason, plutocracy, its grip weakened, jumped incoherently from one strife to another.

Superstition was still around, but it was paid lip service. This became obvious when Abelard, in the early 1100s published “Sic & Non” (“Yes and No”, where the principal Christian divagations were looked at in equal and opposite ways). The fascist top crusader fanatic, Saint Bernard, tried his best to destroy Abelard. 900 years later, we can safely say that he failed, and “Saint” Bernard would now be put in jail (for hate mongering). 

In the modern era, “God Willing!”, known in the European Middle Ages as “Deo Volente!”, the celebration of submission in heart and mind, was further displaced by “People Willing!”  

“People Willing” is the very notion of democracy. Those who say that Islam ought to rule where it is influential are saying that they want superstition to forbid democracy.

Those who want to be ruled by a big guy in the sky don’t want democracy, they want submission (which happens to be exactly what “Islam” means: the braying of the ass could not be clearer).

How does theocracy undermines minds? Through superstition. Denying People are free, by submitting them to arbitrary rules, superstition. How does superstition show up? Through ridiculous incantations, and “God Willing” is the first of them all. Europe has forgotten this, but not the area Islam infuses.

Many in the West affect a pose they advocate as civilized, by saying that respect for superstitious theocracy is an indispensable component of the Middle East. They are hypocrites of the exploitative type, anxious to ingratiate themselves with the local potentates.

Killing the Ghadafis as if they were dogs, is more of the same contempt for man and advanced civilization that the Qur’an pounds in the minds. The rule of superstition is antinomic to the rule of law, another aspect of the rule of reason. As long as Islam will not be subjugated by democracy, the Islamist zone will not progress significantly, which means that, as I will show, most people are treated as if they were less than dogs, and they are supposed to do it to themselves. 



The dictator Ghadafi, instead of surrendering calmly in a timely manner, spent the last few weeks of his life reading the Qu’ran. Finally the fighters of the National Transition Council closed in. After several days of intense bombardements and house to house fighting, Ghadafi and his closest clique embarked in a convoy of 175 vehicles (said NATO officially). They rushed out of the main fortress area in Surt, Libya.

French fighter-bombers found them half an hour after they left. The convoy was engaged, many vehicles were destroyed, burned to a crisp, they dispersed, and broke down in the surrounding ditches. An American predator drone was also involved (but small drones carry much less bombs than bombers, with their air fuel explosives). The French started it, outside of Benghazi, and finished it at Sirte. The NATO argument, presented a few days later, was that the convoy was laden with huge amount of weaponry, including anti-aircraft and rocket launchers, and thus constituted a threat to civilians (a towering hypocrisy as the aim was obviously to flee in the desert, and as if the French had asked for anyone’s authorization before dispatching an air armada to the huge convoy.)

Plutocrat in chief Gaddafi traveled in a Toyota Land Cruiser with his chief of security, a relative, the driver, and Mr. Dhao, a cousin, leader of the feared “People’s Guard”… The effort to extract Gaddafi from Libya was spearheaded by white ex-military South African mercenaries. They did not expect the French aerial attack, as they thought NATO wanted to extract Gaddafi from Libya. Two South Africans were killed, others are in hospitals. Danie Odendaal, one of them, said that the NTC fighters spared the white foreign mercenaries.

According to the New York Times, “When a missile struck near the car, the airbags deployed”, said Mr. Dhao, who was hit by shrapnel in the strike. He said he tried to escape with Colonel Gaddafi and other men, walking first to a farm, then to the main road, toward some drainage pipes. “The shelling was constant,” Mr. Dhao said, adding that he was struck by shrapnel again and fell unconscious. When he woke up, he was in the hospital.”

Gaddafi loyalists fled on foot, to the woods, in firefights with NTC freedom fighters. Gaddafi, who used to criticize rats, was found in a water tunnel. He was captured, manhandled, bloodied, lynched and subsequently killed. The Libyan government claims the dictator died in crossfire, between his bodyguards and freedom fighters. But a rather meek looking local fighter was presented by an officer, to a French TV crew. The ebullient officer boasted  that the fighter, after kicking Gaddafi in the head, shot the tyrant deliberately, in the gut, on the right side. The meek guy opined, meekly.

Confronted later by Bernard Henri Levy, the commander of the unit who captured Gaddafi said that: “He treated us like rats, but he was the rat, down in his sewer pipe, and it was my fighters who found him, pulled him out of his hole, and subdued him.”

I can understand the rage. I certainly approve of it. I approve of it, because only rage allows to not suffer the intolerable, when the odds are impossible.

However there are lines not to be crossed. Those lines were crossed when Gaddafi and his son were eliminated as if they were mosquitoes. It’s not because Obama did something similar a few months before, that he should be imitated.

Civilization, not rage, needs to be defended

There is no doubt that one of Kaddafi’s sons, Mo’tassim, was assassinated. He had been captured in perfect health, and was offered water. His verbal exchanges with his captors were dismissive: he would not talk to teenagers, he said, they called him a “dog“. He was the military commander of the most powerful division of his father’s army, and directed the absurd, two month resistance of Surt (where quite a few war crimes may have been committed… by both sides, but especially Gaddafi’s side). I hated him personally. His picture, towering a bit more than a year ago with a meekly smiling Hillary Clinton, too hilarious by half, irritated me.

But, once again, killing people as if they were dogs is the best way to make sure that humankind does not rise above dogs. Ever. However bad Mo’tassim was, validating his acts by doing just like him, killing out of rage, was to become a brother in mind to him, and honor his malevolence.

Those who God knows what they want, don’t want a mind of their own. A mind is a terrible thing not to have. No mind, no strength.



I detested Gaddafi and his sons. And I view them as criminals of the very worst kind. This being said, assassinating captured criminals is intolerable. It was of paramount importance to try Kaddafi, and his clique. Clearly he would have received life in prison. But, meanwhile, in his trial:

1) Qaddafi would have had to explain his role in the plutocratic web, and, in particular, all the collaboration he and his clans profited from in the West. This is justice as exploration of past crime to dismantle further crime by the same criminal conspiracy. It is also what needs to be done with the banks.

And, of course, the assassination of bin Laden prevented to ask the right questions to the perpetrator of 9/11, and enlarge the inquiry. By this I do not mean that the CIA planed 9/11. I do not surmise this. But I mean that bin Laden was imprinted on a particular way to solve some problems, by the CIA and its subsidiaries, such as the ISI, or Saudi intelligence (which recruited bin Laden).

Not having Gadddafi around to tell us what some of his ex-colleagues used to do when they were not heading the NTC, is most convenient for the latter. An example: Mr. Jibril was the head judge who condemned the Bulgar nurses to death, and is now number two of the NTC. This, we know. and then there is all we do not know, and never will, as the main witness, the dictator himself, was dispatched beyond our reach.

2) Qaddafi also would have been able to explain how his mind and that of his clique worked. The Nuremberg tribunal helped to reveal how the Third Reich worked. This offered a paradigm on a fascist system. Kaddafi’s was another occasion to reveal such a paradigm of evil. This is justice as exploration of the Dark Side.

3)  Showing mercy and refusing to go down the road of the decay of man. This is Justice to lift civilization up, by enforcing higher values.   



When asked this that and the other thing, enraged Muslims in the streets these days tend to start with :”If God wants it” Soon they will all vote for Islamist parties, and spend their time reading the Qur’an, like Gaddafi.

If God wants it“: What a useless declamation! Indeed, God is supposed to be all powerful. So, if He wants it, it happens. Why to talk about it? Why to express an opinion? If God wants it, it does not matter what we want. If God does not want it, it does not matter what we want either.

What are those people who evoke God at every turn of their logic trying to say? That it does not matter what they want, or what they don’t want? Are they practicing a nihilism not just of value, but of desire itself? Since being a good Muslim is all about obeying God, are they saying that they have no desire, whatsoever? Thus, no desire to have any values, in particular?

Then why do they vociferate so much? Why to scream “Insha Allah” at every turn? Does not God knows that what He wants is the only thing that matters? Why to get agitated about anything at all, if, in the end, only “If God wants it” matters? Is not that a contradiction, to have an emotional human discourse, when only God’s emotion is the necessary item (“IF”)?

This usage of Insha’ Allāh comes from Islamic scripture, the Qu’ran. The Sura Al Kahf, the Cave,  (18):24: “And never say of anything, ‘I shall do such and such thing tomorrow. Except (with the saying): ‘If God wills!’ And remember your Lord when you forget…’

Muslims are ordered to never say they will do a particular thing in the future without adding “Insha’Allah” to the statement. That was very practical for the generals who had written the Qur’an, as it insured that their troops had no control of their own volition.

In practice, some people gets things done, whether God wants it, or not. Typically they are dictators. Then they can turn around, and say they did them because Allah wanted it. Indeed, as things happen only when Allah wants them: the religion says that. Thus, when Gaddafi established his bloody rule, he could say:”God wanted it!” at this point, anybody resisting Gaddafi was resisting God’s will itself. No wonder it took 42 years to bring him down.

The dictator Assad in Syria can kill 4,000 people, and then say:”Insha’ Allah!” God is a gift that keeps on giving.



The European Middle Ages long have had a bad reputation. This is strange, as, by the year 1000 CE, Western Europe was very peaceful, and had become the world’s richest region, per capita. In the following centuries, it would become ever, richer, per head. However, the region was wracked by religious wars, starting with the first crusade in 1100 CE. The first thing the first wave of crusaders did was to kill many thousands Jews in Germany.

What happened? “God Willing“.

God willing” will sound all too familiar to those Europeans who have been educated enough to study a bit of history.

The idea of God’s desire had been adapted, and adopted, from the Middle East and its hydraulic dictatorships. The Ancient Babylonian religion had a good god, and a very bad one. Ahura Mazda‘s counterpart is Angra Mainyu, the “evil spirit”, creator of evil. Soon the rulers were deified, which is most appropriate when assuming God like powers.

The identification of the ruler with God was brought back by Alexander (a mass murderer, so called the “Great”). What the systematic application of “Insha’ Allah” to all thought does is to identify God, thus the ruler, with all thinking, and all desire. It’s not:”I think, therefore I am”, but “I think, whatever God wants.”

Alexander made a superstitious pilgrimage to a sacred oasis in Egypt, deep in the Libyan desert. The fascist generals who succeeded him gave divine powers to the sovereigns, that is, themselves, and made God all powerful.

As Rome became ever more fascist, and ever more dysfunctional, God again came to the rescue, as “Sol Invictis“. Constantine saw the interest to adopt the Christian church, with its powerful pseudo military organization.

It helped that the mythical Jesus had been considerate to Caesar, and had said nothing against slavery. Jesus respected the two pillars of the Roman plutocracy. The idea of “God Willing” came to thrive over the entire empire, and the Mediterranean.

Nothing got done, as it was all about “God Willing“. Why to want anything, when God is willing for you? Serious: nothing much was done, even to highway men. Highway robbery was a growth industry of the Late Roman empire, wrecking the economy as road travel became too dangerous (think Somali pirates, for a modern analogy; or, for that matter, piracy in the Caribbean, around 1700).

Constantine’s Frankish troops begged to differ with the God imposed order. The Germans were intrinsically more democratic, because Frankish power rested on a profusion of small family farms (such family, small holder farming had long been forgotten in Rome, where giant agribusinesses produced the food, often brought from overseas).

Germans formed democracies, Rome was a plutocracy, and plutocracy was entangled with all the details of food production, and the entire society. From the Frankish point of view, the rule of God and the Roman absolutism attached to it, was an unmitigated disaster.

After 150 years of a succession of struggles, coups and civil wars, the Franks finally took power in Francia, as the Roman army. The first kings of the Franks were elected (at least by their troops, exactly like Roman imperators). As the Merovingian and later Carolingian empires ruled over most of Europe, elections were still to be had.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman empire, an hereditary, fiercely religious monarchy,  reconquered most of the Mediterranean. Clearly there the political leaders and their terrorist government were in place because of “God”. Muslim generals naturally adopted in turn this idea to defeat their main enemy, the Roman empire.

The Carolingian empire split later. The Western third (“Francia”), based in already arrogant Paris, neglected its duties, and refused to bother with presenting a candidate for the election of the eastern two-thirds. Thus was born the so called “Holly German Roman empire”, were elections were held for centuries (until the Habsburg took over).

The last real French election was that of Hughes Capet (“Hugo Magnus“), who was elected Rex Francorum, on July 3, 987 CE. His distant namesake, the semi revolutionary Louis XVI was executed on January 21, 1793 CE, under the name “Louis Capet”.

Why did the Frankish kingship become purely hereditary? What happened? God, also known as Allah.

One should never forget that the Muslims occupied part of France for generations in the period 721 CE to, say, well in the late Tenth Century (when a combined Frankish army-Roman navy military coalition ejected the Muslim army; yes, Rome existed in the tenth century, it was based in Constantinople).

In the end, Muslim families in Francia were not chased out, or converted forcefully, but discreetly absorbed; only the invading armies were defeated, nothing happened in France similar to the forceful evacuation of Muslims from Iberia by the Inquisition, five centuries later.

Around the year 1,000 CE, Muslim Spain was viewed as superior, by the Franks themselves, and was actually superior in many economic and cultural indicators. Thus some of the Muslim philosophy of governance percolated to the French system (one can surmise).

The Frankish rulers, by 1100 CE, adopted two main Muslim ideas: Jihad, which became the crusades, and the pretention that they were reigning, by “the Grace of God” (“par la grace de Dieu“).

In the end, fascism and theocracy, entangled together, caused centuries of wars in Europe, from 1100 CE, literally until the 1700s (when nationalism took over as the main cause of mayhem). The height of religious wars was in the thirteenth and sixteenth century in France, in the twelfth and seventeenth in Germany (when a third of the population died during one war). Religious mayhem peaked in Seventeenth Century England.

The French revolution decapitated the ancient plutocracy, and its associated theocracy. Just as the hydraulic dictatorships had inspired the ancient world to govern “God Willing“, the French revolution inspired the European people to trash the old theocracy. Although it was done first, and violently in England, the French example showed that it was time to trash God. That was done later more discreetly in the rest of Europe (although one can view anti-Judaism as a relapse of what happened in 1100 CE).

It finally dawned on the European citizens thatGod Willing” is the exact opposite of “People Willing“.



“God Willing” is the scourge of the primitive. That “God Willing” was an inferior metaprinciple was demonstrated, if need be, in the Iberian Caliphate.

God Willing” throned at the top of the passive, submissive, valueless philosophical complex of metaprinciples rotten at the core which caused the implosion of the advanced Muslim Iberian culture.

Indeed the Iberian caliphate imploded first, without being pressed by the Catholic sovereigns; later North African savages were successful in re-establishing two rounds of barbaric Islamist strength. But those military reigns were paid with considerable philosophical regression. That regression, in turn, favored the reconquista, as the Catholics became relatively superior on many cultural indicators, to the barbarized Muslims.

To the superstitious, if something does not get done, it may be surmised, that God did not want it. This is highly convenient to all those who want nothing done. If nothing gets done, it has nothing to do with people being lazy, unmotivated, corrupt, indolent, incompetent, stupid, ignorant, sexist, superstitious, violent, barbaric, living out of time, mentally blocked by the weight of eons, etc. It’s all God’s fault. The Dog stole lunch.

Nihilism a la Dostoyevsky: if God does not exist, everything is permitted.

Nihilism a la “God Willing“: whatever we want does not matter, because the universe is all about what God wants. It does not even matter if it is permitted or not. We want not, God does it for us. And if you ask too many questions and make too many observations, like drawing God, or something, we get enraged.

That brings us back to  the assassination of Kaddafi, or to violence in general in any area dominated by a “God Willing” religion. God, as represented in Jewish scripture, is most enraged most of the time. He resembles the most intersidereal jealous homicidal maniac from hell ever imagined. Obviously a most edifying example for the bloodiest dictators. But that is the god of Christ and Muhammad. God as a jealous homicidal maniac is not just about mainstream Judaism, but about its heresies too.

Assassinating Ghadafi was more than stupid. It was a post mortem validation of the dictator’s way of being. (Desmond Tutu, and many other well known celebrities expressed the same view.)

Democracy is the rule of the People, but it does not mean that rule is just, or even clever. For example, in today’s Israel the government is democratically elected, but it does not respect the spirit of the UN (which makes clear that any People has a right to a state, something both the Palestinians and the Kurds deserve).

A sure way to be unjust, and stupid is to chant superstitions all day. Evoking “God Willing” all day long, does that very well. It undermines not just logics and knowledge, or the will, but even desire itself.

God Willing, is not just a question of becoming subhuman. If you don’t know what you want, should we step in, and tell you what you want?

Even dogs know what they want. Thus, chanting “God Willing” all day long is a question of aspiring to be less than dogs. Those believers in the overwhelming desire of God have even renounced the status of canid. At least inside their own minds. Why would others expect that they would treat other people better than dogs, then? When they cannot treat themselves as well as dogs would treat themselves?

God is weak. God is a weak excuse for eschewing responsibility, and assuming the freedom that is both the strength and bane of man. God is what tyrants need the naive to believe in, so that they can rule unjustly, and unwisely.

God is the convenient excuse civilization has to forget if it wants to face our mighty fate to the best of our abilities. It is also what North Africa and the Middle East will have to learn to do without, if they want to grow up into the might of reason.


