Archive for July, 2016

American Uncivil War

July 8, 2016

People pass away, mentalities perdure.

The English were not the first colonizers of North America. However, when they finally got there, it was with the most effective ethics to enforce the objectives of ultimate greed. England had been too busy with recalcitrant Scotland and Ireland to join the early conquistadores (meanwhile, the French re-conquered much of the Mediterranean from the Muslims, and even the Canaries archipelago).

The English arrived nearly a century after the Spaniards and the French… and six centuries after the Vikings! With a very different sort of leaders. And with a very different mood, uncontrolled greed foremost.

The reason that the Vikings did not conquer North America was that the aboriginals strongly objected to the Scandinavian presence. When Jacques Cartier arrived in 1534 CE in Quebec, the story repeated itself. The French had firearms, but they were taken aback by the sophisticated discourses of the inhabitants, who explained to the French that there was no space for both the aborigines, and the French. And if the French insisted upon invading the place, there would be war. In due course, over many generations, the French government persuaded the Natives that they could learn to farm, too, and then there was space for everybody.

The Spaniards were not as kind. In 1529, Francisco Pizarro received royal approval to conquer the region and be its viceroy. The letter read: “In July 1529 the queen of Spain signed a charter allowing Pizarro to conquer the Incas. Pizarro was named governor and captain of all conquests in New Castile”. It is not just a question of race. The Spaniards also used Black Conquistadores, professional soldiers who had been captured in Africa, in African wars, and sold to the Spaniards. Then those African soldiers were freed to do what they did best again…in the Americas, with European weapons.

Colombus exploited, according to Satan, Las Casas revolted against Satan. The Spaniards taught their ferocity in the Canaries islands, once they took over from the French, massacring the tall, white blonde aborigines. Ferocity can procreate and multiply. The worse being that it works.

Colombus exploited, according to Satan, Las Casas revolted against Satan. The Spaniards taught their ferocity in the Canaries islands, once they took over from the French, massacring the tall, white blonde aborigines. Ferocity can procreate and multiply. The worse being that it works.

Las Casas took part in the conquest of Cuba, and was granted by the crown a huge land, an encomienda, complete with slaves. Then he moved to the continent. Finally, Bartolomé de las Casas had enough of the “unbelievable” holocaust he was a witness of, since its inception. Bartolomé went from adventurer to bishop, and tried to enforce the good side of God. Happily, the (French-born and educated) Spanish king and Roman emperor Charles V ordered an inquiry and trial on the Spanish induced Holocaust in the Americas. The ensuing Valladolid debate was conclusive enough to bring Charles V, the would-be conqueror of Europe blocked by France, into ordering the halt of the Conquista (here I differ from Wikipedia, because I know much more). More exactly, Charles V ordered the halt of completely new conquista, and then resigned (1551 CE, although said resignation was official and final only in 1558 CE).

So the Spaniards did not conquer most of North America…. which should have been a military walk in the park; Spanish exploratory raids had gone all the way to present day Washington DC, finding most of the country emptied by (European generated) epidemics.

The English colony, though, was not founded by a government, inasmuch as a mercantilist collusion of the “West Country Men” and the English government, famous for lining alleyways with skulls in Ireland. One of the investors was the king of England. The English colony was powered by slave labor, from inception. Whites, Indians, Blacks were enslaved. The whites often with the subtlety of “endured servants” contracts (if they ate a pig in the forest, they got another five years, if they escaped to the Indians, they got quartered alive, a disagreeable prospect to keep them in line obsequiously, etc.)

I have long described the “West Country Men” mentality. It is alive and well. What made the English colony profitable was tobacco exploitation, thanks to hundreds of thousands of slaves. Never mind that the king of England execrated tobacco smoking. It was good, very good money, and profits are the supreme value. Never mind the satanic aspects. That’s why it’s called plutocracy.

In the present day USA, governmental violence is a fact. First there is the political violence of “representatives” elected by money, as surely as in the Eighteenth Century England.

In the USA police violence, revolting by Western European standards, is a fact. It is not just after “blacks”. It is the violence of car chases (try 100 mph in a city). The violence which results when not putting the hands on the wheel, when stopped for bogus reasons.

Police officers, armed to the hilt, with a mentality which shoots first and ask question later, are very well paid. The total compensation of a police officer at the University of California, Berkeley, is 200,000 dollars. More than three times the US median family income. That is gigantic, even by American standards. It is also how the 1% buy the army which protects them (so drive a BMW, or a Tesla Model S, to be left alone by police: class solidarity operates…)

Violence in the service of plutocracy is also judicial violence, not just police and political violence. In California, that America of America, full of silicon, and engineers from all over the world, keen to make a fortune, American born citizens were condemned to life in prison, without possibility of parole. For… stealing a slice of pizza.

Why? It insures the peace. The upper middle class will think twice before launching a revolution. If eating pizza can get you killed, imagine what having to eat your own words get you.

Remember Victor Hugo? He wrote, among many other great works, “The Miserables”. The main protagonist, Jean Valjean, early in the Nineteenth Century, is condemned to twenty years prison for stealing a bread. That was was viewed as a horrible injustice, and, at some point the french Republic passed a law saying one cannot be condemned for stealing food.

Just as one cannot be condemned in France, just for fleeing (fleeing being viewed as a fundamental right; although not obeying police is a crime: subtleties, subtleties…)

Now compare again with California, where eating a slice of pizza can get you to the slammer forever… In the 2000’s (the law was amended slightly since: gulping American pizza does not qualify as a major crime anymore, although, of course, it is, for other reasons…).

This was just an example. Possession of “crack cocaine” is punished at twenty times the rate of “cocaine powder” (blacks use rock cocaine, Wall Street uses cocaine powder).

And so on. Meanwhile Federal Magistrates are nominated, and serve a couple of years earning a measly 180,000 dollars, while being extremely partial to Silicon Valley oligopolies, from their judges’ benches. Then they resign, and are employed by the usual suspects, said Silicon Valley oligopolies, earning many millions (I have seen cases, close and personal). “Free market”, anyone?

The educational system is by the wealthiest, for the wealthiest. And ever more so. Educational violence: preventing the lower class to access quality education.

Of course the Whiter House, white as the driven snow, after spending an inordinate amount of time and money plotting with Silicon Valley, knows all of this. It’s Mercantilism on steroids. It does not matter. Obama is gathering plutocrats to pay for his hyper expensive “library” to the greater glory of Uncle Barry’s sedate reign 

And all this violence, direct or indirect, works. Watch the rigged presidential elections, with thoroughly corrupt plutocrats running against each other, in a parody of representative democracy.

As long as We The People don’t shoot back. That it does not happen more often, and that militant Islam does not get more recruits, is rather surprising. But times may change. Any day. What will the plutocratic establishment do? Load bigger guns, with more ammunition, and more science fiction weapons. In this particular case of 12 police officers shot, wounded, and killed in Dallas, the gunman, 25, had been trained, apparently very well, as an exterminator in Afghanistan. He was killed by… a robot. Times they are changing, even if plutocracy only grows. What plutocracy needs, is even more spying on the Internet (the gunman had a Facebook account where he expressed his displeasure for the white man…)  Inequality can be an expensive call.

The Spanish and English colonies were founded as wars against the Peoples, to satisfy the god of greed, and domination, and the attending mentalities endure.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Economics As Science: Quesnay, Not Smith

July 7, 2016

Where it is revealed that Adam Smith was Quesnay’s Feeble Student…

Faithful Anglo-Saxons love to evoke Adam Smith and Ricardo, who are famous British economists.

Adam Smith is viewed as the first temple of economics, inventor of the free market. And that is the first set of deep mistakes. First, there was never any free market, ever since there are tribes, and they are governed. Even a government of pirates has laws. Which its market obeys.

Second, Adam Smith was actually a student. All right, we all are, but some of us do like Einstein, and get “their” main ideas somewhere else. They are not the ultimate creators. Ultimate creators are the ones worth pondering: their reasons are always deeper and more interesting than that of their parrots.

Adam Smith went to France, and learned from the physiocrats. The most prominent physiocrats were towering personalities. One, Turgot, became France’s Prime Minister (under Louis XVI), another was king Louis XV’s surgeon and “first doctor” (so economy was a love of his, as it was with the philosopher who named and founded economics, Xenophon. Lovers tend to think better than those paid to think correct thoughts).

What was the idea of physiocracy? Well, it’s in the name: the power of nature. Physiocracy views economics as an application of the laws of nature, hence its great reverence to agriculture. 

Mercantilism Is Much Smarter Than This Sorry Abstract Puts it. Physiocracy Insisted That Nature, Not The Sovereign, Should Guide Economics. True, But Naive...