Patrice Ayme


P/S1: IDEAS HAVE A LIFE OF THEIR OWN: An argument above was that the idea of making the sovereign into God, and God into everything, all the way down to the inner sanctum of what one wants, circled around western Eurasia like a vulture. First from the fertile Crescent, and Egypt to Rome, and from there back to Arabia, and then from Islam into the Frankish area. It was accompanied by the dictatorships it emotionally fostered.  

Something similar happened in reverse after the Franco-Normands invaded England in 1066: much of the Angle, Saxon, British and Viking system of local councils was preserved, as Guillaume le Conquérant found to his advantage to establish his authority directly with the People, a good counter-weight to his presumptuous suzerain in Paris… Another idea which made the rounds was parliament, which went from Greece, to Rome to Toulouse, to London…

P/S2: A popular thesis among Anglo-Saxons of the Germanoid persuasion (a class the proto Nazi economist Keynes belongs to), is that it is the Anglo-Saxon type “Reformation” made Europe superior. It is obviously absurd, as the Catholic dominated areas (south Germany, France, Italian republics, Iberia) contributed as much, if not more, to European supremacy (besides Protestantism started in France three centuries before Luther).

Instead I hold that it is the reign of reason, against superstition, which made the difference. That has the merit to explain why Europe jetted ahead of the military societies of Asia. Military order was very good at feeding people, and so their populations exploded. But they were not good at feeding ideas, and the disorder allowing to implement them. Order itself had become a superstition.

P/S 3: France (representing Roman republican civilization, dura lex, sed lex!), and Gaddafi (representing, say, Jugurtha) have come full circle. When some say: why not Darfur (forgetting for a moment French soldier have died in combat in Darfur), they forget that both Libya and France were parts of the Roman empire. The mighty Severine dynasty, and its Augustas, came from Libya, and was ethnically Libyan (not like emperor Claudius who was born in Lyon, from a Roman family). What goes around in a small box, comes around in that same small box. The French will to terminate Gaddafi the gad fly was no accident (and it does not compare to bin Laden’s assassination, as Gaddafi’s force were still engage in combat).

Several decades ago, when Gaddafi invaded Chad, supported by supersonic fighter bombers from the Soviet empire, a French counter-attack nearly got him killed (as the dictator found himself in the midst of a fast moving French air raid conducted at dune level, on an airport inside chad).

Gaddafi was not so bad to start with, when he toppled the king. Then, he introduced genuine reforms. He grabbed back lots of money from foreign oil companies, and redistributed it to the Libyan people. A heftier dose of the French civil code was added to Libyan law.  Women’s right were advanced, and the sexist Sharia rolled back. The Shariah and the Qur’an consider women to be fractions of men, in several important ways. (When the president of the NTC announces, as he did, that the Sharia was back, it is a huge step backwards.)

However, as time went by, Gaddafi and his clique and clan enriched themselves ever more. And therein a warning: absolute wealth makes one ever closer to Pluto, the Dark Underground. It does not just corrupt absolutely, it makes people into living Satans. The richer Gaddafi and his entourage became, the worse they got. Let’s just hope that his son and heir apparent, Saif Al islam makes it to La Hague, to be tried, square and fair. But there is little doubt that many in the world plutocratic organization, his friends, are not looking forward to it…

Outrage Dictionary

October 19, 2011


I Will Add Further Material To The Following Dictionary As Relevant Concepts Come To Mind.

(All the more since the crisis is extreme, & could turn (more) murderous, as it mutates into greater virulence. Readers’ help is respectfully suggested, as usual.)


Aid to Banks: In general, I approve aid to faltering banks, so that they can keep on operating. As long as it comes with big strings attached. After all, banks are public institutions, in charge of money creation, although they are privately managed (see fractional reserve). However, when a bank holding corporation is given financial aid by the public, the public should acquire ownership and control. If the bank does not like it, it can find somebody else to steal. And if it does not, then it has no choice.

American: word used by abuse of language to qualify the USA. That usage is clearly offensive to all of Latin America and Canada, which have significantly different civilizations. Although I try to use the qualitative “USA” as much as possible, “American” is so common, and flows so smoothly, that I will use it myself, in spite of the fact that Latin America is escaping the hegemony of the USA (known as the Monroe doctrine).

The nature of American civilization has made it most friendly to plutocracy. Actually the world headquarters of plutocracy are on Wall Street. So occupy it with a liberation army!

American Civilization: A deviant branch of European civilization, rendered possible as the colonies of the Americas stayed out of reach from European law (differently from, say, Siberia). This lawlessness allowed the physical extermination of the natives in North America.

That immense availability of riches, in turn, made American colonists the richest people in the world for 350 years: they found themselves with a gigantic continent to exploit, which had been spared abuse by middle age European agricultural technique. (The American colonists started by cutting the giant forests of the Eastern USA, with their giant trees, of a size unknown in Europe for millennia; actually places such as the Alps in Europe were still trying to repait their forestry, the main source of wealth, from the Roman over-exploitation, let alone the over-exploitation culminating in the early Fourteenth Century.)

The American holocaust happened initially in the Spanish empire, until emperor Charles Quint, made aware of the massacre by the outraged Las Casas, ordered various enquiries, judgement, debates and reforms. Finally the multilingual Charles Quint, born in Bourgogne, and elected emperor as a young adult, ordered the halt of the conquista. That is why so many of the natives survived in Latin America.

This is also why Spain did not colonize North America. Charles’ son, the fascist Catholic fanatic Philippe II respected his retired father’s orders, although he went out of his way to exterminate the French colonies on the Eastern seaboard of North America (as part of his total war against France, England and the Netherlands, which finished in total French victory, after no less than 160 years of war…).

As England experienced wars, republic, and revolutions, throughout the Seventeenth Century, she was unable to keep control of her American colony, which had re-instituted slavery as early as 1620 CE, followed by deliberate extermination of the natives as if they were vermin.

After England had unwisely got rid of France in North America, she tried to clamp down on her colonists, who were all too keen to invade Indian lands. That, plus a vengeful France, led to the “American war of Independence“.

Independence allowed the colonists’ full return to savagery, while paying lip service to civilization, to better obscure their outrageous practices. Presidents Jefferson and Jackson were particularly ferocious against the natives. However Jefferson is revered to this day, and has a grand mausoleum in Washington by a lake, probably the best looking edifice in the capital.

American civilization is characterized by the massive, industrial practice of slavery, and holocausts, for several long centuries. These markers of deep civilizational devolution left a deep imprint, explaining why, say, president Obama finds normal to kill those who are presented to him as a threat to the USA, without even a semblance of enquiry, or trial. Same old, same old. (English judges, in the 17C would hang seven year old children for, say, arson; however tough justice was in Europe, European society knew that it was crucial to keep the formal domination of the law, a crucial idea from the Roman republic, a big difference between 17C England and 21C USA!)

American left: The fundamental quandary of the American left has been that American plutocracy bought it off… The American middle class was by far, an order of magnitude, richer than any other middle class after 1945.

Nevertheless, subsequent to its tremendous defeat in Vietnam, the American pie started to shrink, as more and more countries, worldwide, became ever more independent of the USA, making the post WWII American empire ever less profitable. 

A split within the Western left occurred in 1968, as youth rebelled both against the established order, and the established opposition.

In Europe the official left progressively accepted many of the ideas of 1968, as shown by the strong and lasting influence of the ecological movement. In the USA, though, the split persisted, as the unions refused to support McGovern against Nixon. It got worse after the pseudo left president Carter (see Afghanistan) made the bed for the outright pro-plutocratic regime of Ronald Reagan and his successors.

As the left was not united, and the army had become private, Reagan was free to crack down on unions. His employees Summers and Krugman helped establish a world order friendlier to chain reaction plutocracy.

Except for a few colorful, ineffectual old characters (Chomsky, Nader, etc.), the American left basically does not exist. Not anymore. It used to exist, for maybe a full century, and was often savagely repressed (May 1, celebrated worldwide, was a plot by American plutocracy to kill union leaders; repression by the McArthur led army in the 1930s was also savage).

No European leader could have stayed in power producing as much extreme right-wing legislation as Obama did. People would have revolted, and assaulted Congress and the White House, forcing power to show its true, savage, barbaric face.

American plutocracy: Its triumph in 1945, made it an ally of American democracy, for a full generation, as socialist minded presidents (Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon) ruled in times when the gigantic might of the (socialist minded) popular army of the USA weighted heavily in the minds of leaders. The un-election of Ford demonstrated, though, that the assent of the People was not really necessary. The privatization of the army did the rest (in 2011, the Pentagon employs officially about 300,000 private mercenaries, besides the regular professional army).

The Iraq and Afghan wars would have been impossible with a drafted army.

American Plutocrats: unsurprisingly, full-blown plutocracy did not appear in the USA before it became a wealthy empire, in the late 19C. After being bashed over the head by the Roosevelts, American plutocracy found a new line of expansion overseas by collaborating with fascist regimes hostile to the imperial West European democracies, mostly Britain, France and the Netherlands.

This was not just highly profitable at the time, but the government of the USA, by supporting one side, then the other, with exquisite timing, was capable of leveraging its entanglement of plutocracy with fascism. For example American plutocrats supported and encouraged the Nazis, like farmers support, fatten and encourage pigs. After 1945, Nazis were refurbished and re-used to further American plutocratic rule.

After Nixon went to China, it dawned on American plutocrats that they could repeat their performance with Hitler and his colleagues, by manipulating carefully the alliance with China. However, that remains to be seen, since China was not born yesterday.

Also, whereas American plutocracy and Wall Street were instrumental in giving birth to Nazism (above and below the surface), there again, Chinese civilization is more than 3,000 year old.

American plutocracy repressed: The first two manifestation of plutocracy in the USA were cracked down upon by the two presidents with the Roosevelt family name. The first, Teddy, having obviously inspired his spiritually very close cousin, FDR (the former indeed played father in law for the later, a significant fact those who describe them as distant cousins always omit).

So it all started with Teddy, a very aggressive man. Teddy killed bears, and charged Cubans on horseback. And he was just warming up. Later he ran as president, again, against all odds. A lesson for Obama: if you want to lead men up the righteous path, staying meek, cool, and respectful will not do it. Harsh, self-assured, domineering is more like it. (Those who throw the lamentable, self-contradictory Gandhi as a counter-example do not really know what they are talking about. Mandela, by the way, was a terrorist, and rightly so.)

Aristocracy: It means “Rule of the Best”. Even if that were true, it would still be wrong, because THE MANY IS BETTER THAN THE BEST. If nothing else, it’s more clever. (Contrarily to the self-serving legend promoted by plutocracy that just a few geniuses did it all.)

Assassin In Chief:The United States conducted an operation [mini pause] to KILL [followed by another mini pause for accentuation] Osama Ben Laden…” This is a quote, word for word, accent for accent, pause for pause, announcing the assassination of the USA’s main ally in Afghanistan for two decades. Most Americans thought it was cool to have assassinated Ben Laden.

Having little knowledge of history, those Americans do not understand that what was  assassinated, once again, was the primacy of the rule of law. Just when we thought we could not sink ethically lower than Bush!

In comparable situations, say with Jugurtha,  the Roman republic arrested the perpetrator in a special operation led in person by a top general, Sulla. Jugurtha had famously said Rome was for sale, and his betrayal caused much greater losses to the Roman republic than 9/11 did to the USA.

The deliberate non application of the rule of law to Ben Laden goes hand in hand with the non application of law to banksters. It is the same meta principle: spare Bin Laden from the law, spare banksters from the law.

The prerogative of the King of France to make his own law with his own secret committee was one of the most important reason evoked to make the French revolution of 1789. The objects of the King’s own personal justice were imprisoned in the Bastille. One of them was Sade. He had six other fellow prisoners. The method was often used to spare the imprisoned the rigors of normal justice.

The last case when a French monarch ordered a traitor to be executed for all to see, was when King Henri III ordered the “45” (his bodyguards) to kill the Duc de Guise who had fomented religious civil war in France in a plot with Philippe II of Spain for many years (Sixteenth Century). Henri III’s action was fully justified, in light of the ongoing full-scale war Guise was leading against state and society.

Balls: What Obama seems to have discovered he may need to stay president. Since that is a part of a very recent evolution towards common sense and populism, not to say popularity, I reserve my judgment. By the way, full-fledged women are also pretty aggressive (and several prominent women officials played a courageous role in fighting the plutocracy, whereas none sided with it: Sheila Bair, etc).

In general the Passion of the West explains its neurological superiority over the supine societies inspired by submissive slave religions, which have kept the East, well submitted. However all of South and East Asia has now adopted the Passion of the West (with the late increasing exception of Japan, smothered by its spiritual isolation, and vanishing demographics).

Banksters: The gangsters who manage the big banks, and make the mighty Mafia pale into insignificance. The more they lend to their friends from their class, the more powerful they get. They apparently hoped to destroy the economy, so that straightforward feudalism could be re-introduced, before the outraged People could revolt. After all, that trick was accomplished many times in history, and first of all, in Rome (although the Romans were well aware of the danger).

Banks’ president: Also known as “first black president” (although a president of the USA claimed before “black” ancestry, which, in Americana, is enough to qualify someone as “black”).

Obama banked his entire presidency into saving banks which deserved to disappear, be it only for the sake of the economy. Indeed, whether in ostensibly helping homeowners (but truly only 5 homeowners with a few pennies, and the all the big banks with trillions), or Quantitative Easing, it was all about helping banks, disguised under other semantics. By comparison, in his entire presidency, Obama gave less than ten billion for trains. 

Bear Sterns: An investment banks which failed, as a forerunner of the Lehman failure. In this case the Treasury stepped in, and set-up a sweet gift to JP Morgan Chase, led by Obama’s “friend”, Jamie Dimon. That 30 billion dollar gift came to be known as the “Jamie Deal“. So Jamie swallowed Bear, and was viewed as a genius. Other may just view corruption therein.

Bernanke, Ben: Fallow head of the fed under Bush-Obama, playing wise old man behind his beard. Recruited Krugman at Princeton (it’s a small world…). A student of the Great Depression, he provided “liquidity” (= cash) to banks until the bulls came charging home (this had not been done in the 1930s, but was done continually by Greenspan, for more than a decade, for no good reason whatsoever; at least Bernanke had a good reason). Having run out of bullets, Bernanke admitted in Fall 2011 that it was for the politicians to find a way out. He added two weeks later that he “can’t blame” protesters for taking to the streets.

Big Banks: Private organizations given the monopoly of public money creation by their accomplices and co-conspirators the politicians. Politicians get financed and facilitated by the big banks and in turn allow them to create, or be given, as much money to put common job and property out of reach of common people, in a race to create a new serfdom before the masses revolt.

The top 6 banks in the USA have assets equal to 65% of the GDP of the USA.

Black: Unbelievably, it is all what Obama wanted to achieve by becoming president, in his own words. He is well on his way to total success that way, having achieved strictly nothing else.

In Suskind’s book, “Confidence Men“, brand new Senator Obama decides to run for president. Michelle Obama confronts her own husband in public, and asked him “what is he running for”? Obama thinks carefully. It is remarkable that those two never had a pillow talk about it, and Obama never even asked himself the question. After a bit of hard thinking, Obama says just having somebody with his skin color as president will be good enough. Well, good enough to re-awaken a lot of racism. As Deng Tsiao Ping nearly said, whether the monkey is black, brown or white does not matter, as long as he does his job. But if he does not his color does not matter. On top of that, Obama was born from a white woman and raised nearly exclusively by white people without a connection to Africa, in places such as Hawai’i, Indonesia with basically nobody of African ascendency. As a genuine African, I say this with perfect relaxation.

Black William: well-known professor of economy and law at the University of Missouri has condemned the present financial system. He described how some of the USA’s largest financial institutions engaged in massive fraud. He entitled his book The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One.

Bush: American dynasty founded by one of Hitler’s most important collaborators, Prescott Bush, manager of Auschwitz slave labor for Hitler’s most important defense company. Although the first president by this name was well-behaved after leading the CIA, his son engaged in a civilizational devolution, which, philosophically speaking, went further than the Nazis did, in some very important aspects. Torture and war of aggression (called “war of choice” in the USA) , for all to see, were initially enthusiastically welcomed by the American population. Although people who voted for him expected Obama to prosecute those violations, he endorsed them, and went further (while hypocritically claiming he did not).

Another aspect of Bush’s rule was the reduction of taxes on the richest lower than those on the lower middle class. As if that were not enough, Obama went further down that path to hell, brazenly boasting that it was “stimulating”.

Central Banks: Their nature and missions differ according to countries. In the USA: the “Fed” is a private organization masquerading as a public utility. In Europe: an academy of national central banks, with an insufficient mandate.

Clinton, Bill: United States president who allowed ex Reagan advisers and Goldman Sachs to finish the job allowing banks to do whatever with money, such as fake trading among themselves to mimic profits. Clinton became immensely rich after his miserable tenure, to reward him and inform his successors that they would be immensely rewarded too.

Clearly, as Obama became president, he got enticed by the Clinton example: help the plutocracy, and join it, since you cannot beat it.

Clinton, Chelsea: Hedge Fund princess, straight out of college. When she got married, the United States Secret Service closed airspace over a large part of the USA, thus training the common People to accepting, de facto, the notion of American Princess served by the state, greatly revered by simple folks, although she was never elected to anything.

Connivance: Connivance is how the 1% reign over the 99%. Connivance was at the heart of the globalization set-up before July 1914. It permitted the ever higher rise of plutocracy. That, in turn, incited the instauration in an advanced country such as Germany of a fascist system led that country to improve its economic performance less than perceived strategic threats such as democratic France and democratizing Russia. Thus German generals conspired, then plotted an attack, and finally assaulted the world at the first pretext they could find.

The connivence network is strong because, as a super organism, it supports its members, first, independently of all other considerations. That is why big banker CEOs are Too Big To Jail

Colbert: French minister of the army and then of economy and finance who deployed a science oriented intervention of the government in the 1600s, following the ideas of Henri IV and his finance minster Sully (a reconverted top marshal of Henri IV’s army). Colbert is infinitely more modern, and superior to Keynes. Although they both speak warmly about state intervention, Keynes and Colbert are radically opposed.

Indeed, Colbert’s policy was radically opposed to that of the Roman emperors, who hated technology, and the advancement of the economy it provided with: if the economy advanced, why would not democracy advanced too? (Remember that, even under imperial form, Rome viewed itself as SPQR: Senate and People of Rome, so the return of the republic was always a threat, since, technically, it was not gone.) Instead emperors preferred to throw money at the People, exactly what Keynes advocated brazenly. OK, Roman emperors threw money at people, but Keynes wanted them to dig holes, and fill them up, to get the money, so Keynes had a sadistic side Roman emperors were deprived of (OK, I present my excuses to Sade, who was not like that; let’s just say Keynes was more cruel than Roman emperors, at least on paper).

Death Panel: According to Reuters, an American information company:”– American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.”

One cannot emphasizes enough what a regression of civilization that is. It would not have been lawful, permitted or practice during the European Middle Ages. It would have been a no-no even in Imperial Rome, let alone Republican Rome, or Greek City-States (such as Athens; by the way, Socrates was legally judged, condemned, and executed).

The Reuters article gives the context. Let’s just say even the Nazis or the Stalinists did not sink that low.

Democracy: The natural organization of human society as found in the small bands which constituted human prehistory for millions of years of evolution. Democracy maximizes the production of ideas, so it is the optimal regime for civilization.

Derivatives: Fake accounting and conceptology to cook the banksters’ books. Suck all the world’s capital into the banksters, and other plutocrats’ possession and influence trafficking. Total GDP of derivatives is about ten times world GDP.

Should be allowed only as insurance for commercial operators with some reduced and tightly regulated liquidity from outside speculators with much lower, or no, leverage.

Education: is being made extremely expensive and private in the USA. Two interests: it is profitable, and it gives the higher class, the plutocracy, exclusive access to knowledge, and the ability to select as savant servants those who have the most submissive attitude.

European Leaders: A bunch of conservatives, friends of financial terror, masquerading as open to reasonable change, but desperate to change as little as possible from the piracy they profit so much personally from. They copied the American plutocratic method of giving public money and offering the entire economy, to the exact same banksters who caused the crisis, without any counterpart in any sense. Thus they make no sense socialistically, nor in a pure capitalistic system, and, of course, this is explained by their love of plutocracy. Plutocracy is not just the fundamental enemy of democracy, it’s also the enemy of free capitalism, and the free market.

Soon to be thrown out of their jobs by resurgent socialists (except in Spain, where the latter are too corrupt). Starting with the French presidency. 

Euro: European currency. Malevolently and malignantly presented by the plutocracy, its servants and the enemies of the open society, as the cause, and scapegoat of the European Banking Crisis. In truth, not only the euro had nothing to do with the influence lending by banks, but the ECB, by going beyond its mandate, was able to attenuate the mauling of European economies by the plutocracy and its Weapons of Market Destruction.

Eurozone: 17 countries with insufficient institutions to cope with the gathering crisis. Fallow leaders, quite a bit like Obama, do not want to turn against their plutocratic sponsors, although it’s the only way out.

Exceptionalism, American: the doctrine that the USA is above normal civilization. Illustrated by Obama’s leitmotiv that only in the USA his story was possible (ignoring the glaring fact that French president Sarkozy has exactly the same story).

Unfortunately all the most significant objective makers of American exceptionalism are completely monstrous: slavery, holocaust of the native, and the worst civil war in many centuries (it killed many times more both absolutely and relatively than the French revolution and its attendant wars).

American exceptionalism is now used to justify invading other countries, torture, out of the law assassinations, and the general non respect of the law by the state, its representatives and its plutocratic allies. A very troubling devolution.

Esso/Exxon/Standard Oil Of New Jersey: A great supporter of European fascism, throughout World War Two (like IBM or Ford, etc.) To celebrate, the Italians hanged the fascist dictator Mussolini from an Esso/Standard Oil station in Milan.

Fed: Central American bank. Seven of its governors are appointed politically (i.e., with a semblance of democracy). However the remaining 12 members of the board are appointed by the private banks. In other words, the foxes sit inside the hen-house, and make policy. (It’s a bit like the CIA allying itself to Bin Laden, oops, wait…)

The individuals sitting at the Fed, among the most powerful financial individuals in the world, do not have to disclose personal conflict of interest, in a striking contrast with other central banks of the West, from Australia to Europe. In other words, the “Fed” is the most corrupt, most powerful large financial institution in the world.

There is evidence that 16 trillion dollars (more than the GDP of the USA, and even the EU) of loans were given by the “Fed” to a number of institutions and wealthy individuals, worldwide.

Right now the private bankers inside the “Fed” are voting against any stronger measures to fight the slump, which makes sense as the banks profit mightily from it, as all that has been organized is a rescue of their profits and machinations (all the more since some of the measures slowly adopted will prevent the full use of the old piratical methods, causing pain to the likes of Goldman Sachs…)

Financial Transaction Tax: One reform to implement right away, be it only because it is so simple to do so, and it can hurt only the worst speculators engaged in high frequency trading, especially methods to lead the market. The idea is to tax a small amount, say .1 of one percent. Normal investors will not see the tax. It will also establish a dynamic speed limit on transaction, thus re-establish causality. 

If Obama is real about fighting plutocracy, he can go ahead with that. Apparently he suggested it earl in his administration, in accordance with the main train of thought here. But the agents of plutocracy in his government shut it down. 

Foundations: A way for plutocrats to further their power without any interference from states. Allows the richest people in the world to also claim they are the best, and, moreover, humble and devoted servants of the People. 

Fractional Reserve system: the private monopoly of money creation allowing the rich to lend ever more money to themselves with full public backing. 

Ford Henry: Hated Jews, wrote a book who inspired Hitler. Earliest financial and mental backer of Adolf Hitler, before 1923. Later one of the pillars of the Nazi regime, which he armed all the way through. Got away with it.

Gangsters: Individuals constituting a gang for unlawful profits, personal, or that of their friends and, or family. Goldman Sachs bought at auction the Treasury Secretary job, and has held the position directly or through proxy for two decades. Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, Holder, Summers, Bush, Mr. Clinton are responsible for the organization of a criminal racket, as I advocated to do under RICO since February 2009. However they could first be prosecuted under simple fraud (See the work of professor Black). 

By the way, people such as Paul Krugman are accomplices too, because Krugman has never uttered the word FRAUD in connection with the rigged largest criminal organization ever.

GDP: Supposed to mean Gross Domestic Product, the sum of all transaction. In truth has come to mean Goldman Demonic Power. It is way too much about financial transactions, which, by themselves, detached from what financing can accomplish, mean nothing for the 99%. What we need instead is a Grand Divine Plan, to fit what our ancestors would have viewed as our divine powers.

Globalization: Fundamentally, in first order, a good idea. Everybody works, worldwide, and because people have different abilities, for different jobs, they trade, worldwide. It’s certainly better than the division, xenophobia, threats and wars, which constitute the alternative to globalization.

However globalization happened before, in somewhat similar circumstances. Moreover the globalization then was even more extensive than now, in many ways. For example identification papers were not needed for travel. And there was a lot of connivence. The kaiser was the grand son of the Queen Victoria of Britain, and his cousing was the Czar, etc. It all ended on August 1, 1914, when a half dozen military men acted on their plot, and attacked the world.

How come? Well, there was, first of all a globalization of plutocracy, just like now. When plutocracy is cornered, plutocracy calls onto Pluto and Mars, the gods of hell and war. Plutocracy, faced with the loss of its advantage, an existential threat, as far as it is concerned, prefer to launch armies, as it is never in the forefront of them, but leads them from behind. Example: in the Libyan war, Kaddafi was the last to be killed, or so, and then the war stopped. Same for Hitler, Mussolini, etc.

This is also exactly what happened to the Prussian plutocracy. By 1912, it had figured out that the march of democracy, outside (France, Russia), or inside (German socialists in the Reichstag), spelled its doom. So it doubled up, and went to war. World war, as it knew perfectly well. 

Could it happen again? Yes, if we don’t pay attention, and let the erosion of civilizational standards proceed (the path Bush II engaged on). 

Global (Democratic) Institutions: an indispensable way to keep the world out of the most outrageous clutches and machinations of plutocracy. The UN, UNESCO, WHO, IMF, World Bank, BIS, etc. are examples. They are not perfect, and they have to be improved democratically and that means transparently. Of course. But for that they have to be engaged.

Other international organizations, such as Mercosur, encourage trade instead of war, and that is good. Even NATO prevents war between Greece and Turkey (at least now). There is no doubt that more economic cooperation, including Israel would make things better in the Middle East.

Geithner Tim: Famous for never paying $40,000 he owed the IRS, on the ground that he got away with it (more than 3 years had elapsed between his fraud, and it being revealed). Now heading… the IRS.

As the well paid head of the New York Fed, he was main architect of giving trillions to his friends the banksters. Under Bush. yes, more than Paulson. Picked up by Obama to extent giving public money to his Wall Street friends, and his friends in the biggest banks, who had financed him much more than Hillary Clinton.

Now tiny Tim is furious that the conservative European leaders are slowly oozing towards asking the big European banks to take perhaps more than a 50% loss on Greek loans (the solution I have long advocated, and which was viewed as iconoclast, because it is equivalent to rejecting the rule of the wealthy). Tim knows all too well that would break the spell, and Americans would ask: if right-wing European leaders refuse to send public money to banks, why should our pseudo democratic president be allowed to keep on doing it (as he does through the housing crisis and “The Twist”)?

GE, General Electric: One of the largest American corporation. Sent millions of American jobs overseas. Declared it would transfer secret American aviation tech to China to gain influence. Pays no taxes. Its CEO, Mr. Immelt, is chief of economic advisers to Obama. As such he declared that what is good for GE is good for the USA, just as what is good for Siemens is good for Germany.

Such statements exhibit a total lack of knowledge of German Kurtzarbeit and other deals between German managers, companies and shareholders, and the rest of German society. The grandeur of Immelt, like that of most American CEOs is demonstrated by his immense physical size, thus making clear that bulk is smarter than smart. At least, for American plutocracy.

Goldman Sachs: An investment bank which has been at the forefront of the silent coup of plutocracy against democracy in the last few decades. Accurately depicted as “Government Sachs”. G-S has always several officers in the White House, telling their employees, that is, the politicians, what to say. G-S even allowed the right-wing  Greek government to lie to Eurostat to dissimulate the extent of the Greek deficit.

G-S played a very important role in the sub-prime crisis. Having set-up an elaborate plot with AIG to insure derivatives, it would nevertheless had gone bankrupt. But the government of the USA stepped in, and offered to Goldman Sachs up to 60 billion dollars, without any counterparties. That was all the more remarkable, since, as an Investment Bank, Goldman Sachs was not protected by state insurance system (as deposit banks are).

Great Depression of the 1930s: A warning sign on the way to, and a lower dimensional version of the present Greater Depression. The Greater Depression we are enjoying has ecological and globalization dimensions not encountered before. Moreover, the plutocracy is now operating in plain sight, whereas in the 1930s its support for fascism was hidden by an opposite language.

Greater Depression: All the basic factors of the depression of the 1930s are present today, but others, even more drastic ones, have appeared. Thus this is a Greater Depression, and not a “Great Recession” as well compensated half-wits have soothingly called it.

The reason why there is no panic yet is that some of the stabilizers put in the 1930s (such as banks’ rescues, and deposit insurance) are in place. Also, this time, states have not been at each others’ throats.

Greece: Undermined by a combination of overspending on not sufficiently profitable investments plus too many plutocrats paying no taxes (the Orthodox Church, the state religion, and ship magnates and other plutocrats pay no taxes, as they plead that they are friends the People cannot do without). See PIIGS.

Greenspan, Alan: was made head of the central bank after his predecessor, the esteemed Paul Volcker, refused to play the plutocratic game. Certainly delusional and probably corrupt, he did exactly what president FDR had warned again, namely borrowing more to pay old debts.

Obama tried to use Volcker mostly as a verbal smokescreen. However some reforms Volcker advocated are more or less, or rather less rather than more, been adopted, threatening some of the feeding habits of Wall Street’s greatest sharks.

GSEs: Government Sponsored Enterprises: USA plutocratic propaganda depict Europe as the land of the welfare state, and the USA as the “land of the free“. Including the “free market“. However Europe has nothing comparable to the GSEs.

The GSEs were set-up to artificially make mortgage affordable to people, thus making the banks their lords, and people into serfs. They collapsed financially in 2008, and had to be nationalized to the cost of 150 billion dollars.

Since then, most mortgages were bought by the GSEs to allow banks to flourish again. So the GSEs carry toxic investments the banks have been cleansed from. There is evidence that the GSEs will collpase again, augmenting the taxpayers’ bill.

Gross, Bill: The California based manager of world’s biggest bond fund, PIMCO, declares that it’s no surprise that the 99% are fighting back “after 30 years of being shot at.

Hessel Stéphane: French citizen born in Berlin, who escaped to France. Published in October 2010, Time for Outrage! (original: Indignez-vous!… Be outraged!). Hessel advocates to Occupy Wall Street. One has to find the time and energy to be outraged when human values are not respected says the 94 years old. He has been an immigrant to France, French Resistance fighter, concentration camp survivor, diplomat, advocate and author. A fighter caught by the Gestapo during World War II, he was sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp, escaped during transfer to Bergen-Belsen. Later he helped draft the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

IBM: Famous for having the monopoly of computing in Hitler’s Germany, and occupied Europe. The Nazis leased all its equipment to IBM, which was managed from New York by CEO and founder Watson. every extermination camp had one or several IBM machine, managed directly from New York, as I said. See the book:”IBM and the Holocaust” (by Mr. Black). An example of an American plutocratic corporation, getting away with it. It was only fair: familiar with the American holocaust, the Nazis deliberately decided to copy the ways of the USA, but inside Europe (as they explained among the few who were in the know). 

Imperialism: derived from the Roman term “imperator”, the supreme title given to a top Roman general, by acclamation, by his troops, and held until a triumph. Came to mean vast realms administered by a government. Empires can be good, or bad, depending. There is no doubt that the empire of the USA was excellent especially for the USA. It was an unmitigated disaster the way it came to be, through the connivance of American plutocrats and racist fascism of the hypernationalistic variety. 

Income Inequality: One of the main causes of the Greater Depression. Income inequality does not just abate economic activity, it deprives most social actors of a share in society. Ultimately if just one plutocrat owns everything, nobody else does anything, or everybody else is a slave.

Inequality, Taxes:  The higher the incomes of Americans, the less taxes they pay. It is not necessarily better overseas: de Bettemcourt, a wealthy French woman, owned an entire Seychelles island with a runway, without the French IRS knowing about it (among billions of property she had, unbeknowst to them). Don’t worry: far from getting in penal trouble, she was declared senile!

Iraq: Invaded because the invasion would pay for itself, by selling Iraqi oil, said the Neo-Conservatives at the time. The idea, exposed again and again on Fox News, at the time, by the elements of the U.S. regime, was a totally gross violation of the Geneva Conventions. When that fact dawned on the Bush administration, it could only decide to evacuate Iraq. 

Keynes: Pro and proto-Nazi British economist famous for inventing in 1919 the thesis that the Versailles Treaty was a casus belli. Namely that the French republic, by making independent the gigantic portion of Eastern Europe that Germany and Austria occupied, had fatally weakened Germany, and was an offense against peace.  The thesis was adopted by the Nazis, and Hitler in particular.

Keynesianism: The doctrine that the government should replace a meaningful participation in society with make belief work. Very popular with the fake opponents of plutocracy.

Philosophically and historically, Keynesianism is nothing new, it’s 2,000 year old. It was central to the undoing of imperial Rome. It is the idea that you pay the People to do nothing, to keep it occupied and peaceful. Keynes illustrates this by explaining how good it would be to pay people to dig holes in the ground, and they fill them up, and doing it again. It goes well with his Nazi like contempt for the People.

The Roman emperors used to distribute massive amounts of money and bread to the People of Rome. The result was no Roman revolution whatsoever (only military coups), and a slow plutocratic decomposition over a period of more than six (!) centuries. 

Krugman Paul: Famous editorialist at the New York Times, later made Nobel Prize in economics. Started his career with his friend Larry Summers at the White House with B movie actor Ronald Reagan, one of the plutocratic figurehead presidents. Summers deregulated the finance industry, Krugman deregulated globalization. An ambivalent figure, like most individuals of the pseudo left of the USA (Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, etc.).