Mercantilism Is Much Smarter Than This Sorry Abstract Puts it. Physiocracy Insisted That Nature, Not The Sovereign, Should Guide Economics. True, But Naive…

As The Economist put it at some point: “If YOU asked twenty well-educated souls to identify a physiocrat, only a couple could help you out. Writers like A.R.J. Turgot, the Marquis de Condorcet and Francois Quesnay are not household names, unlike Adam Smith or David Ricardo. But they are important. According to one late-19th century historian, the physiocrats (who called themselves the “économistes”) created “the first strictly scientific system of economics”.

Adam Smith was half the age of Francois Quesnay when the latter instructed the former (43 versus 72). At the time, intellectuals from Britain and France heavily influenced each other, to the point theater has been written about them. The phrase laissez-faire, coined by fellow physiocrat Vincent de Gournay, came from Quesnay’s writings on China

Some say that physiocracy was a theory of wealth. In this reduced vision of physiocracy, the physiocrats, led by Quesnay, believed that the wealth of nations was derived solely from the value of agriculture. In that parody, Quesnay’s understanding of value-added was rather primitive—he could not see, for example, how manufacturing could create wealth. But that is certainly not true, as Quesnay greatly admired the Chinese universal education system, and its vaunted examinations producing mandarins who ruled the empire (without aristocracy).

Moreover, as Quesnay was France’s top doctor, he could not possibly believe that there was no added value in science and medicine. Quite the opposite. Quesnay, Louis XV’s esteemed friend, was called by the king, “my thinker”. Quite a compliment, as another friend was Voltaire. So that physiocrats believed in agriculture alone is a parody.

Farmers certainly produced wealth. To quote Karl Marx in “Das Kapital”, “the Physiocrats insist that only agricultural labour is productive, since that alone, they say, yields a surplus-value”.

The physiocrats are most commonly known for these most simplistic economic ideas which do not reflect their subtlety. Indeed these parodies are not their most important contribution to economic thought. Rather, it was the physiocrats’ methodological approach to economics that was revolutionary.

Before physiocracy, economics was not viewed as a scientific discipline, but rather a strategic one (this is what is called “mercantilism”). Mercantilist thinkers sometimes assumed that amassing gold, or military power was the best economic strategy… And indeed, it often was. Economic efficiency was irrelevant.

But Quesnay was a scientist (for most of his life, he was a surgeon, trained with the best, who then, at age 50, became an official medical doctor). And Quesnay wanted to apply the scientific principles of medicine to the study of economy. The “Tableau Economique”, which shows in a single page how an entire economy functions, and the abstruse book which contained it, is Quesnay’s most famous contribution.

Quesnay,an immensely respected figure, showed that the economy was something to be respected, analysed and understood—much like a human body. It could not simply be moulded by the will of a monarch (or government, or a bunch of know-nothing aristocrats).

This was a hugely important step forward. The elder Comte de Mirabeau, father to the main leader in the first few months of the Revolution, before an untimely death at age 40, considered Quesnay’s Tableau to be one of the world’s three great discoveries—equalled only by the invention of printing and the discovery of money. As The Economist says:

Familiar notions of contemporary liberal economics, laissez-faire, the invisible hand, etc. derive from Quesnay’s scientific approach. The physiocrats, like many other thinkers of the eighteenth century, believed in “natural order”. They showed that unchanging laws governed all economic processes. Consequently, it is generally thought that the physiocrats were opposed to government intervention: the dead hand of the state would only corrupt the natural evolution of the economy.(but, as Quesnay’s admiration for the Chinese governmental system based on erudition, and for Confucius, and Quesnay’s de facto appartenance to the government shows, that’s another nefarious Anglo-Saxon parody). T. Jacob Viner, a Canadian economist, referred to the physiocrats as one of the “pioneer systematic exponents” of laissez-faire… Alongside with Adam Smith.

But the root of physiocracy was much more general. Adam Smith was the student.

Why is the preceding important? First it destroys the Anglo-Saxon hubris that the Anglo-Saxon culture invented modern economic theory and practice. And that it succeeded because of it (whereas the proper application of gunnery has more to do with it).

In truth, it is quite the opposite. When Louis XIV, the self-flattered “Sun King” took control of the state, he discovered, to his dismay, that France had only twenty (20) major capital ships. England and the Netherlands each had one hundred (100). Each.

Why?

Because the Netherlands and England practiced the exact opposite theory to Physiocracy (which would be created in name a century later). The Great Powers, starting with the Imperium Francorum, Francia, and, seven centuries later, Portugal, Spain, etc., practiced Mercantilism, or how to create economic opportunity with big armies and then, big guns. And you know what? Right now the super states of the USA, China and Russia are practicing Mercantilism, while Europe practices Physiocracy. Obama has turned out to be a major practitioner of Mercantilism. Mercantilism has been his main activity. Europeans have not understood this at all.