Krugman ardently supports Keynes and (Neo) Keynesianism.

Lehman Brothers: 158 year old Investment bank which got over leveraged and over extended in unprofitable investments. At the end its leverage was more than 50 (meaning it had four billion of assets when it lent 200 billion). Running out of cash, the Fed lent it 50 billion each morning, which it recovered in the evening. Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary, who, as CEO of Goldman Sachs, two years before, refused to save it. It was a major mistake. The USA ought to have saved Lehman, by nationalizing it (which was done with the GSEs). There is evidence that Paulson had a personal grudge against Mr. Fuld, the head of Lehman, and may have thought the elimination of Lehman would profit Goldman Sachs.

The collapse of Lehman, a major bond market maker, made the banks unwilling to do business with each other, freezing the entire financial system, worldwide.  

Lending: The more they lend, the more powerful banks get, especially if they lend to each other. As it occurred to the biggest banks that the government would save them, they did whatever. Solution: make all and any loan and the reason(s) why it was lent, public and transparent. Violations of that to be prosecuted, and the same for bad loans. Worldwide, from loans to aircraft makers, to loan to car buyers.

Some will say that I am promoting the end of the free market. But banks are private, secretive monopolies, with the full backing of the state: they already have nothing to do with the free market, and everything to do with the connivance between state and plutocracy.

To break that connivance, only one solution: bring in the enlightenment of democracy, plutocracy’s arch enemy. So I propose to replace the connivance of the state and plutocracy, which is unconstitutional and anti-civilizational, by the connivance of the state and democracy, which is both constitutional and civilizing. 

Mafia: Pales in comparison with the present plutocracy. 

Medicare: Existing national health care system in the USA. Covers people above 65. Extended to drug coverage by president G. W. Bush, in his one and lonely positive contribution. Forgot to pay for it. My suggestion was to transform it in Medicare For All.  Everybody could have used it as health insurance in lieu of private insurance (and at equivalent spending levels). Advantage: permanent coverage, independent of government. By adjusting things carefully, Medicare For All could have paid for most uninsured. It ought to have been given full ability to negotiate with health providers and drug companies, as national health plans have in other countries. Medicare for All could have been signed into law in five minutes, by executive order.

Obama instead opted for Obamacare, which forces individuals into private contracts with for profit companies, and that is obviously unconstitutional in any democracy (when the government forces the public to serve the privates, that’s called servitude). 

Money In USA: In 94% of cases the candidate who spent more money wins elections in the USA.

Median Income In The USA: Down 7% from 2000 to 2010. Everything indicates it will get worse, as no measure whatsoever was taken to stop that. Plus: the pillars of middle class’ well being, such as middle class free education, all the way to the PhD, are collapsing (whereas they have been instituted in say India, or China, or even Brazil). 

“Militant”: Subject to assassination, upon recommendation to the president by a secret White House subcommittee. Will they come for Obama some day? Just asking.

Monroe doctrine: The ill disguised assertion that the American continents belong to the USA, and that the Europeans, in particular, should stay away from them. It is a natural extension of the doctrine that the land of the Americas belong to Washington and its agents. Put in practice by organizing plutocratic dictatorships all over the Americas for more than a century. Culminated with terror in Chili, Brazil and Argentina. It was de facto overthrown by the British counterattack (secretly helped by France) against the Argentinean dictatorship (Falkland war). 

Nazism: is intimately tied to the rise of American plutocracy. However, this is suppressed in the USA, and in places such as Wikipedia. One can only suspect that agents are paid to do so. The reason is simple: to realize American plutocracy created a lever called Nazism, and then used it carefully, would open a whole can of worms about the nature of American plutocracy and the absolute viciousness it is capable of. It would also lead to worry about a possible repetition of the scheme. 

Obama: Uncle Tom as president? (Since there are many non American readers let me explain. “Uncle Tom” is a derogatory term for a person who perceives themselves to be of low status, and is excessively subservient to perceived authority figures; particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people.

Obama’s motivation to run for president? After Michelle Obama incisively asked him in public why he, her young and inexperienced husband, wanted to run for the highest office in the land, Obama, after lots of ponderous thinking, lamely replied that being “black” and sitting pretty as president would be enough. Well, he is not black, and it’s not enough. If he does not want to just been viewed as the most despicable “Uncle Barack” of history, he has to do way better. That means to chose between plutocracy and history. He has only a few months to do so. 

Obamacare: Obama’s ways of ingratiating himself with the health care potentates (his friend Warren Buffet, another hypocrite, among them). Barack had forgotten to fund it, though, and so he dropped a major part of it October 14, 2011, demonstrating that Obamacare was mostly for show. Meanwhile Obamacare gave a pretext for health care premiums to go up 9% in one year, and health care from 16% to 18% of GDP.

Passion of the West: The real engine of Europe in the last 3,000 years. Already in evidence when the Greeks resisted stubbornly the Persians, and counterattacked devastatingly over the next two centuries, going all the way to India.

But it is not just the Greeks and Romans who were passionate. In a way, the Germans were even more passionate, as demonstrated during the Roman victory on the invading Teutones below the Sainte Victoire (thus its name!) next to Aix en Provence (102 BCE). To their dismay, the legionnaires found that German women had grabbed weapons and cut down some of their own men fleeing the legions, accusing them of cowardice. (In truth Consul Gaius Marius, with superior generalship, had hidden troops in ambush, and soon more than 100,000 Teutones were rotting in the sun, giving its name to the town of “Pourrieres”.)

Neurology’s engine is passion. Superior neurology leads to superior science, and then superior economics. Something China, India and Brazil have finally understood, but that Europe and especially its rogue American colony, seem to have forgotten.

Paulson Hank: Ex football player made bully in chief at Goldman Sachs. Became Secretary of the Treasury by Bush as the financial crisis loomed. Sent, with his boy Geithner and Bernanke, thousands of billion of dollars to fellow bankers and past alumni, like himself, at Goldman Sachs. Owns an island with seven villages. 

Paulson John: Hedge Fund manager. Personally earned, for several years, after tax, enough to pay for 50,000 teachers, a year, with benefits.

PIIGS: Portugal Ireland Italy Greece Spain. Countries where big banks invested in private projects which were bound to be unprofitable. But they did not mind, because they knew that their friends the politicians would come to rescue them.  

Philanthropists: Title used by plutocrats in the USA. Generally accompanied by an oath to give, free of taxes, the management of one’s immense fortune to oneself, and family, to increase further one’s importance and obsequious adulation.

Plutocrats: Plutocrats are more or less vicious. Some are like Soros, making a billion from breaking the pound, and then using his influence and money to give a PhD to Saif Al islam el Qaddafi. Some plutocrats are like Bill Gates, playing the foundation trick to the hilt. Others are even richer, like the Walton family (which controls more than 100 billion dollars), and unfriendly to organized labor. Some are outright promoting Pluto’s underground wealth, like the Koch brothers, also financing the Tea Party and those who believe that poisoning the atmosphere with CO2, CH4 and a monstrous cocktail of man-made greenhouse causing poisons, is what the doctor ordered.

And then there are outright genocidal plutocrats, like the Ceaucescus, Qaddafis, Assads, and the like. One has to understand that the Kaddafis controlled more than 150 billion dollars, managed overseas by Western banksters (who ought to be jailed as objective accomplices, and their properties seized).  

Was Hitler a plutocrat? Of course! So was Stalin (who started by attacking and stealing banks, sometimes in a very bloody way). Not only do leaders of great nations have huge power, hence wealth, at their disposal, but the often rule using the Darkest Side imaginable, the one way down there, where Pluto dwells (before Pluto there was Hades; Hades got such a terrible reputation among the very ancient Greeks, that the word “Pluto” was rolled out to replace him!) 

Plutocracy: Usually described as the rule of wealth. However, it is not just the rule of wealth, but also of Pluto himself, as the Greeks had already established.

Plutocracy is mode of mental organization of the multitude which civilization made possible. So it is a paradox that civilization created its own enemy. But so it is when one suppresses fire too much: the all too lush forest can turn into the ultimate inferno.

Plutocracy is the ultimate enemy of democracy.

Nowadays, with the god like technology of destruction we have, the return of plutocracy would probably mean the irreversible annihilation of civilization, and, soon, enough, humanity. Maybe that happened many times among the stars.

Nazism was just a warning. So was the rule of the Aztecs. The return of full blown plutocracy would do much worse than those two combined. There would be no limit, as everything has proven relative, except the limited resources of the planet. It does not require much imagination to realize what the largest, and troublesome, biomass is.  

That the two latest presidents of the USA gloat of ordering torture and extra judicial punishments, incarcerations and arbitrary executions, is another warning that Pluto is becoming ever more arrogant.

This was all encouraged by the greatest fraud ever committed, the Wall Street machinations which culminated with the financial crisis of 2008. To this day, no prosecution was engaged against any of the perpetrators, thanks to their obsequious servants, the best politicians wealth ever bought.

Plutocratic Trans National Corporations: Complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich mapped ownership among the world’s Trans National Corporations (TNCs). Previous studies had found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world’s economy, but they included only a few companies and, naively, omitted indirect ownerships.

From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, the theorists pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships interlinking them. A core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships became apparent. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies. On average they were connected to 20. Although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 TNCs appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large bluechip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team untangled the web of ownership, it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Mr. Glattfelder, one of the authors. Most of those were the usual suspects, the top financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Bankf of A, UBS, and Goldman Sachs, and quite a few French and German financial giants exposed to Greece.

The apologists of plutocracy hasten to add that this does not prove conspiracy, thus demonstrating they do not know what conspiracy means. It means “breathing together“. A fortiori so if one owns each other.

Popular Arising: The USA is one hundred percent opposed to the suppression of popular demonstrations, as long as they are not happening in the USA.

Quantitative Easing: a technique hidden by technicalities to transfer thousands of billions of dollars to the banks, and their wealthy bankers and wealthy shareholders, from the 99%, while claiming to be helping “the economy”.

The technique consists into the USA central bank buying long term bonds so that banks which have bought them make plenty of money. How did the banks get the cash? From the zero interest rate policy Krugman and the like advocates. This way money has been transferred from the little savers and little grandmothers to the wealthiest people in the world, while forcing the rest into the bond and stock markets were their money disappear, thanks to market manipulations by the wealthiest people in the world, and their operators, such as both Paulsons. Now called the: “Twist“, to avoid criticism.

Radical: from the Fourteenth Century medieval philosophy, from the Latin radicalis “of or having roots” from radix “root“. Meaning “going to the origin, essential” is from 1650s. Political sense of “reformist” (via notion of “change from the roots“) is first recorded in 1802 (by then the fractional reserve public-private monopoly was established). In other words, not only there nothing wrong about being radical, but sometimes it is the only way.

Rating Agencies: The so called “Three Sisters”, Standard & Poors, Moody, and Fitch, rate how much the institutions which borrow money can be trusted. They rate companies, states, and even cantons. States don’t pay them, although the USA engaged a criminal inquiry after being downrated (a sort of negative payment!)

However companies (such as banks) do pay them.  Thus during the subprime times, AAA ratings were given to junk. In the end, this was profitable to the entire big banks connected plutocracy, as it allowed the co-conspirators to create a super giant fraud which the plutocracy then was able to surf.

Reforming Finance: 1) A worldwide Financial Transaction Tax should be first, immediately, at the G20 in November, because it’s a no brainier.

2) To provide immediate relief, systematic and systemic default ought to be organized, as needed, throughout the financial system. Start with Greece. Address the problem of homeowners in the USA.

3) The next lines of reform would have to be derivatives, shadow banking and further lending. The first two ought to be mostly outlawed, and what’s left, made transparent. All and any lending ought to be made completely transparent, according to the philosophy that banks, are, truly, agents of the state (under private management).

Revolution, American: There was a strong anti-plutocratic component in the American Revolution, as the king, the plutocrat-in-chief, was vigorously attacked verbally and philosophically. But there was also a pro-plutocratic component, as the evil design of invading Indian lands was high on the agenda of land speculators such as Colonel Washington. The American states gave the right to vote under various conditions, such as property or religion.

Revolution, French: The Revolution started mildly, with the General States having proclaimed themselves a Constitutional Assembly. Under the impulsion of Sade, and thinkers such as Danton or Mirabeau (Comte de…) though, the Revolution took an ever stronger anti-plutocratic character. Finally all European plutocracies conspired to crush it, and a war to death between the republic and the plutocrats took shape.

There had been plutocratic republics in the European Middle Ages, but, being plutocratic, precisely, they were never perceived as threats against established plutocracies. The Holly Roman empire had no more problem being allied to the Venetian republic, than Charlemagne himself. Quite the opposite, as the republics were full of bankers leveraging through fractional reserve (to find money to pay mercenary armies!). Those republican bankers were keen to bankroll the likes of Francois Premier or Charles Quint (even when that was just to fight each other! The wars maintained plutocracy dynamically, by presenting with pretexts to crush popular energy).

But the French revolution was a completely different beast: it was a full return to the Roman republic, as every man was a citizen, and every citizen could vote. Plutocracy has dreaded such a return ever since Octavian became Augustus. In the end, the Revolution won: Europe is now covered with republics (even the so called monarchies are, de facto, republics). Even better: the whole planet is covered with French revolution style republic (with the notable exception of China’s PRC).

Meanwhile, fractional reserve has slowly eaten at democracy, and it’s time for an overall system reboot.

Rights of the Child, Convention On: the Convention On the Right of the Child is recognized by nearly all countries of the United Nations, but not by the USA, and its fellow soul, Somalia. what is the tie with plutocracy? No hand is small enough to work for a plutocrat. This also exemplifies the relationship between piracy on the high seas (practiced in Somalia) and financial piracy (practiced on Wall Street).

According to the Heritage Foundation and other similar ultra nationalistic organizations, American exceptionalism, can do no wrong, and thus stands way above the Rights of any Child.

The supine attitude of Americans about this scandal is another proof that there is no American left, and that, 60 years after McCarthyism, basic decency is still in short supply in the USA. Obama said he would review the Rights of the Child, but he has been too busy playing golf with Wall Street fat cats, a habit he acquired in 2007.   

Rubin Bob: Ex CEO of Goldman Sachs, Sec. of USA Treasury, founder of Citigroup. Told Clinton that he would be re-elected if, and only if, he pleased Wall Street. Clinton used the F word, but obeyed, making him a good boy, thus insuring his fortune and lasting influence as a marionette.

Savings & Loans: Thanks to Summers Larry, a type of banks, the Savings & Loans, which loaned to homeowners, were deregulated under Reagan. The S&Ls were soon the object of massive fraud (deregulation made fraud possible, as Summers himself recognized: no watching, no conscience!) The entire industry disappeared. By the early 1990s, under Reagan and Bush senior, about 2,000 (two thousands) were nationalized and then resold. There were about 1,000 convictions for criminal acts.

The present financial crisis involves fraud on an incomparably larger scale.  By professor Black’s estimate as the regulator he was, by his estimates there have been exactly zero convictions and zero indictments. So, when Obama riles against Wall Street, it may have to be taken with a grain of salt. In truth why would he feel the urge to bite the hand that fed him, right from the start? That would be antinomic to his credo of (self) “navigation” as the ultimate good.

Schools: After the 2008 financial crisis, 250,000 teachers were fired and not replaced in the USA, although the school age population is increasing rapidly. In 1960, attending the University of California was supposed to be open to all those qualified, and free. Now it costs $31,000, a year, for college (and it’s more expensive for graduate school). The money to have a superlative school system pales relative to the money spent helping banksters.

Slavery: Outlawed in Europe by the Franks in 660 CE, under the government of Bathilde, an ex English slave girl purchased by a rich Frankish merchant, who escaped, and was later bought, freed and married by the future king. Slavery was reintroduced in the Americas by its colonists, first in the Caribbean, and a century later, in the American English colony. In a notorious bulle, a Pope, to please the Portuguese monarchy, had declared that black Africans could be enslaved.

Summers Larry: Arrogant nephew of two American Nobels in economics. Reagan adviser for economics, greatest personal destroyer of president Roosevelt’s financial and economics architecture. Great partisan of unregulated derivative finance. Made millions given by a hedge fund. Dazzled the naïve Obama with his facile brilliance. Sexist, caused the loss of billions in Harvard endowment with fraught investment policy in… derivatives.

Parroting the great economist John Kenneth Galbraith, out of context, Summers’ motto is that ‘conscience is the knowledge that someone is watching.’ In other words, Summers has none, and wants even less, as he imposed secrecy, as Secretary of the Treasury, time and time again, say in the so called “derivatives” industry (an occasion for him to insult Sheila Bair).

Supreme Court USA: Thinks corporations are people and should be allowed to contribute secretly to fellow plutocrats. In other words, it wants people to have no conscience, even in summers’ restricted sense. The USSC takes itself for a Constitutional Court, although that function is not described in the American Constitution (while it is in, say, the French republic). Among other exploits, selected as president of the USA the one who has the fewer votes, but the higher plutocratic credentials. Now is allowing corporations, and plutocrats to give as much money as they want to influence the electoral process, in complete secrecy, in a desperate bid to establish feudalism before the otherwise unavoidable revolution.

TARP: Transferring Assets to Rich People. Astutely presented as the main give-away program for big banksters welfare, to detour attention from the much more massive help of Quantitative Easing. TARP was “reimbursed”, with massive publicity, from other gifts of the government, or other programs.

Teachers: 250,000 fired in the three years after 2008, in the USA alone.

Terrorism, Financial: Arguably worse than Muslim terrorism itself. Although, true a handful of Muslim terrorists killed thousands, financial terrorism, standing behind the mighty military-industrial complex of the West, killed millions (see Afghanistan; the wars involving Iraq, to a great extent contrived by the west, also killed millions, especially when one counts the children killed indirectly).

The Twist: As Quantitative Easing came to be perceived as outrageous no strings attached help to the banksters, presto, the Fed changed its name into “The Twist“.

“Too Big to Fail”: See below. The idea is that if big banks were allowed to fail, the economy will break. This is what happened in 1930s in the USA.however this forgets the point that individuals are insured up to $100,000 nowadays, by the FDIC. And similarly in Europe. The simplistic idea of “Too Big To Fail” also neglects the distinction between banks (the thing with deposits, ATMs, cashiers and advisors) and the bank holding corporations. One can fail the latter, while keeping the preceding intact. Actually the FDIC does this several times a week. With smaller, less political influential banks. 

Too Big To Jail: Also known as “Too Big to Fail”. The idea is that, when one has enough influence, and one has become part of the Connivance network, one is above the law. It’s important that this principle be respected at all times, so that the members of the connivance network can act boldly, decisively. For example by inventing banking losses the vulgum pecus is then asked to pay for.

Wall Street: As the Suskind’ book, “Confidence Men” reveals, Obama was Wall Street’s secret candidate. and financed him massively, allowing him, Obama, to beat Hillary Clinton through money attrition (although, full disclosure, the present author did help Obama relatively more, especially during Obama’s nadir of November 2007; however, had I known the massive support of Wall Street for Obama, I would have still supported him. However, within a year it became obvious that Obama wanted to join Wall Street, rather than exercising an independent judgment he may have been unable of, many of the issues being technical, he had to turn towards his closest advisers, creatures from the depths such as Summers, obsequious servants of Hades).

Xenophobia: would not help anybody, as plutocracy is a worldwide conspiracy, plot, network, and conniving connivence. Thus plutocrats help each other, in their brotherhood of evil. For example, Bush and his CIA cooperated with their brother in arms, Muammar Qaddafi. A less well known example is that the American plutocrats who had helped Hitler so much, kept on helping the Nazis during the entire war, and even after the war.

Confronted to a worldwide conspiring jet-set, those who the plutocracy oppresses have to stand united too, and help each other. The plutocracy knows this, and will try to evoke ever more xenophobia.


October 10, 2011



Abstract: The senior, extremely experienced, and justly famous Princeton mathematics professor, Edward Nelson, tried to prove that arithmetic was inconsistent. But he assumed something while deriving his attempted proof, which was not true.

I have more basic, and much more drastic claims:

There is a largest number. All and any logic is bounded, and local. Full real logic involves qubits, not bits. Only thus is infinity recovered, through non local methods. A situation with realistic logic exists, which closely parallel that encountered in geometry, before the invention of local differential geometry. Local logic can be integrated, using a connection.

In other words, if you can’t build them, don’t pretend inobservable castles in the air exist, and compute with them, to boot! Basic number theory and logic have to become much more subtle.



A well known theorem in primary school is that there is an infinity of numbers. Indeed, suppose there is not, and N is the largest number. Then the number (N+ 1) is even larger, Quod Erat Demonstrandum. 

Simple. That’s what all mathematicians say. But is the reasoning truly valid? Indeed, what is N?

In Cantor’s theory of cardinals, N is the set of sets which have, well, N elements. This is not exactly as circular as it sounds. As John Von Neumann pointed out, one can build up a set with no element (by decree: we just say there is such a thing; it’s an axiom, the axiom of the empty set.)  Symbolize it by 0.

Then we can consider the set whose only element is the empty set: symbolize it by {0}. So when you look inside, inside the brackets, all you see is 0, the empty set. Call that set “one”, or 1.Then look at the set having as elements only 0 and 1. One can symbolize it by {0, 1}, that is: {0, {0}}. Call it 2. And so forth.

N+1 would be the set having as elements 0 and N: {0, N}. This way we get all the numbers and the successor operation, +1. So far, this is standard fare, known to all research mathematicians.

However, suppose G* is the apparent number of particles, virtual or not, in the known universe (using the Planck Length which terminates renormalization, and bounds on energy density coming from bounds on gravitational curvature, one can estimate G*; G* is not infinite because the knowable universe is bounded, be it only because, far away enough, space recedes beyond light speed). Contemporary logic and mathematics have ignored this situation, just like Euclid ignored the fact that he did not have a non local definition of a straight line (although he needed it).

Now in the preceding construction of G*, written only as a symbol made of 0s, and the brackets {s and }s, one gets, on the right hand side of G*, well, a large number of symbols }s, namely G* of them: G* }s! That means one would have as many brackets }s than there are particles, virtual or not, in the universe. But what are the }s made of? Particles, virtual or not.

So just thinking of G* is impossible: G* would require all the particles in the universe to symbolize it.

Some will say: hey, wait a minute, you are confusing mathematics and engineering. In mathematics one generally prove that a would be mathematical object, BAD, does not exist by arriving at a contradiction. Given a set of axioms, AXIOM, supposing the existence of that object, a supplementary axiom, gets to a proposition A such that: A –> Non A.

In other words, honorable mathematical proofs consists in demonstrating that the theory made of AXIOM + BAD is “inconsistent“.

Another thing mathematicians do a lot of, as Terry Tao just did to his professor Nelson, who was his logic professor at Princeton, is to show that a proposed reasoning does not work, because something which was supposed to effect that reasoning, and was viewed as obvious, is not obvious, or is even wrong.

Tao seemed to have found that a sub theory had got to have had a greater Komolgoroff complexity than Nelson had supposed; by an enumeration argument. Nelson’ perfect answer: “You [Terry] are quite right, and my original response was wrong. Thank you for spotting my error. I withdraw my claim [That Peano Arithmetic is inconsistent].”

My main reasoning here to establish the existence of the largest number G*, is the ultimate enumeration argument. One cannot construct (G* +1) because one has run out of matter.

Some will say: ah, but to prove mathematics, one uses only the inner experience, whereas you used a mixed approach. Well mathematicians do the same. Euclid famously supposed a number of hidden hypotheses besides his axioms. For example that two circles intersected. The only way to justify that is through Analytic Geometry (17C) resting on the concept of continuum (19C)… In other words, on the construction of the real numbers, itself resting on the conventional (and as we saw, erroneous) construction of the integers.

To hammer the point some more. Princeton’s Wiles proved Fermat’s Last Theorem by using some powerful hypotheses about infinity. It is supposed to be a heroic task beyond human achievement to convert the proof into first order logic… And, in any case, it is not clear what axiomatics Wiles really used (did he use an “inaccessible cardinal”, in a vital way, or not?) However, as long as the axiomatics is not clear, one cannot assert one has a proof, but just the sketch of one.  

Notice that the main strategy in philosophy is to precisely show that a time honored reasoning does not work, because something viewed as obvious is not actually obvious, or that is actually completely wrong.

But here we have done something more radical. We have a symbol which cannot possibly exist. No axiomatics can build it. How could something one cannot even symbolize exist in mathematics?

The limitations on logical systems are also severe and go beyond simply being limited to coding with a finite number of symbols or numbers. The length of the implication chains and the length of the descriptions of the propositions, themselves or the numbers describing them are all bounded. (So all diagonalization arguments a la Cantor, including all Gödel theorems fail, etc.)

Thus any logical language is limited, there is a limit to any (local) logical universe.

We will call that the Logical Horizon, or Golo Horizon (Golo being the male dominant baboon in West African language; there is only that much that a Golo can understand, due to the nature of his neurological universe).

The situation with the Logical Horizon is analogous to the horizon in a differentiable manifold given by the exponential map. Except here it applies to logic itself. Conclusion: arithmetic, and logic are both local.

(This will have consequences to all domains of thought which use mathematics either technically, or as a source of models or inspiration; that includes philosophy.)

So what happens to the various notions of infinity found in logic? Well, they will have to be reconsidered carefully.

Another notion which can wiped out, is that information is more important than matter: Wheeler famously said at some point that he wanted to reduce physics to information. Or, as he put it, “it from bit“.

This is a bad joke if there ever was one. Wheeler knew plenty of Quantum Physics (he was Feynman’s teacher, and co-conspirator at Princeton, after all). Plenty enough to know his joke was deeply misleading. I am myself often reduced to dubious jokes of kindergarten level such as Bushama, Obabla. “It from bit” is much worse. Whereas the Bush-Obama era is a solid evidence of reducing taxes on the superrich, giving public money to banksters, warring in Afghanistan, throwing away the constitution, and civilization as obsolete, while describing the whole thing as the opposite of what it is, there is no evidence whatsover for “It From Bit“.

All the evidence there is, consists in people thinking that “digital” is superior to “analogue“. True, monkeys have digits, and they are superior, but that’s roughly where the analogy, and the fun, stops. 

It from Bit” is exactly the erroneous conclusion to draw out of Quantum Physics. “Bit” is an artificial idea. The real world does not have “bits”, anymore than it has “digits”. As we just saw, numbers are very limited.

Any “bit“, the smallest piece of information, is a convened packet of energy. In its smallest form it is the presence, or absence, of a photon, neutrino or electron. So any information stream is actually an energy stream. There is a finite number of bits. Fundamentally, because they are about particles, namely, in my vision of the Quantum, very special manifestation of the continuous Quantum reality.

Reality is all about Quantum Physics, which deals in “qubits“, not bits. Qubits entangle with each other, are non local, and provide with an infinity beyond integers. These three complexities that qubits have, simple bits are deprived of. And of course three complexities to be essential ingredients in non local logic.

Information is made of energy and energy is bounded, locally and to infinity, and so are mathematics and logic.

Dedekind famously entitled his work on numbers:”Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen“. “What are and what ought to be the numbers”. He made the famous commentary:”God created the positive integers, and the rest is the work of man.”

However, we just saw that the constraints of the real world are so strong that the numbers cannot be whatever. Maybe, as god does not exist, it could not even create the numbers. Or is it that man created the integers, but, since he was not god, could not finish the task?

Or maybe we just found a proof of the inexistence of god? Behind this joke is a serious point: the idea of god contained that of infinity. However, we just saw that infinity cannot be obtained on the cheap, by piling up numbers in one spot.



The situation as it is in logic, and as I expect it to evolve, is similar to what happened with Euclid. Euclid stricly made geometry on an infinite flat plane, something which obviously did not exist in his world. Or in any world at all. Similarly we just saw that conventional logic and arithmetic do not exist in any world at all. However, qubits are non local, entangled. That allows us to do the same with logic (demonstration some other time).

Let’s go back to the genesis of full geometry. Let’s suppose Euclid honestly tried to draw straight lines on a sphere. Suppose the Earth was an ideally smooth sphere, and one had a bit of straight line on the ground, Bit(1), and a point X off it. Euclid’s postulates said two strange things.

First that the bit of straight line, B(1) could be extended in a full straight line, L(1). That seemed obvious on the plane, but it was NOT obvious on a sphere (so Euclid spoke of easier things).

To do this properly, Greek mathematicians would have needed to first find the essence of the idea of a line. That was to minimize length. Now ancient Greeks had to find out what lines minimized length locally, on a sphere. As it turns out those lines are what are called great circles.

To figure those out several notions, several subtleties, to extend the notion of straight line to a sphere, a new style of logic had to be introduced,  establishing what is now known as differential geometry. This immense field of mighty subtleties started in the first half of the Nineteenth Century, with the work of Gauss, Bolay and Lobachevsky, but fully blossomed only a century later, with the implementation of Riemann’s program for gravitation by many mathematicians (and to which Einstein contributed enthusiastically).

The notion of tangent vector was indispensable: this is the direction V in which Euclid would have pointed, when at point x on that sphere called the Earth. The great circle tangent to V is the intersection of the sphere with the plane in (normal three dimensional) space containing  V and the vector from the center of the Earth to x.

This can all be demonstrated in various way, the most modern being that the connection on the sphere is the trace of the (“Levi-Civitta”) connection in normal three dimensional space when it is equipped with the normal basic distance known to the Egyptians (the square root of the sum of the squares of the differences of coordinates).

So poor Euclid, trying to extend his bit of line B(1) into a full line L(1), on the sphere, would have been forced to invent geodesics (but that taxed Euclid’s imagination, so he decided to ignore the obvious fact that the Earth was not flat, just like the obnoxious servants of militarized plutocracy nowadays.)

After discovering that great circles locally minimized distance, our imaginary Euclid, if he had tried to implement his fifth postulate (“Through a point y there is one and only one line, L(2), which never meets L(1)”), would have encountered miserable failure. However, the very nature of the geodesics-as-great-circles would have made clear why: great circles always intersect.

The ancient Greeks could have found out much of the preceding. Actually Euclid’s immediate predecessors had introduced the first elements of Non Euclidean geometry, with subtle considerations of various angles in possible triangles. Euclid’s obsessive development of plane geometry was made at the exclusion of the mathematics of his predecessors. It was a rigorous step forward into backwardness.

Why did Euclid do his flat Euclidean geometry, exclusively? Well, I believe, because of the conquest of the Hellenistic world by fascist plutocratic generals of Alexander the Great, who established dictatorships that would last centuries (and similar successor regimes which lasted millennia). A mood set on intellectuals which made it clear that revolutionary thinking was out. And it stayed pretty much out until the European Middle Ages, when the rise of local effective democracy reconstituted progressively the combative originality of the Greek City-States, prior to the Hellenestic degeneracy (while socialized fascism, friendly to demography, but not to revolutionary thinking, installed itself over Vietnam, China, Korea and Japan). 

Euclidean geometry was more fascist than the Non Euclidean sort. After all fascism wants rigid, flat, or, better uninformed, uncritical, unidimensional minds, just obsessed by corporate monetary profits. That is why Tom Friedman publishes best seller after best seller, and editorial after editorial in the New York, while that august publication seemed to wisely decide blocking my comments since the “Occupy Wall Street” movement has blossomed. More than 50 comments blocked already, and counting… It was the same in 2003 with the Iraq war…

Euclid’s geometry was a physical impossibility on the ground, and that should have given a hint to Euclid’s contemporaries (instead of having to wait 21 centuries, for the obvious). But they had other worries.

We have a similar situation with numbers now.  Logic is bounded, finite, and so are numbers, locally. To reach global implications, we have to connect local logics in a global whole.

We have an advantage on the Greeks, to figure more advanced mathematics (and civilization!): we have the Internet, disseminator of truth! And so far just out of reach of the fascist government, in most places. However, have no illusions: so it was with Athens until the well named Antipater took control, after striking a deal with the plutocrats.


Patrice Ayme



Science Better Accelerate With The Universe

October 6, 2011


Abstract: The Accelerating Universe is one of the greatest discovery in physics for more than 70 years. It requires new physics to explain it, some sort of anti-gravitation at a very large scale. First established with supernovas, it seems to have been confirmed independently by a galactic survey. “Dark Acceleration” would be a better way to call it than “Dark Energy” (for two reasons: it expands the dark, and we don’t know for sure that it is caused by “energy” in the conventional sense).

This astounding discovery of that the universe is taking off, is typical of how revolutionary science is created. Checking supernovae was just supposed to be routine, a sort of boring science anti-scientists condemn. It was supposed to confirm what the Big Bangists all knew so well: the universe was expanding less fast than in the past, as the Big Bang theory had proven it.

Helas, it was not so! We are faced with something not just unpredicted, but thoroughly unpredictable by conventional physics.

[Some embryonic theories predicted the accelerating expansion, as those I call Dimensional Leakage (they have no official name I know of) and TOW.] 

Revolutionary science is all about finding out the unexpected. Revolutionary science keeps on being found, so we  have faith, we the faithful, the scientists, that much more revoltuionary science has to be found. The Accelerating Universe further bolsters our faith that the present physics with its Standard Model, a noble, useful, fruitful, but naïve and feeble attempt, missed one or more dimensions in the needed logic of what is going on.

How does one find the unexpected? Well, by using the most corrosive logic, propped by the most drastic imagination, and the most careful observations.

The supernova surveys belong to the later, extreme experimental care, and so does the OPERA experiment on neutrinos, and other efforts at CERN. Lesson? All of science has to be funded, if we want to find the unexpectable. Don’t just listen to the fashionable ones. Actually fashionable physics has rigorously not scored for several decades now. It’s not “Not even wrong!“, as physicist pointed out (Their millions of “predictions” are all over the place, so, whatever happened, they said so! Besides, none can be checked!)

Interestingly, the Nobel committee emphasized the point by offering the chemistry Nobel to an Israeli, “for the discovery of quasi-crystals“.

Intelligence is the only thing which can save Israel, and its neighbors, so it is a good indication that the 62 year old nation of seven million got ten Nobel prize winners. This is all the more striking that quasiperiodic patterns are a discovery made by the Islam led civilization, which long controlled Israel and Palestine.