Guess who is winning?

Patrice Ayme’

Blair Bliar & The Islamist Hatred He Brought

July 6, 2016

The Commission studying the war crimes of Prime Minister Blair came up with scathing conclusions. Blair is culprit as charged by anybody who has studied the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even Donald Trump thunderously charged, speaking of Bush and his ilk: “they lied”.

The lie was that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a secular regime, had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Of course it did not. Blair claimed that he was sincere, July 6, 2016. Either he is lying again, or he admits that he was then, truly, a complete imbecile. There is only one weapon of mass destruction: the nuclear bomb. It was impossible for Iraq to develop one, because Iraq had no nuclear reactor (so no Plutonium), nor a (extremely visible, as they were then immense) isotopic separation factories (so Iraq had no Uranium 235, the one and only other nuclear explosive). In truth, Blair was an architect of evil. Being an architect of evil, and how to sell that to We The People, is a skill plutocrats are ready to pay top dollar for. Thus Blair became immensely rich, following the Bill Clinton model:

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Normal British and American people are ill-informed: their governments lied to their face, Hitler style, and they goose-stepped behind them.

The British Chilcot commission, recognized that, as a result, at least 150,000 Iraqi civilians died. 179 UK soldiers died, and more than 4,400 American soldiers (in truth much more than that, and several times that number were maimed, often inside their brains, from the accelerations of exploding IEDs).

Blair In A Few Words

Blair In A Few Words

Worse: the invasion of Iraq, this blunt, delirious, obscene, groundless attack against a secular Arab country showed to all Arabs, and now the whole world, that Islam was right all along. Thus the Islamist State mentality was born. Even worse: to the whole world, it was made obvious that the only way to oppose the West’s plutocratic drift, is on religious grounds (this already happened in the Seventh Century). And the anti-West religion par excellence is Islam (Islam was designed that way, explicitly, by Muhammad; Muhammad insisted that Islam was the way to defeat the Greco-Roman civilization and the Persian one, a Greco-Babylonian derivative). 

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

As The Guardian puts it: “Asked whether invading Iraq was a mistake Blair was strikingly unrepentant. “I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he declared. He argued that he had acted in good faith, based on intelligence at the time which said that Iraq’s president had weapons of mass destruction. This “turned out to be wrong”.”

Blair’s two-hour press conference came after Chilcot, a retired civil servant, published his long-awaited report, seven years in the making, into the Iraq debacle. In the end, “it was a more far-reaching and damning document than many had expected. It eviscerated Blair’s style of government and decision-making.“

It also revealed that in a private note sent on 28 July 2002 Blair promised Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.” Is it just the love between two men, or the love of greed, and power, overwhelming all?

Thus now Islam, and its social equality message, poses as the great answer to the ravages of plutocracy. That is why Islam is gaining, even in Brazil.

How to stop all this? Well, first things first: the war criminals, those who conducted a war of aggression thanks to huge lies, should be indicted for war crimes.

At Nuremberg, Joachim Von Ribbentrop was condemned to hang (slowly, it turned out), for “war of aggression”. By this was meant the attack on Poland. France (and its British poodle, safely removed on its island) declared war to Germany three days later.  

So France was not viewed as the aggressor, although the Nazis accused France to have started World War Two. Why? One needs judgment: the aggressor were the Nazis, not the French Republic. And this is exactly what is needed now: judgment. Judge Blair and Bush. And their criminally behaved poodles. At least, if you want to avoid We The People to turn to Islam to stop what has become a criminal way of managing government, and getting away with it. For all to see.

Sex is strong. Hatred is stronger. Pushed to its limit, hatred makes killing the enemy what gives sense to the world. Hatred makes oneself divine (or very close to it). As the Qur’an explicitly says. This is the new world of mood Bush and Blair mightily fostered (part of a US tradition of using Islam as it always had been meant to be used, ever since the Fourth Caliph (Uthman): as an instrument of subjugation) . All those who don’t want to punish Bush and Blair for fostering mayhem, Islamization and subjugation,  contribute to it.

Patrice Ayme’

WAR, Great DOMINATOR, Destroyer of Europe, Creator of USA

July 4, 2016

Abstract: Celebrating Fourth of July 2016 my way. France, Britain, the USA and the philosophical systems they incarnate are to this day entangled into a brazen history, and a scalding future. It is often overlooked that, when France declared formal war to Britain about America, the rebels, seduced by an offer of general amnesty from Westminster, were going to surrender. This is precisely why Louis XV avoided with total war in February 1778, after sending weapons secretly starting in 1775, and secret agents before that.