Surviving in this universe we created for ourselves we require us to master the unexpected. So finance the most profitable activity of the government: fundamental research.

When the regime in the USA (the monneyed Congress) cancelled the Super Conducting Super Collider, it saved less than 10% of the bonuses it paid with public money to Wall Street in the first year after the 2008 collapse of deregulated finance.

And what did the Wall Street pirates spent their money on? $40,000 Champagne bottles? Whereas the ever better telescopes use ever better technology which no other human activity requires at this point. $40,000 Champagne has no future, but the new technology used in astronomy does. It could even save our lives (two small asteroids bracketed the Earth this summer, and one of them so close it was severely deflected; the silly ones will say that it does not matter, but if the 1908 bolide had exploded over Wall Street rather than over a desolated part of the Siberian forest, there would have been no more New York).

Let alone all the medical research, say on cancer, which was not financed, because it is $40,000 Champagne which got funded instead. The Medecine Nobel Prize honored progress in immunology. One of the recipients died of pancreatic cancer before the announcement. He had been using his discovery, dentritic immune cells, to activate his own defenses against his cancer. A few days later, the artistic technology integrator of Silicon Valley, Steve Jobs, died of the same cancer, after 7 years of a long battle. Some claimed that Jobs got a liver transplant in 2009 that the average job seeker would never have got. So money is never far from it all. There is clearly need for more biomedical research, for those who prefer their lives and those of their loved ones. But who are they, those who care about life? Who are they relative to those, the immense majority, who prefer, by far, seeing 20 something traders  buy a $40,000 Champagne bottle and then cause with it another $50,000 in damage to a restaurant? (That happened in Paris.)




I was a bit surprised that the physics Nobel was given for the faster-than-expected expansion of the universe. Not that the discovery was not important. Just the opposite extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Clearly the committee decided to encourage research in the area, by making it more prestigious. Inasmuch as our leading politicians seem cowardly, unable to decide anything important, the Nobel committee has adopted the opposite strategy, bold, fully appropriate.

The Accelerating Universe is the most stunning discovery in experimental physics since, perhaps, the accidental confirmation of De Broglie’s matter waves by two American experimentalists. In the case of matter waves, theory (from De Broglie, in conceptual depths never touched before or since) preceded the discovery. Same thing with antimatter (Dirac predicted it).

But the Accelerating Universe was predicted by no prominent theory. It was an experimental find completely outside of standard theory, just as it was the case with neutrinos.

Neutrinos were also very important, because they meant that there was a new interaction at work, the weak force. Before the neutrinos and their weak force, Einstein knew of only two forces: gravitation and electromagnetism. So he said lots of things about space, and time, trying to tie both of the latter, with the preceding two. As if they could have eyes only for each other. Cute. Romantic. (An integrated 5 dimensional theory, Kaluza-Klein integrated both).

However, with the discovery of the weak force, it looked as if adding one, or more, dimensions was lurking in the distance. Einstein was unable to pursue his dream, and it would be taken again, long after his death, by adding dimensions frantically, using the mathematical theory of fiber bundles.

The basic idea of the Einstein gravitational field equation is:

[Curvature of spacetime = Energy (in) spacetime].

(The idea was spawned by Riemann, a generation before Einstein’s birth.) Both curvature and energy are locally defined, so this is an equation at every point, and it has to be integrated to give a geometry of the universe over a sizable bit.)

Just as it is, even in this grossest of approximations, there are a lot of problems with this would-be equation (the right hand side is not well defined, as Einstein himself remarked, and depends upon the left hand side, as I would perfidiously add).

A problem Einstein saw was that, as his equation was, the curvature would be unstable in time: it would either collapse the universe, or then the universe would have to expand. But Einstein came out at night he saw that the stars were not moving: Einstein believed that the universe was static. So Einstein added a little constant on the left hand side of his equation, the Cosmological Constant, k, to prevent the universe to move.

This was a singular example of lack of imagination, because proper motions were first demonstrated by Edmund Halley in 1718 for the three bright stars: Sirius, Aldebaran, and Arcturus. Halley compared his measurements of their positions to those made by Hipparchus of Rhodes (300 BCE). In 2000 years the motions built up to the point that they became apparent to naked eye observers.

One should have suspected galaxies also moved. Not just that, but Hubble, operating with the Hooker telescope at Mt Wilson, next to Los Angeles, then the largest in the world (until 1948, with its 2.5 meters, just 10 centimeters larger than the Hubble Space telescope), soon discovered that distant galaxies were going away from us wherever he looked, and the further they were, the faster they went. [Speed Galaxy = (Constant) (distance galaxy)].

Einstein coquettishly proclaimed his recourse to k, the cosmological constant, the “greatest blunder of his life“. Because otherwise, he pointed out, he would have been able to predict what Hubble found. (I rather think that the greatest blunder of his life was to abandon his family, but that’s just me.)

I am giving all these sordid details to show that scientific inventions are not always what they are cracked up to be, even from the best and brightest. It was a sort-of-a-prediction, because, in all intellectual honesty, Einstein did not know whether the cosmological constant was zero or not, one way or another.

Actually, if he had been really crafty, the way he liked to be crafty, he could have said:”It is possible, considering my cosmological constant can vary all over the place, that the universe will be found to accelerate more or less, like Hubble saw, or even shrink, on an even larger distance, here or there”. So Einstein made the biggest blunder in his life, twice, with his own cosmological constant, by his own weatherwane standards, depending how the cosmic wind was blowing through his brain.

Because an Accelerating Universe was found: type 1a Supernovas at large cosmological distance flee faster and faster from us.



Of course installing an Einstein’s Cosmological Constant in Einstein gravitational equation is purely descriptive.  Nobody has any certainty about its source. The Cosmological Constant depicts DARK ACCELERATION. I call expansion beyond the Hubble prediction, Dark Acceleration, because we don’t know what it is due to.

People use interchangeably “Dark Energy” and what I call Dark Expansion, but the concepts are different. Dark Expansion is a fact, but it is not necessarily due to “Dark Energy”.

So “Dark Energy” is an abuse of language. Actually there are at least two imaginable mechanisms where Dark Acceleration is not caused by Dark Energy.

The DARK ENERGY idea proposes that somehow energy is injected in space which allows it to expand faster. Imaginable explanations for Dark Energy could be:

VACUUM ENERGY, which has been brandished as the source of the Dark Expansion. In Quantum Field Theory, the vacuum is full of energy. Nobody knows how much. All we know is that there is some energy in the vacuum (we have some indirect theoretical-experimental proofs, and direct measurements such as the Casimir effect). Evocations of “Vacuum Energy” are generally not accompanied of suggestions for a mechanism to expand the universe with it.

What do we observe though? A faster expansion. It could be due to a weakening of gravity at large distances (interestingly, inside galaxies and galactic clusters, gathering of the mysterious Dark Matter makes gravity stronger).

A mechanism to weaken gravity has been proposed by suggesting that space has more than three dimensions, and that gravity, somehow, would be leaking in one or more of these dimensions. One could call it DIMENSIONAL LEAKAGE. Dimensional leakage has also been proposed to explain the possible supraluminal speed of the very high energy neutrinos coming out of CERN (high energy neutrinos would jump into an extra dimension which shortens their trajectory through the “bulk“).

A final explanation for accelerated expansion could be TOW (Totally Objective wave), the author’s pet theory. TOW rests on the idea that its (hypothetic) Quantum Interaction proceeds at absolute speed TAU (more than ten billion times the speed of light!) Even though, the Quantum Interaction is overwhelmed by large cosmological distances: when a graviton, coming from way too far, singularizes itself, it loses part of its energy. Thus, according to TOW, gravity should weaken at large distances (just as light does).

The fact that there is no ready explanation for the Dark Acceleration shows that the hubristic crowd sing-songing on the rooftops about the “end of physics” a while ago, did not have much imagination. (Feynman was told about TOW, and was very appreciative, by the way.) 



When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new type of crystalline structure that seemed to violate the then known of the laws of nature, his “peers” and some giants of chemistry (Pauling) mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group (“Danny, go away!“). “I was thrown out of my research group. They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying, I never took it personally. I knew I was right and they were wrong.”

Indeed, he just received the 2011 Nobel Prize in chemistry.

The lesson? “A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks” Shechtman said. I would add that the greater the thoughts, the fewer the peers.

The shy, 70-year-old Shechtman said he never doubted his findings and considered himself merely the latest in a long line of scientists who advanced their fields by challenging the conventional wisdom and were shunned by the establishment because of it. And the greater the idea, the greater the shunning.

In 1982, “Metallic Phase with Long-Range Orientational Order and No Translational Symmetry” by Dan Shechtman et al. demonstrated “Order with No Translational Symmetry”, the key here. Translational symmetry is what Pauling wanted to see, because he learned it in his kindergarten, way back when. That, or no symmetry at all, namely a glass, as Shechtman had expected to find. But Shechtman had serendipitously discovered what are now called “quasicrystals” – atoms arranged in patterns that seemed forbidden by nature…

Although they were clearly authorized in Islamic art since the Middle Ages… which should have been enough of an hint: if even the Islamists allowed them, assuredly their existence could not be denied. True, at that point Islam was very open minded, and early in that “Golden Age”, most of the thinkers were actually not Muslims, but Jews, Zoroastrians, with probably a vast complement of atheist Neoplatonists. Theocratic fascism, as among the Franks, would grow later (and simultaneously with the Franks, as fascists, on both sides, realized that the Bible was an inspirational celebration of holocausts and other injustices that kept on being rewarded in high places, and thus provided business opportunities).

Quasiperiodicity was recorded from an Al-Mn alloy which has been rapidly cooled after melting (which probably means the quasi periodicity is higher energy than full periodicity).

The art in Isfahan (a fantastic city I highly recommend, by the way, not just artistically speaking, but for the presence of immensely old wisdom breathing through the stupendous beauty displayed in mosques and other buildings) showed that quasicrystals were logically permissible. They preceded the work of the British mathematician Penrose by nine centuries, and, definitively constitute the original discovery.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the mere possibility of these, as exhibited in the mosques, did most of the conceptual work. And how could not chemical bonds glue all the atoms all together, once we had showed the quasiperiodic pattern was possible? It’s not quasicrystals which were surprising, but how people could think they could not exist. 

The discovery “fundamentally altered how chemists conceive of solid matter,” the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said. It redefined the notion of crystal in textbooks. Previously, a crystal had “a regularly ordered, repeating three-dimensional pattern,” according to the International Union of Crystallography. The new definition, adopted in 1992, states that a crystal is any solid with a “discrete diffraction diagram — that is, something that produces patterns, whatever a pattern is, just as Shechtman saw.

Quasiperiodic tiling, Masjid-e-Jameh
Quasiperiodic tiling,
Masjid-e-Jameh, Isfahan

Since Shechtman’s discovery, more quasicrystals have been found. A Swedish company found them in most durable steel, used in products such as razor blades and thin needles made specifically for eye surgery, the academy said. Quasicrystals are studied for use in new materials converting heat to electricity.

They have also been discovered in nature, in a Siberian river. As it seems obvious that they will prevent the propagation of fractures, one may expect to see plenty of quasicrystals in a future near us, except of course, if the banksters devour our civilization first, like they tried last time and the time before that, with their dangerous marionettes.

Quasi periodic structures are all over nature. They depict the subquantum world. Indeed the waves produced by dropping four or more stones into a pond always form a quasicrystal (or more exactly a quasiperiodic pattern), because there is a mathematical theorem saying this. Schechtman was aware of the  theorem, and when he saw the 10 fold quasiperiodicity, he knew.

Matter waves continually interfere, creating quasi periodic existence waves all over.



We are living in a scientific civilization, whether we like it or not, whether we are superstitious or not. The French ministry of ecology (headed by an experienced politician, a young and charging polytechnicienne who is piling up elected offices) just forbid by decree (executive order) fracking all over France (the National Assembly had already voted in that direction). The reason? Existing techniques have not demonstrated that they were ecologically sound, in the fullness of time. In other words, it was a purely scientific decision.

In the USA, fracking is practiced massively: whether the technique will lead to corruption of the aquifers is of no import, because, as Suskind’s book “Confidence Men” demonstrates, corruption is of the essence, and, now that it owns the White House, it may as well own the dark underground.

The essentiality of serious science is funded by states, as there is no monetary profit in it (learn, Tea Party!). But the science we have is not enough: we will soon be using several times this planet sustainable productivity, so we need to become much more efficient. This can be achieved only by considerable scientific progress, in all domains, from plate tectonics, to material science, to the most esoteric biology, to quantum algorithms, to whatever.

I say “to whatever” because there is no telling where the scientifically and, or, socially important breakthrough will occur.

For example nobody would have guessed that surveying supernovas would smash the hubristic certainty of those prestigious scientists who recited their new religion, the Theory Of Everything, the claim that they, the glorious ones, had figured out the entire universe (just like the proverbial god, before he got to know man). Not by coincidence, the peak of their hubris was around 1998, just when the accelerating universe started to make its presence known.

We are in scientific civilization, thus those who are anti-science are actually anti civilization. This is true even in the fossil fuel industry.

Even that fossil pursuit, trying to keep the fire going, as Homo Erectus already did, a million years ago, is scientific. Ever more primitively scientific, but still scientific, and involving many scientific issues, some potentially disastrous. Hydrocarbon burning is a massive scientific bet that the recombining with oxygen in the air of much of the hydrocarbons buried over 400 million years, will have no serious adverse consequence(s).

The evolving scientific evidence is that the consequences are many, and potentially extremely cataclysmically adverse. But as too many people in the leading countries are trained for superstitious, or sport analogy reasoning rather than scientific reasoning, especially in the USA, nothing much is done: other countries cannot afford to become uncompetitive with the USA and its 10,000 Chinese factories.  

Those who are not pro-science, being anticivilizational, are actually pro-world war, and pro-holocaust.

Should science not jump ahead, very soon, the coming holocaust is easy to compute: soon, on present trends, we will be using more than two sustainable earths, with eight billion people gnawing the shrinking resources (we are 7 billion now). Thus, if we do not augment our science considerably, we will have to cut the world population by half. 

Let’s insist on that point: we are exhausting the existing resources. For example we are well post easy-to-extract peak oil. The only reason we are not past vulgar peak oil, is that we are using increasing energetically expensive (energy is the only currency that counts by itself) and technologically expensive means.

The Romans did the same in their mines, with ever more slaves pushing ever more their primitive digging technology, to its bitter end, devastating the ecology for millennia. And they persisted, until they could not anymore. Exhausted, the mines closed for nearly 2,000 years. The Romans had no plans for that event. Nor did they have plan B.

Rome had been most technologically inventive as a republic. That’s how it vanquished everybody.

Having captured a Carthaginian ship, they, those Roman peasants, reverse engineered it, and made invincible fleets of ships. However as Rome progressively degenerated in the fascist dictatorship known as the Roman empire, innovation was the first victim, as proven by the fact that the Germans and Hellenized Persians became increasingly hard to beat on the open battlefield… because they had superior weapons (in particular, composite bows the arrows of which penetrated Roman armor).

Plutocratic, fascist imperial Rome did not want to understand that it was running out of science, considering the problems it faced. Plutocracy want the people to owe them, and the last thing it wants is to owe the people, and especially ideas! The official line in Rome was just to whine that the “world was getting old“. Rome was running out of resources, among other problems, its ore mines exhausted. When the Muslim army invaded, Rome needed to melt the metallic roofs of Rome to make weapons.

The master problem was of course that Rome was running out of moral, and thus intellectual, supremacy. When one treats one’s engineers, and engineering, badly, one runs out of engineering badly. (Something one can observe nowadays in the USA.) 

A similar shock between the demands of society and insufficient science and technology happened, roughly at the same time, to the Mayas (who confronted a dreadful drought). The Mayan ecology, construction technology, hydrology, agriculture and forestry science, although all sophisticated, and established for centuries, if not millennia, all came all too short, considering the crisis. Plutocracy got all enraged, and fought against itself, the way sharks do when they run out of food, and Mayan civilization imploded.

Science is about what really is, and why. With (more or less great) certainty. Thus science creates models and theories of great explanatory power, which can be emulated in other domains (sometimes simply as metaphors). Science transforms confusion and, or, phenomenological wealth into an harmonious explanatory whole. In other words, it can be inspirational, a leader to democracy, sociology, economy, even literature, poetry, etc.

It would be a dark future without new, really revolutionary science. Quasicrystals and the accelerating universe tell us, with certainty, that much revolutionary science is still to be discovered. Science has to pursue its dark expansion in the unknown, emulating the universe which harbors it. No choice.


Patrice Ayme


October 2, 2011


Abstract: Humans are truth machines. To know where the monsters are, truth is necessary. Survival means fighting off the monsters, armed with fully deployed truth. Not enough truth, not enough survival. Survival is written with truth.

Hopefully, survival, that is, the right war, never stops. Stop fighting, stop living. There are two types who love no drama. First the weak meekly hiding in the bushes, who do not want to be devoured, and prefer the obscurity of the undergrowth, and slavery, if need be.

Secondly, there is the exact opposite, those who want no drama, because they rule unjustly. They are just predators who can’t snarl,  their mouths full, devouring their prey. In either case, not a pretty picture, and assuredly a defeat of the mind.