***  

Too Much Enlightenment Will Get You Burned:

Icarus flew too close to the Sun. One can also come to close to the truth for comfort:

A basketball court sized, solar-powered US probe is braking hard to hard in Jupiter’s orbit. Just prior, it was flying twice the distance Earth-Moon in three hours. How was the USA created? War. War against the Indians, War against the French and the Indians. War, allied to the French, against the English. These entangled wars made the USA possible. Yes, it is an extremely long story. Some of this story was anticipated in British Parliament: stealing Canada from sweet France would made the independence of the USA ineluctable. However, English hubris took over. In its arrogance, the winning faction underestimated French resentment, and French military capability. Plus the strong hold of the principles of the Republican Enlightenment on the French and American elites. When told his actions were going to create a Republic in America, Louis XVI shrugged. He knew.

Not only that, but Louis XVI’s actions would create the institution of a Revolution of Human Rights in France, which he himself led for five years (1788, 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792). The mood in France was revolutionary, and that had started decades earlier.

Louis XV was actually surrounded by revolutionary characters, including teachers of Adam Smith, the French “physiocrats”. France lost America, because France clang to the Enlightenment, at a higher level. France traded with the Indians, and civilized them, rather than outright massacring them. (More precisely, France was doing more trading, more mixing, and less massacring.) All too philosophical. 

Too Much Advanced Philosophy And Not Enough Brexit Cost France America, Among Other Things. Philosophy Is Excellent As Long As It Does Not Prevent To Kill Those Who Want You Dead In The First Place. More French Greed, Short Term, Would Have Insured A More Advanced Civilization: In Canada Slaves Such As Endured Servants Were Unlawful, And Authorities Never Paid For Indian Scalps. Quite The Opposite.

Too Much Advanced Philosophy And Not Enough Brexit Cost France America, Among Other Things. Philosophy Is Excellent As Long As It Does Not Prevent To Kill Those Who Want You Dead In The First Place. More French Greed, Short Term, Would Have Insured A More Advanced Civilization: In Canada Slaves Such As Endured Servants Were Unlawful, And Authorities Never Paid For Indian Scalps. Quite The Opposite.

Voltaire. Louis XV’s boyfriend and adviser, insisted that it was below French dignity to fight all-out the “Seven Year World War of 1753”. I am sure it helped that Voltaire had made a fortune in Great Britain (this is a meta observation explaining the low philosophical performance of Voltaire in this respect.)

Louis XVI was an interesting character: he was not supposed to become king: his elder brother was. He did not want to become king, however, grimly enough, he set himself to do the right things, although, often, again and again he faltered at the last moment. A giant of a man, he had, that way, much in common with the one he fed and saved, George Washington (Washington, in spite of his friend Lafayette’s insistence, would never try to abrogate slavery, even in his own household..    

***

Where Were the Pacifists During the Demise of the European Union of Nation-States?

Nowhere, because pacifism is weak. Pacifism is neurohormonally associated with submission, surrender, sleep, it does not have the appeal that hatred, fear, anger, and the fight or flight instincts’ overwhelm us with. When the herd gets ready to stampede, what can the pacifists do? Fight it off? Scare it off? No. Pacifists can do nothing. Nigel Farage’s “Independence Day” speech was eerily similar to some of Adolf Hitler’s speeches in his manner of delivery (and content too!). No clam discourse can then persuade the masses. They don’t care: confronted to a threat, they want to fight and flight. Playing Buddha in a ten foot cell is not a proposition that is noticed, let alone attractive.

***   

What Is The Biggest Defect Of Europe?

It is precisely not being what the Brexiters claims it is: a Super State. Or even, a State. Instead it is a state of anarchy. Not as bad as Britain, but close. Britain whines about uncontrolled immigration, forgetting it organized it deliberately, and depends upon France for defending its border. Europe has proven incapable of defending its borders. And what does history teach us? That borders should be defended dynamically, something Julius Caesar had completely understood. Not that Caesar invented this. Earlier, the Second Punic War had turned around when Scipio carried the war in North Africa, forcing the recall of Hannibal there (where Scipio defeated him). The Greeks had also understood that staying on their hands while plutocratic Persian Satraps attacked at will had no future. So the Athenian Republic came to the rescue of Egypt (against Persia). Later many Greeks felt that a complete invasion of Persia was the solution to their travails. Hence the expedition of the 10,000 (whom the great philosopher Xenophon ended up leading). The Greeks were less pleased when the Macedonians (Philip and his son Alexander), ran away with the idea.

***

War Is The Great Dominator:

Why always to speak of France? Not only is France the Middle Kingdom, at the core of the philosophical creation of European civilization, but even British historians focus on France, because France has the best historical records. The peak of the Middle Ages was around 1300 CE. Shortly after that the disasters piled up: ecology, plague, war.  Historian Guy Bois was able, by looking at Normand Parish registries, around Caux to find how the population evolved, assigning index 100 in 1314 CE.

In 1347 CE, affected by ecological troubles, and the start (in 1337 CE) of the “100 Years War” between the legitimate French heirs in London, and various illegitimate plotters in Francia proper, the population index was down to 97.

In 1348, the plague struck We The People (but not the plutocrats in their well defended, well organized castles).

By 1374 CE, the population was only 43% of what it was in 1314 CE. By then, peace being established, the population recovered. By 1413 CE, just before the “100 Year War” got launched again (Agincourt was won by Henry V in 1415 CE), the population was back up to 65% of 1314 CE. Then the area became a battlefield again, accompanied, naturally enough, by epidemics between 1415 and 1422 CE. The population oscillated down. The Battle of Castillon a Battle of Crécy in “reverse”, was the beginning of the end the “100 Year War”(70% of the English army was killed, mostly by French field guns, against less than 2% of the French army). By then the region of Normandy under consideration around far away Caux, was only 30% of what it was in 1314 CE.

***

FIFTY MAJOR WARS IN EUROPE IN 1,000 YEARS THAT’S WHAT THE BRITISH DO NOT KNOW, LET ALONE UNDERSTAND:

Britons whine about the Battle of the Somme, and rightly so.

Who was killing the Britons in World War One? The one who had started the war, the Kaiser, a plutocrat, who owned Germany, grandson of plutocrat Queen Victoria who owned England. In World War One, Great Britain lost 2.23% of its population, Killed. France lost 4.39%. (US losses amounted to *only* 117, 465 soldiers killed, .13% of the total US population.)

This carnage was the (despicable) Brexiters neither know, nor understand, nor want to understand.

Why?

Well the “100 Years War” went on, on and off, until 1815 CE. The Revolutionary and so-called “Napoleonic” wars were launched by Great Britain, an island, but exclusively fought on the continent (but for Trafalgar). By 1815 CE, France alone had two million dead, and some of her allies, like Germany and Poland, even more.  

All this profited Great Britain immensely. In the period 1753 to 1815, England literally destroyed the French empire and population, through a succession of wars.

***

By 1815 CE, France, relative to England, was a shadow of her former self. Thus, it is natural that the British would have come to believe war, especially among European states,  was a friend.

However, in early May 1940, the second British armored division, which had been assigned to stand behind a French reserve division at Sedan was late. The Nazis armored thrust pierced there, and thus the Battle of France was lost, and, as a result, the Nazis’ rule of horror and terror festered for years.

Both France and Britain came out of this as shadows of their former selves, while their ingrate progeny, the United States of America, grabbed all it could throughout the planets, starting with the zones her parents used to control.

The “West Country Men” method, taught by the English who founded the American colony in 1610 CE, has certainly blossomed in the USA.  

And to this day it rules. The Economist, July 2, 2016 gives an example, which I may detail in a future essay. Basically, US firms have become increasingly gigantic, which has allowed to become ever richer, and capable of deep research. Here is part of The Economist’s conclusion: …”if it wants to create giants, Europe may have to restrain more than its nationalist instincts—it may have to temper its tougher approach to antitrust, too. The secret of some big American firms is that they have created oligopolies at home.” In other words, the USA is eating Europe’s lunch by increasing its plutocratic index.

And this is what at the creation of European America.

France insisted upon the highest moral standards (only pure women, certainly not prostitutes could go to America, as early as 1600). England let Satan have a good run at America, re-introducing slavery, and not just for the “colored”!

Guess what? It worked. This is the whole idea behind Obama’s idea to let giant companies do whatever it takes to increase the USA’s empire. Actually, Bush had it fully started with the likes of Blackwater (a private corporation in charge of making war), and others abominable connections between official government policy and private profit.

Yet, the debate is not over. There is a new player bearing on, nature itself, with rising acidic seas, an increasingly warm and violent atmosphere, and all sorts of menace.

Greed may work, but it’s nothing without survival.

Patrice Ayme’

There Is No Brexit Because Brexit Vote Is No Law

July 4, 2016

It is the simplest constitutional observation: when Britain voted for Brexit. Nothing happened. Just a wet dream.