One needs drama to reveal the truth. Drama is the engine at the heart of wisdom. Contrarily to what slave religions have imprinted people to believe. Contrarily to the Obama no drama credo of surrendering to the mightiest. Contrarily to all those financial plots where the poor taxpayers rescue their richest oppressors, so that they can be oppressed some more. Indignation is often the wisest course, whether facing Hitler, or his financial and industrial sponsors (or their grand children).

Micro cameras mounted on helmets, as the French have in Afghanistan, will help change distortions of logical and emotional reality all too conductive to wars on behalf of the Dark Side. (French Socialists, should they win the presidential election, will inform their allies in May that they intend to pull the French army out of Afghanistan before the end of 2012.)

It’s a violent universe: after all, death is insured for all. Keeping death at bay, for a while, means that a lot of truth is in charge, and charging. How is violent truth ascertained? Through a ferocious analysis of history. Even in the hardest core physics. To talk about debt, wars, relativity, or CO2 poisoning, without history to brandish, and rinse with an aggressive theory of truth, is to talk about nothing.  

The philosopher Popper is revered by the establishment, precisely because his notion of truth has no teeth, and barks up the wrong tree. Once truth is denied, plutocracy, a pack of self serving, self replicating lies by the class of top exploiters with the lowest values, can prosper.

In truth certainty is the definition of science, and a good way to create certainty is to falsify liars and the idiotic ideas which support them. Plutocracy being the largest source of falsehood there is, both qualitatively, and quantitatively, teaches false Versailles and false WWII, or even false decolonization, and false financial crises, to better keep on going as before, if not even better, all the way down to World War Three.

Watch Obama claiming, when begging for money double faced plutocrats in the Silicon Valley, September 2011, that[the Europeans] are going through a financial crisis that is scaring the world “. The truth? The USA has re-entered another recession, on its own (not to say the EU is not in recession too).

To stick to facts, Greece has less of a deficit than the USA. American plutocracy inspired dissemblances is what is scaring the world: how deep down the abyss of lies does plutocracy intent to dive, and how much can it stand before imploding us all, Soviet style? Well, be afraid: it will be long, and surprising, all the way down to Pluto.

The devil is in the details, because that is where the lies are, including ultimate ferocity disguised as benevolence. That is why the knights of truth and goodness have to get down there inside, and fight the good fight, against the biggest lies, and the biggest liars who feed from them.

This is not an easy essay to read, the philosophical turbo is on, especially after the attack on Popper, and the subject deserves thousands of pages. But after all, we are in exhilarating times, revolutions breaking all over, plutocracy going insane, CO2 poisoning on a rampage, seas rising, and now Faster Than Light travel, and inconsistent arithmetic (the latest). Philosophy has to embrace it all, and go beyond.




According to a recent book, when Obama became president he had the right instincts, as far as finance was concerned. As the present author long recommended, Obama wanted some banks to be nationalized in exchange of assistance, and a financial transaction tax to be introduced. But his own cabinet, made of people with a long life at the interface of Washington and Wall Street, treated Obama as an ignorant child, and did not even inform him of the decisions that they, among the most corrupt adults in the world,  had taken stealthily, to completely discard his orders.

In truth, they were the ignorant ones. And dumb too: they had not even seen that the boat on which they scurried all their lives, as well nourished rats, was sinking. The result is a second recession, after no real recovery, which is not surprising, since there has been no plan to engage finance into profitable, energy efficient job creation (as could have happened if, and only if, the biggest, most corrupt banks had been nationalized).

The latest issue of “The Economist”, in its cover story depicting a black hole as it is presumed that it would really appear in space, asserts that:


Unless politicians act more boldly, the world economy will keep heading towards a black hole

Oct 1st 2011

Obviously a very large black holes, millions of suns in mass. What are we confronted with?

First of all a failure of cognition. And it is coming from an even deeper failure, the incapacity to know how one gets to establish truth. The pseudo wise salad of smart watchdogs such as Karl Popper has something to do with it, as we will see. Propaganda of the supperrich does not just emanate from them, but also from their obsequious servants, often frantically anxious to please their masters, to get another chocolate medal.

Having erected the incapacity to gather important knowledge as worthy, is why one can see some important elected American officials running for the presidency of the USA, although they sound more ignorant about human evolution than Kanzler Adolf Hitler himself (and they want to impose their ignorance as the only truth worth having).

All over the West democracy has been hypnotized by the superrich anti-tax religion, a willful unravelling of civilization, that very unravelling which brought the end of the Roman republic and state, and its replacement by the Dark Ages, where the power of the superrich became awesome, relatively speaking. About two millennia of plutocracy in various guises, including the feudal order, ensued.

The Presiding Judge of the superior Court of San Francisco County said that her court nearly “fell off a cliff” before an emergency loan, and that she expects most of the counties in California to fall off that cliff in the coming months, anyway. All of this because Californians want to pay basically no gas tax.

The Presiding Judge, Katherine Feinstein, is the daughter of Dianne, California’s senior senator, a major support of Obama, so one cannot say that she is not politically connected. Civil adjudication could stop altogether, as it already has on one judicial circuit in Georgia. That, says Judge Feinstein, would bring about the “unravelling of society”.

The People of the “California Republic” do not realize that their rejection of fiscal austerity is condemning their society to feudalism now. Why? Because they are completely imprinted by the ideology of the superrich. They may vaguely feel that this is not right, but, just like president Obama, their own thought system is not sturdy enough to be certain about what to do.

This failure of correct certainty extends all over the West. Only the plutocrats, and their bankers, in control of Main Stream media propaganda, are certain of what needs to be done, for themselves, so that they can keep on flying in private jets from Bali to Gstaad.

A guy called Apotheker headed Hewlet Packard for 11 months. Differently from the publicity seeking commercial outfit known as Apple, HP does real research in real applied physics. It’s also a software giant, and the world’s number one computer maker. And based in the Silicon Valley, where it helped, through leases, to make Stanford University wealthy. Apotheker decided to make HP exit its profitable computer business, after starving it from research funds, creating an uproar, and the board threw him out (rightly so!). Terminating HP computers would have led to a desertion of the extremely profitable HP copier business. To keep him happy, Apotheker was given 23 million dollars.

This is what plutocracy means: a few worthless individuals, paid immense fortunes for doing everything wrong. Are they paid that much because they know where the bodies are buried? Or by exploiting CEO class solidarity? Or both?  



Hitler was a monster. So were Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, Keitel, SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, and their millions of helpers… Obviously too many millions of monsters for them to be spontaneously generated, so they actually were programmed by a monstrous ideology. The real monster was the ideology Nietzsche had already excoriated, plus added addled ingredients such as Keynes, Henry Ford, and their devotees! That monstrous ideology was dramatically confronted, on September 1, 1939, when France and Britain served Nazi Germany with an ultimatum.

Why would it be philosophical to avoid drama? The age of no drama Obama has demonstrated, if need be, that all reforms are dramatically unmade by putting one’s supporters to sleep with soothing words while conceding the fanatical opposition whatever it wants. No drama Obama has showed us that a never ending blah blah is best to hide the fact one is walking backwards in the other direction. Appeasement of monstrosity only does the monsters good.

Latest cases of this stealth American refusal of any dramatic evolution for good: Washington’s protests against the incoming European carbon tax on aircraft pollution, and the European proposed worldwide Financial Transaction Tax (which Sarkozy is pushing as head of the G20; the UK already has one, the “Stamp Tax“).

Fighting pollution and financial piracy is fine speech as far as the Obama administration is concerned, as long as it requires no effort from those who sponsor it.

In the end, drama is often no choice. At some point, drama is forced by inertia.

The dramatic, plutocratically driven imbalances of the present world economy, mean only two outcomes: revolution, or war. That civilization will quietly degenerate for six centuries, as it did in imperial Rome, is highly unlikely: Rome had no peers. Instead what we have now is a multi body problem. Variants of the European system have been adopted worldwide. In a sense, the world is just like Europe was before 1914, and, considering what happened in Europe in 1853, 1858, 1866, 1870-71, and 1914, we know what it means.

In a dramatic week at the end of July 1914, the socialists in Germany and France saw that German plutocrats had decided upon war as the best way to preserve their endangered status (an explicit plot that a document found in a German attic would confirm, 60 years later). The Franco-German socialists wished to block the incoming war with a general, common strike. However the French socialist leader, Jean Jaures, a top philosopher, was assassinated, and war hysteria took command.

To avoid the most dramatic dramas, timely drama in the pursuit of truth is the way.

The next major drama which unfolded originated in the lies of the economist Keynes and his Anglo-Saxon accomplices about the real dangers of the nature of the French imposed truce of 1919.

Keynes claimed that only on-going hegemony by German plutocrats and their friends would preserve the economy (of the people he cared about; as he was a British speculator, unsurprisingly he was all about fellow Anglo-Saxon plutocrats; Britain would follow Keynes’ line until 1938, and the USA never stopped).

France instead set the peoples of Eastern Europe free from German plutocratic subjugation. The Americans disingenuously have claimed ever since, that France caused Nazism, a theme that the Nazis were all to happy to adopt with a vengeance. The Nazis had to avenge themselves when it dawned on their idiotic selves, starting with their “Guide”, on September 3, 1939, that the Anglo-Saxons plutocrats and their German colleagues had played them. When Adolf the Guide found he had been teleguided, in other words, teleprompted, he was most enraged. But it was too late. Franco-Britannia had declared war. The holocaust had started. Within a few weeks, hundreds of thousands would be dead, and American plutocracy, at its most lethal and stealthy, would feed the war on the fascist side, enabling it to last six years, when it could have been over in months.

Real history is complicated in its details, revealing in its simplicity.

The spirit of plutocracy has been flying from victory to victory, for a full century, as far as American plutocracy and its friends are concerned. Or make that more than two centuries? WWI was turned into the great success of WWII, and then decolonization into a further success, the reverse plutocratic colonization known as “globalization“.

Even the succession of financial crises that plutocracy caused in the last few decades was turned to advantage as the American plutocracy and its friends (from Thatcher to Sarkozy) imposed to the naïve people the further punishment of giving their torturers the banksters ever more money and power.

The exact scheme which plutocracy developed with Nazism is now tried with China: plutocracy is sending enormous resources to the “People Republic of China“, both weakening the dangerously socializing historical base of plutocracy, while increasing its profits tremendously.

The resulting imbalances are unsustainable, as jobs disappear in the West.

Plutocracy would win if and only if it can steer civilization to total war, and its associated fascism, as it did in the Roman republic around 150 BCE. This time it may not work though: not only are some philosophers, such as yours truly, aware of what is going on, but the Chinese and Indian civilizations were not born yesterday. Verily, it’s American plutocracy which was born yesterday. It is now confronting, all over Eurasia, six thousand years of cultural experience, from the “scary” Europeans (dixit Obama) to the impenetrable Chinese (busy launching their own space station, while the USA is reduced to beg the Russians to give them access to space).

Plutocracy has grown with debt, as wealth is created by private banks, through debt. Don’t expect Paul Krugman to explain you this: he is not keen to lose influence and access. I am not even blaming him. I am not even blaming Obama, just what he has been told to regurgitate. OK, let’s plunge in a little piece of that jungle facts, growing all over the place, have been making.



We hear a lot of absurdities about debt, from both extremes. It would help to know some history. Debt is a very good thing to engage in, for irresistible investments which will improve the efficiency of the economy. And debt is often a necessary thing, when really necessary military spending is concerned, as the Italian republics of the Middle Ages demonstrated. However, for a government’s current account, debt should be banned. A historical  perspective helps to reveal the truth about debt, namely the serious evils it can entail.

In 1306 CE, Philippe Le Bel solved the problem of the French national debt, spectacularly: he destroyed the superrich Order of the Templar Monks the state owed much to, seized its assets, and sent its chiefs to hold congress from the center of roaring fires (Friday 13, 1307). The Templars were a militarized plutocracy extending all across the Frankish empire, from England, all the way to the “Levant”, Palestine. They did not pay taxes, pretty much like today’s world plutocracy.

OK, smarty pants will object that the king of France himself was at the head of a plutocracy. Sure. However long traditions, including the rules of Salic and Roman law, plus being at the head of an enormous state comprising church, university, police, judiciary and army, made the plutocracy the king was leading, a much more civilized and democratic force than the conspiratorial, secretive undemocratic Templars.

Philippe IV’s two closest associates were not nobles, but particularly gifted lawyers who had made particularly good studies, and had a republican conception of the state. Philippe, with his more or less vassal, the English king, he had just made war to (creating…debt to the Templars), decided to tax the entire Christian church (something the contemporary Greek republic still has to do). The pope opposed tax justice strongly, which was a mistake. Mr. Pope had forgotten who had put him where he was, and how he was, namely the Carolingian empire.

But Philippe IV had not forgotten his Frankish predecessors’ attitude, seven, six, and five centuries before. The French state, all the way back to Consul Clovis, had always viewed the Church as a tool serving an underlying republican equalitarian secularism. Charles the Hammer had even nationalized the Church, as a warm up before repulsing those peculiar Christians they called the Saracens.

So the church got taxed by France and England. (Later the church cheated again, and England and France, Henry VIII and the French republic, had to correct, all that free riding tax cheating, again.)

A contemporary quandary related to this: why should not the Greek church get taxed too? Is not Greece getting dozens of billions from the French taxpayers? Why is the French secularist republic supporting the Greek Orthodox Church? Was not that all over after the Franks conquered the Byzantine empire and its capital, Constantinople in 1204? During the French revolution, priests had to take an oath to the republic, and now rent (for free) their religious edifices from the French republic. Why is Greek superstition paid for by 16 other secular states?

In an afterthought, Philippe served the arrogant Pope in Rome, with a warrant for his arrest, the equivalent of today’s Interpol red notice (the French king being “emperor in his kingdom”, and the Papal state being a gift from Charles the Great ). The Pope died while in the tender care of French special forces. After that Popes were required to serve in Avignon, not Rome.

In 1789, the debt of the kingdom of France reached 80% of GDP (about what it is now). This came from the fact that the plutocrats, namely the nobles and the church, did not pay (enough) taxes. I guess the same causes have the same effects.

Aware of this looming disaster, the king Louis XVI, fresh from his success in creating the American republic, by sending a massive land and sea force to help the American rebels, his government had enticed, decided to modify the tax system. The king wanted to make the superrich pay, but, in the sort of hesitancy Obama loves to exhibit, he danced around reform for several years, even naming serious revolutionary economists as (to the equivalent of)Prime Minister (some teachers of Adam Smith). But, Obama like, Louis played shrinking violet when confronted to serious plutocratic opposition.

Finally, a bit like Obama named a “super commission” to do his job, Louis XVI convoked the “General Estates” to decide what should be done. The “General Estates” were a sort of giant national assembly of representatives of whoever mattered in the realm. They had not been convoked for 250 years.

The situation escaped Louis XVI’s control when the General Estates decided to transform itself in Constitutional Assembly, and rushed to come up with a constitution as if it were in a race with the USA to come up with a new political system.

The USA was in the process of writing its own constitution. To understand this fully, one has to know that kings of the Franks were elected, and the myth that so it was, persisted for centuries. One has also to know that Great Britain, the fruit of various wars, coups and revolutions, did not have a Constitution (nor does Israel). Constitutions had been written for Sparta and Athens, way back. But Rome, even republican Rome did without a constitution, a habit that it not only died from, but also passed to the Franks.

In any case, Louis XVI, after playing around with debt (he kept secret books to pay for the American independence war), found himself losing his head in a revolution.

After 1919, Germany, having destroyed vast swathes of France and Belgium, a lot of it deliberate vandalism (from the burning of the immense Middle Ages libraries full of irreplaceable books, to the dynamiting and flooding of French coal mines) was condemned to pay reparations (as Prussia had exacted from France in 1871). The German Second Reich (aka “Weimar republic”) was unwilling to pay this debt, and decided to engage in hyper inflation instead (France had paid the reparations unjustly exacted by Bismarck in 4 years in the 1870s).

In 1944, French national debt, laden by five years of total war, was 290% of GDP. France would mostly grew out of it, helped by significant inflation and planned reconstruction. Within 12 months, a devastated Germany would be partly denazified, occupied and go hungry, for years. And the third main piece of the old Imperium Francorum, England, was saddled with enormous debts to its generous American ally, and devastation of its own.

Afterwards the Europeans enjoyed the American Century, now just decried, in French, by the irate president of the European Commission, as a “paternalism“, to be crushed by “European pride“. The experienced German finance minister, another conservative, depicted the three trillion dollars American style TARP the Americans want the European to implement a “stupid idea“. Obama was reduced to professorially intone  a rewriting of history.

The truth is that, as the Europeans clinch their jaws and embrace austerity, they remember centuries of history, and more. Imperial shortcuts and financial craziness, not to say indebtedness, brought disasters, and that’s the truth.

Germany, and France too, did very well with austerity, in the last few decades, and that is also the truth, thank you. All of Europe has very high energy taxes, and even some have taxes on wealth. Britain high income bracket is taxed at 50%. The French just introduced a tax on the most polluting factories. The European carbon tax on airlines, incoming January 1, 2012, drives the Washington republic bananas (oops, sorry about the implied pleonasm; how to drive a banana banana?).