Forty years ago, Great Britain voted overwhelmingly to stay in the European Community. The vote had force of law. Why? Because Parliament had passed previously a special law giving the referendum force of law.

This is the way it works in Britain: the Parliament passes laws.

This time Parliament passed no law, prior to the referendum, saying that the Brexit vote would create a law. Hence it is not a law. 

Immigration, The NHS, and Tax Dodging Are British Problems Caused By The British Elite. Not By The EU.

Immigration, The NHS, and Tax Dodging Are British Problems Caused By The British Elite. Not By The EU.

Brexiters, a dim sort, are not content with not knowing what the European Union is, or what its democratic structure is. They happily extent the principle of not knowing what democracy is, to Great Britain itself. They do not know that Britain is a state of law. That means Great Britain is ruled by laws… And those laws are passed by Parliament, not by Brexiters. Except if Parliament passed, prior to a referendum, a law saying that Brexiters were the law, should they be more than 50%.

Conclusion: most sounds coming from the British anarchy in the last 12 days have been ill-informed.

There is no Brexit. Just breakshit. A number of fools shooting excrements around as others shoot the breeze.

Only one way out: have Parliament do, what it did 40 years ago. Pass a law, saying that the future Brexit II Referendum will have force of law.

You know what?

It will fail. In Brexit II, the British People will vote to stay in the EU. 

Because now British voters know a few things they did not know when they voted for the xenophobic liars, 12 days ago.

So where does that leave the true Brexiters? Well, they have to hasten to get Great Britain out, and entrap its government to (illegally!) activate Article 50.

However, it’s not that simple. It would indeed be illegal, according to the European Constitution. Because the European Constitution says that a country activating Article 50 has to do it according to its own constitution.

And there is just one way for Parliament to activate Article 50 legally: by voting for it. However, a majority of MPs in the present Parliament are against leaving the EU.

The present government of the French Republic, the principal architect and sponsor of the European Union wants Great Britain out ASAP. Here are the true Brexiters: those among the French who have had enough of seeing Britain block Europe.

I don’t share that enthusiasm. Kicking Britain out of the EU is only the second best solution. The best would be for the UK to stay in the EU, but with reduced privileges.

I think Great Britain should stay in the European Union, but should be kicked out the European MONETARY Union. And all its attending structures and activities, including clearing Euro transactions, and any activity the European Central Bank is connected to (as the ECB wishes).

That’s all, and that should be enough.

Anything else, will not work. Or at least, not as well.  

In my next installment, for Amexit Day, I will consider why it is that the Britons have lost their minds. Or, more exactly, which part of history Britons did not learn. And which part of history they learned all too much.

And thus why all too many Britons have this strange, and cruel delusion, that no price is too high when one pays for disunion.

So, much ado about nothing? Not really. The UKIP, Hitler-like leader in more ways than one, Nigel Farage, just resigned as head of UKIP. The Brexit vote has enabled hyper-nationalistic, hyper-deluded types, to act their fantasies. Now they can observe that they are just that, fantasies. In case of Brexit, a Norwegian status would be the best the UK can hope for, and that would be much less good and privileged than the status the UK presently has… even in the eyes of UK “independendists”.

Some say: ‘Oh, see, how bad making the People vote is!’ What i see, is how good it is: the Brexit vote has enabled to roll out all the errors. Now that they are in the open, they can, and should be crushed. People do not learn the truth best by repeating it blindly. Truth is learned best by realizing that alternatives are erroneous.

Patrice Ayme’

Not An Infinity Of Angels On Pinheads

July 1, 2016

Thomas Aquinas and other ludicrous pseudo-philosophers (in contradistinction with real philosophers such as Abelard) used to ponder questions about angels, such as whether they can interpenetrate (as bosons do).

Are today’s mathematicians just as ridiculous? The assumption of infinity has been “proven” by the simplest reasoning ever: if n is the largest number, clearly, (n+1) is larger. I have long disagreed with that hare-brained sort of certainty, and it’s not a matter of shooting the breeze. (My point of view has been spreading in recent years!) Just saying something exists, does not make it so (or then one would believe Hitler and Brexiters). If I say:”I am emperor of the galaxy known as the Milky Way!” that has a nice ring to it, but it does not make it so (too bad, that would be fun).