The Libyan war was necessary for the European Imperium to engage in. Gaddafi had caused too much human rights violations, all too close. Too bad that vassal Merkel squeaked from the sidelines, after betraying Paris and London at the UN, a behavior that Berlin should remember has no future, except for a very bad past.

Afghanistan is the opposite story. In this case, the Europeans, naively, have flown to the rescue of the trouble maker. It’s the USA which has officially caused trouble in Afghanistan since July 3, 1979. To help the trouble maker is no way out of trouble. And, by the way, Pakistan, as it is, is also the USA’s baby.

French soldiers in Afghanistan mount micro video cameras on their helmets, and film combat. Two came back to France, and found that nobody was interested by that lamentable war. So they left the army, left France, for good measure, and published their internet generation movie making on the web.

It is very interesting: war as videogame. Huge explosions, rockets, unending strands of bullets, all armored monsters running around with giant weapons. The humor is extraordinary, fully appropriate, and highly disturbing. The soldiers laugh, even when shaken by explosions inside a tank.

Deadly combat is best for gallows humor: “Wow! We are surrounded on all sides, we are going to die here!” [Genuine amusement, laughter!] “Shut up, I don’t want to die here!” [More laughter! One of the funniest thing ever heard, the way the laughter sounds! If even their imminent death is a cause of genuine hilarity, how do you get to soldiers like that?]” “OK, guys, shoot on anything which move, except children, I am calling the planes!” [Bombardments, napalm] “Wow! That’s hot!” [Watching napalm: laughter!] “There were children there! We are such bastards!” [Laughter, a bit more nervous, with a sense of wonder at being such bastards… Like they did not know they had that in them.]

People do some things because they believe some related things are true. Man is a theoretical animal, going from theory to theory, like a gibbon goes from branch to branch. If one of these theories proves false, man crashes. So it is, when a gibbon grabs a rotten branch.

In Afghanistan, the gibbons in chief have miscomputed: many, all too many,  of their theories are rotten branches of empty rhetoric, as wrong as wrong can be. They empowered fanatical war-like Islam in Afghanistan, and set-up an Islamist corrupt “republic” there, and now fight bad Islamists in the name of good Islam, or so they say (but their lies fool no one there).

Those gibbons in chief just owe an ever increasing debt to society for the pain and suffering they cause, for no good reason whatsoever, but the inertia of empire.



The philosopher Karl Popper defended the notion of falsification to distinguish between what was science, from what was not science. At some point, Popper even said that a theory is scientific, if and only if it is falsifiable, which is obviously silly (that would make the theory that Tuesday is on Wednesday since it is falsifiable…)

Einstein’s Special Relativity could not be falsified, or proven wrong. According to Popper does that mean that it was not science? And now that it may have been proven wrong, is it therefore, in retrospect, science?

Is science science, as soon as it is not science anymore? Is that what Popper is saying?

Some will say that I am confusing “falsifiable” and “falsified“. Well so? Popper makes me both irritable and irritated. Is not that a distinction without much of a difference? If Popper were asked to define “peace”, it seems he would do what he did for science, go to its natural opposite: he would say that a peace can be distinguished from a conflict, if is irritable… which irritates me, for sure. 

Popper was aware of some of the problems with his definition of science, so he apparently switched to “criticizability“. Later Popper discovered the logician Tarski, a deeper thinker, proponent of unadorned truth, and regretted to not have heard of him before… Thus Popper’s statements are all over the map.

All this philosophical self contradictory meandering meant to be clever, had a disastrous effect on teaching in the USA, as U.S. law says that only real “science” can be taught in the school of the USA, under that name. If science cannot be defined, it cannot be taught. Thus the obscure reign of Popper’s naïve considerations became the reign of obscurantism, and now many republican candidates to the presidency seem to have grown up with the dinosaurs.

But of course, disastrous teaching of reason has been excellent for plutocracy; as intelligence, knowledge and common sense sank, plutocracy soared. More and more insane laws were passed, such as anti tax laws in periods of rising deficits, and calling that “stimulating”. Verily, idiots are stimulated by the triumph of stupidity.



So let’s reject  Popper’s pauperization of the mind. One should call science what is known with certainty.

That means science is what we can predict what will happen, meaning that it works with better than 50% probability. Yes, that means that making fire with stones was, and is, a science, one of the oldest.

In some cases the probability that it will happen is infinitesimally close to 100%. Otherwise only the suicidal would travel by car, train, or air. Even the most superstitious, nowadays, use science all day long. So, when they deny science and the faith they have in it, it they are hypocrites at best, and completely delusional, otherwise.

Part of a scientific theory can be more or less scientific. Einstein’s critique of his own “general” theory gave me the idea, if nothing else would. Einstein thought that the right hand side of his own Einstein gravitational field equation, that right hand side being the mass-energy tensor, was suspect, and it sure is! (Be it only because it depends upon the left hand side, I would say: curvature of spacetime has energy!)

Most of what is called Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity (ESR) is science because it has been demonstrated experimentally thoroughly, and its logic is simple.

However, some parts of Einstein’s theory are more dubious. It seems to me that Einstein, carried away by a craving for over simplification, not to say divination, got philosophically confused between different notions which he should have kept distinct and separate (such as local time and global light). It is as if he wanted to produce a theory which begged for falsification.

(OK, Einstein had a more subtle reason: his will to oversimplify physics, and do it all with just one interaction, electro-magnetism, as gravitation was geometrized out; modern high energy physics has thrown that out of the window, as many interactions were revealed, starting with the weak force… that of neutrino.)

So part of Relativity is certainly true, and some part unproven poetry (flights of fancy within Einstein’s work are well known, among specialists, for example in his theory of E= mcc, where he thought he could prove more than he could chew).

A more concrete example of science being hard here, soft there: the theory of plate tectonic.  It is certain that there are plates, and they move, and how they have moved. That part of the theory is hard core science, because it is certain. However, why the plates move is much less certain, and even volcanism inside the plates (say volcanoes in Arizona), or the exact nature of the Tibetan Plateau (is it lifted or compressed? Or both?), are very hypothetical.

Just as certainty vary, science varies. After careful observations, Pumas, aka Mountain Lions, aka Cougars, a species with 40 names in English, and many more in Spanish, were classified as Felis Concolor, and viewed as the largest member of the 100 species one could call “cats” (Felis), in a distinction from Pantherinae (lions, jaguars, etc.)

However, it is thought, since 1993, that the ferocious creature should be known as Puma Concolor: it’s not a felis after all, as it seems closer to cheetahs (which should have been obvious to start with, considering that they look very similar).



So OK, science is what has proven, and it is more or less scientific according to how more or less certain it is. Simple, back to basics. Having neutrinos going faster than light would not falsify all of Special Relativity, just some imbalanced ideas Einstein pushed, by trying to tell us what his god had decided in all the details, and which Special Relativity can do without, contrarily to what he pretended.

Is nothing to be saved from Popper’s obsession with falsification? Yes, much. The best way to establish certainty is by repeated experiments, until faith is established. But there is another way, which I pretty much (re)discovered by studying top mathematicians. It was a way well known to the ancients. it is implicitly all over science and mathematics: is true what reputable sources believe.

Indeed what of pure math, unconnected from any experience which could indirectly check it? How is certainty established there? Well, most mathematics, operationally, is established by repeated conventions among respectable (wo)men. This is the paradox of mathematics: although most logical, it’s mostly about duplicating authority, in the hope authority is correct.

Some will scream. How can I dare say this? Mathematics as part convention? I have had Fields Medals (a top medal mathematicians of influence give to their pupils), who were friends, turn savagely against me, as I uttered that truth. And they became enemies in seconds.

So no wonder that there has been a lot of screaming, shortly after the neutrinos beat up light, 16,000 times, when a top senior, famous mathematician, Edward Nelson, from Princeton, came up with a purported proof that basic arithmetic is “inconsistent“.  Yes, the most basic arithmetic would make no sense.

I don’t know if that proof is correct or not, but I have a meta argument for inconsistency, coming from my neurological interpretation of mathematics.

From experiment to convention there is the plenitude of the truth of (wo)man. Truth, I believe, is essentially neurological, when not experimental. Another type of experience, sure: the inner, ultimate experience.

Thus truth depends upon a faithful representation of both outside and inner experience.

This is why and where the obsession with falsification comes in handy. To find out where the liars are and the lying lies that lay about. That is why top research mathematicians, or scientists in general, are obsessed by the reputation of people, as it conveys the truth of authority. (And the importance of medals and prizes.)



Thus the theory of truth passes by the moral discovery that many human beings are up to no good, and who, among them bear the darkness of deception.

Saint Augustine had claimed that most humans were up to no good, in the old Roman tradition, and thus inflected the pessimistic and torturous attitude of the Christian church ever since. More cogently, Sade observed that deception and the rest of the Dark Side was all too natural (a point reiterated by Nietzsche, in a more Hinduist, classical mathematical way, as the return of the same). To make matters worse, I pointed out the reason why nature is so cruel: as an organizing principle, stimulating the speed of life. It’s all too ecological.

One can proceed towards truth by cutting off what is deception, and what is false.

And an aid in doing that is to find out individuals who are deliberately deceiving (most of them, according to saint Augustine). Thus an approach to truth: expose those who deliberately lie, and the lying subjects they promote.

OK, both methods are aggressive. But aggression is not antagonistic to truth. Quite the opposite. Verily, success is often the ultimate proof. The proof of the truth is in the eating. As wolves will certify, best nourishment is to be had from the marrow of the erroneous. The proof is not just in the pudding, it’s in the kill.

Wolves know that, individually, a puma can kill them. But they also know that, as a pack, they can steal kills from a puma, and even kill the cat. That’s basic wolf science, in the Americas. Wolf science? Why not? Animal knowledge is born from experience, but mostly, from culture (as the insertion in the wild of human raised wildlife has amply demonstrated).

Let’s give an example of the hard pursuit of truth.



In the USA, the world’s most wasteful country, global warming is not hot. The plutocrats are cool to the notion. That global warming is actually cool, admitting it happens at all,  is promoted by fossil fuel loving living fossils of the plutocratic type, who pay, in diverse fashions, many outlays to tell lies about the situation, and the responsibilities which are involved.

The question is: how do we destroy the respectability of those who believe that there is no problem with poisoning seas and air with CO2 equivalent gases? What is the argument they cannot counter, which will make their criminality blatant?

In climate science, the number “450” cannot be contested. It’s raw data (as “390” cannot be contested for CO2).

The most important categorization of knowledge comes from the importance one endows to the notions one considers, within the theory one addresses.

For example many modern academic philosophers consider “hermeneutics”, the theory of interpreting gossip, as the most valuable, making them worse than useless. As they corrupt the youth away from the critique of real power.

In turn, the value, or rather the lack thereof, of the notions deceivers put forward, allows to expose those one may suspect of deceiving. Deceivers will typically focus on secondary details, and forget the big pictures.

For the CO2 equivalent gas poisoning, just one notion is enough: 450 ppm. Contesting that number is impossible, it is a fact. Denying its importance, lie or deception. When confronted to a climate denier, just ask her/him what part of “450” s/he does not understand. And why.

If they say: “450? What are you talking about?” They are just either so dumb that they are like people who would pretend to read, but don’t know how to read a single letter, or they are deliberately lying. In both cases, they are fanatics. Namely they come out of the fanum, the temple.


Conclusion: Ideas, situations, feelings, methods, entire cultures and superstitions can turn out to be propitious to evil. They are the ones which are, truly, evil. This is admitted by modern law, which recognizes that “fighting words“, and “hate speech” are crimes.

We need to extent the notion that it is with some configurations of the human mind, or even of cognition, or moral attitude, that the crimes truly originate, they are the true culprits.

In other words, Hitler, far from being pathological, was the all too healthy product of a sick and demented culture. He could have been replaced by many a similarly programmed person (and there were plenty, as Nietzsche shrieked, 50 years earlier, well before Hitler’s birth). This is important: a lot of German hermeneutics, so admired to his day, by preventing thinking, was just to Nazism what a smokescreen used to be to a battleship. It’s playing that exact same role to this day, this time protecting Nazism’s sponsor, plutocracy itself. Thus many philosophical departments are neutralized by the study of gossip made into the only science worth studying.

It goes without saying that however flawed Stalin was (he got started by bringing money to the Party, by stealing banks; one the robberies brought millions and perhaps 40 dead), the real monster was Marxism-Leninism, a hateful ideology no doubt partly prompted by Lenin’s brother’s execution, and similar violence from the Tsarist state.

In today’s USA, those who sincerely believe that their ancestors were running around with dinosaurs in the garden of Eden have deep flaws either in their character, or in the way they establish truth, or in what the raw data they learned at school. Flaws so deep that they are similar to those Hitler had. And the same for all those, who, like Hitler believed they were god, or in the inner circle of god. The edict of Philippe IV Le Bel against the lenders to the French state started with:”Dieu n’est pas content…”. God was not content, no doubt…



When robots act, one cannot claim that the minds who programmed them, rest. To be culprit, in Roman Law one needed to have a culprit mind (“mens rea”). Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty“. Nowadays, having so much physical power at our disposal, we need to have more perfect minds, that is, the thought itself can be a guilty act. This is especially true for the leadership, and not just political leadership.

Economists who thought that some banks are too big to fail and should be given as much public money as their managements and shareholders ask, are, arguably more culprit than the elected representatives that they advised.

All what many a mental attitude or tradition deserves, is extermination. No use tolerating the systems of thought promoting human sacrifice (so it was good to get rid of that part of Aztec, Maya, Inca, Celtic and Punic civilizations).


All too many times, the monster is not as much the already monstrous person, as the situation their ilk arise from, and further foster. One should avoid a confusion between individuals and the cultural situations they arise from. It seems that, in his quasi pathological coolness, Obama may have been carried away into connivance, by calling plutocrats such as Mr. Jamie Dimon, head of the giant JP Morgan Chase, or Buffet, his “friends“, all too much.

Mr. Dimon and Mr. Buffet, and their fellow plutocrats are no doubt nice, but that does not mean that so are their ideas, and various dissemblances they hide behind.

I know Buffet has decried the fact he was taxed at a much lower rate than his secretary or receptionist. But that was denounced, for many years by this author, and Buffet, all the while, was careful not to notice the outrage. Now that everybody has noticed, Obama, in a Freudian slip, celebrates the “Buffet rule”. Thus the chameleon changes colors to better catch flies and escape predators. Condemning the tax brackets Obama put in place when he controlled everything, now that everybody has noticed, can be used as a smokescreen. Indeed, Obama and Buffet keep on viewing carbon taxes and transaction taxes as devils view holy water.

Dimon recently revealed his true colors by attacking new world wide banking regulations”cockamamie nonsense…anti-American…anti-European“. Dimon is one of the big guys of central bank of the USA, another monstrosity, as this device, the Fed, far from being independent, is an emanation of the private banks.



Many paths lead to truth. They entangle into theories. Erroneous strands and stands can be deconstructed without the theories really collapsing: that would be true for Relativity or Arithmetic. Believing that secularism ought to be the master religion does not mean that superstition ought to be outlawed (that would be a bad omen).

An approach to truth is to seriate problems, and logical components to solving them, according to their logical probability, certainty, value, or importance.

The 450 ppm level in CO2 equivalent gas poisoning has extreme importance, because it is an overwhelmingly monstrous evidence, a carrier of unmitigated doom: this is the highest percentage of greenhouse gases in dozens of millions of years. Only enormous science will get us out of that hole (half of the added CO2 is in the acidifying oceans).

Would there be as many truths, if there were much fewer monsters? Of course not. The logic of the house of truth needs monsters, just as biological ecology needs carnivorous monsters who are indispensable to prevent a self destroying ecology. Just to create the dram which gets our neurons going. Whether we like it or not, we wake up best when we flee, or fight. That is why Einstein made exaggerated, unbalanced claims. A safer way to higher thinking than the tobacco which killed him.

Monsters and truths dancing: it is all a matter of balance, as it is a matter of balance, to keep a plane aloft.

However, right now we have an imbalance of truth, and not just in Syria. We are going down into the black hole of the Dark Side, plutocracy imploding, as happened with the Roman empire. Or the Mayan civilization, whose plutocracy called onto suicidal war, instead of the ecological measures necessary to answer a drought. Or pharaonic Egypt immediately after its Ramses peak, financially imploding, reduced to steal its own treasures to balance the budget, before being taken over by Libyans, and soon, the Assyrians.

Even the Mongols, austere and ferocious, having taken over China as the Yuan, degenerated soon down the plutocratic hole. When a succession of ecological disasters reminiscent of those incoming today, struck, the government’s response was ineffective, and then military. So the Yuan were thrown out by the Red Turban and Ming rebellion.

But maybe the Easter Island civilization is a more appropriate analogy. The late Easter Island civilization, only building giant statues, as if calling for help across the empty sea.  Ultimately “help” came from across the sea, too late, and too genocidal.

Our empty statues we keep on vainly carving with all our resources, are the banks too big to flay. But they should be flayed, and left to rot. The present way in which money is created through leveraged debt, by secretive, unelected, insanely self interested individuals, the conniving bankers, just does not correspond to the highly open, highly democratic, highly scientific society we need, just to survive.

At this point, we are all turning into Easter Islanders. But our sea is even emptier, it is space itself, and we can only hope that no help is coming across that final frontier.


Patrice Ayme