Given n symbols, each labelled by something, can one always find a new something to label (n+1) with? I say: no. Why? Because reality prevents it. Somebody (see below) objected that I confused “map” and “territory”. But I am a differential geometer, and the essential idea there, from the genius B. Riemann, is that maps allow to define “territory”:

Fundamental Idea Of Riemann: the Maps At the Bottom Are Differentiable

Fundamental Idea Of Riemann: the Maps At the Bottom Are Differentiable

The reason has to do with discoveries made between 1600 and 1923. Around 1600 Kepler tried to concretize that attraction of planets to the sun (with a 1/d law). Ishmael Boulliau (or Bullialdius) loved the eclipses (a top astronomer, a crater on the Moon is named after him). But Boulliau strongly disagreed with 1/d and gave a simple, but strong reasoning to explain it should be 1/dd, the famous inverse square law.

Newton later (supposedly) established the equivalence between the 1/dd law and Kepler’s three laws of orbital motion, thus demonstrating the former (there is some controversy as whether Newton fully demonstrated that he could assume planets were point-masses, what’s now known as Gauss’ law).

I insist upon the 1/dd law, because we have no better (roll over Einstein…), on a small-scale.

Laplace (and some British thinker) pointed out in the late 18C that this 1/dd law implied Black Holes.

In 1900, Jules Henri Poincaré demonstrated that energy had inertial mass. That’s the famous E = mcc.

So famous, it could only be attributed to a member of the superior Prussian race.

The third ingredient in the annihilation of infinity was De Broglie’s assertion that to every particle a wave should be associated. The simple fact that, in some sense a particle was a wave (or “wave-packet”), made the particle delocalized, thus attached to a neighborhood, not a point. At this point, points exited reality.

Moreover, the frequency of the wave is given by its momentum-energy, said De Broglie (and that was promptly demonstrated in various ways). That latter fact prevents to make a particle too much into a point. Because, to have short wave, it needs a high frequency, thus a high energy, and if that’s high enough, it becomes a Black Hole, and, even worse a Whole Hole (gravity falls out of sight, physics implodes).

To a variant of the preceding, in: Solution: ‘Is Infinity Real?’  Pradeep Mutalik says:

July 1, 2016 at 12:31 pm

@Patrice Ayme: It seems that you are making the exact same conflation of “the map” and “the territory” that I’ve recommended should be avoided. There is no such thing as the largest number in our conceptual model of numbers, but there is at any given point, a limit on the number of particles in the physical universe. If tomorrow we find that each fermion consists of a million vibrating strings, we can easily accommodate the new limit because of the flexible conceptual structure provided by the infinite assumption in our mathematics.

***

I know very well the difference between “maps” and territory: all of post-Riemann mathematics rests on it: abstract manifolds (the “territories”) are defined by “maps Fi” (such that, Fi composed with Fj is itself a differential map from an open set in Rx…xR to another, the number of Real lines R being the dimension… Instead of arrogantly pointing out that I have all the angles covered, I replied:

Dear Pradeep Mutalik:

Thanks for the answer. What limits the number of particles in a (small enough) neighborhood is density: if mass-energy density gets too high, according to (generally admitted) gravity theory, not even a graviton could come out (that’s even worse than having a Black Hole!)

According to Quantum Theory, to each particle is associated a wave, itself computed from, and expressing, the momentum-energy of said particle.

Each neighborhood could be of (barely more than) Planck radius. Tessellate the entire visible universe this way. If too each distinct wave one attaches an integer, it is clear that one will run out of waves, at some point, to label integers with. My view does not depend upon strings, super or not: I just incorporated the simplest model of strings.

Another mathematician just told me: ‘Ah, but the idea of infinity is like that of God’. Well, right. Precisely the point. Mathematics, ultimately, is abstract physics. We don’t need god in physics, as Laplace pointed out to Napoleon (“Sire, je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothese”). (I know well that Plato and his elite, tyrant friendly friends and students replied to all of this, that they were not of this world, a view known as “Platonism”, generally embraced by mathematicians, especially if they are from plutocratic Harvard University… And I also know why this sort of self-serving, ludicrous opinion, similar to those of so-called “Saint” Thomas, a friend of the Inquisition, and various variants of Satanism, have been widely advocated for those who call for self-respect for their class of haughty persons…) 

The presence of God, aka infinity, in mathematics, is not innocuous. Many mathematical brain teasers become easier, or solvable if one assumes only a largest number (this is also how computers compute, nota bene). Assuming infinity, aka God, has diverted mathematical innovation away from the real world (say fluid flow, plasma physics, nonlinear PDEs, nonlinear waves, etc.) and into questions akin to assuming that an infinity of angels can hold on a pinhead. Well, sorry, but modern physics has an answer: only a finite number.

Patrice Ayme’

 


SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism