Archive for January, 2018

Fake Reputation, Fake Society, Fake Economy, Fake Truth, Real Power, Real Stupidity

January 30, 2018

Today’s society is pervaded by luminaries with millions of “followers”. Selena Gomez (never heard of her) has nearly 150 million followers, followed by a famous tax evader who kicks a ball for a living, making him popular with young losers, etc. The buns of Kim Kardashian make the top five. Some will sneer that it’s not surprising that dummies are so popular with dummies. However, it turns out many “followers”, and perhaps most, in all too many cases, have been purchased.

The New York Times (we are friends again since it apparently lifted its censorship of your truly, having changed “leader”) made an extensive inquiry, in just one small corner of the web. The NYT purchased 25,000 followers (for $225!) from a company called Devumi, and then using those, proceeded to uncover much more. 

“The Follower Factory: Everyone wants to be popular online.

Some even pay for it.

Inside social media’s black market. By Nicholas Confessore, Gabriel J.x. Dance, Richard Harris And Mark Hansen. Jan. 27, 2018

Celebrities, athletes, pundits and politicians have millions of fake followers.

The Times reviewed business and court records showing that Devumi has more than 200,000 customers, including reality television stars, professional athletes, comedians, TED speakers, pastors and models. In most cases, the records show, they purchased their own followers. In others, their employees, agents, public relations companies, family members or friends did the buying. For just pennies each — sometimes even less — Devumi offers Twitter followers, views on YouTube, plays on SoundCloud, the music-hosting site, and endorsements on LinkedIn, the professional-networking site.”

One has to be reminded, at this point that the five richest so-called “public” (so-called public, in Americanese) companies in the universe are all into “social media” (where they do pretty much what they want, including no paying taxes at all, quite often!) Actually the fakery, the lies, the inequity is so pervasive, it looks hard to see where to start. Contemplate the one below: 

I am the cat, you are the birdie tweeting around. Twitter queen Martha Lane-Fox, British Lord and Plutocrat, in her office. Fake people, Real potentates. I Made It. Why Didn’t You, Loser? Ms. Lane Fox, a British e-commerce pioneer, member of Parliament and Twitter board member, blamed a “rogue employee” for a series of follower purchases spanning more than a year. She declined to name the person, adds the New York Times. The lady may be a Lord, but she is also a tramp.

The More Powerful The Tech Monopolies, The Greater Obama’s Plausible future Income Stream used to look:

One has to be reminded that Trump’s predecessor did all he could to make those companies ever more powerful, at the cost, not just of decency and democracy, but innovation itself. Killing innovation is the royal road to plutocracy, fascism, war. But let’s read more of the Times:

“At a time when Facebook, Twitter and Google are grappling with an epidemic of political manipulation and fake news, Devumi’s fake followers also serve as phantom foot soldiers in political battles online. Devumi’s customers include both avid supporters and fervent critics of President Trump, and both liberal cable pundits and a reporter at the alt-right bastion Breitbart. Randy Bryce, an ironworker seeking to unseat Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, [Paul Ryan is the head of Congress, no less!] purchased Devumi followers in 2015, when he was a blogger and labor activist…

Devumi’s products serve politicians and governments overseas, too. An editor at China’s state-run news agency, Xinhua, paid Devumi for hundreds of thousands of followers and retweets on Twitter, which the country’s government has banned but sees as a forum for issuing propaganda abroad. An adviser to Ecuador’s president, Lenín Moreno, bought tens of thousands of followers and retweets for Mr. Moreno’s campaign accounts during last year’s elections.

“Social media is a virtual world that is filled with half bots, half real people,” said Rami Essaid, the founder of Distil Networks, a cybersecurity company that specializes in eradicating bot networks. “You can’t take any tweet at face value. And not everything is what it seems.”

High follower counts are also critical for so-called influencers, a budding market of amateur tastemakers and YouTube stars where advertisers now lavish billions of dollars a year on sponsorship deals. The more people influencers reach, the more money they make. According to data collected by Captiv8, a company that connects influencers to brands, an influencer with 100,000 followers might earn an average of $2,000 for a promotional tweet, while an influencer with a million followers might earn $20,000.”

Quick mathematics, which the New York Times didn’t make shows this: a million followers will cost: $225 x 40 = $9,000. Yet, it earns $20,000. Thus purchasing followers enables one to make more than 100% profits. None of this is surprising: the mood was set by Obama’s 2007-2008 campaign (on which I worked and helped considerably behind the scenes; I would certainly not redo exactly what I did then, BTW). Obama, when talking about his campaign never talks about ideas he promoted then (turns out there were none to be put in practice), but how he beat up the opposition by using Internet followers games. He is not even aware that he reduced politics to a celebrity game (with him Obama as celebrity central), instead of an elaboration of ideas. That has helped setting up a disastrous mood that popularity is more important than essence.

“Genuine fame often translates into genuine social media influence, as fans follow and like their favorite movie stars, celebrity chefs and models. But shortcuts are also available: On sites like Social Envy and DIYLikes.com, it takes little more than a credit-card number to buy a huge following on almost any social media platform. Most of these sites offer what they describe as “active” or “organic” followers, never quite stating whether real people are behind them. Once purchased, the followers can be a powerful tool.”

But it gets worse.

***

The Truth Is What Shall Make Plutocrats Wealthier:

Follower counts have started to become part of the system the social media monopolies are using to determine who they “recommend”. One expects no less from people without a college education, except from a deluge of dollars coming their way.

“You see a higher follower count, or a higher retweet count, and you assume this person is important, or this tweet was well received,” said Rand Fishkin, the founder of Moz, a company that makes search engine optimization software. “As a result, you might be more likely to amplify it, to share it or to follow that person.”

Twitter and Facebook can be similarly influenced. “Social platforms are trying to recommend stuff — and they say, ‘Is the stuff we are recommending popular?’” said Julian Tempelsman, the co-founder of Smyte, a security firm that helps companies combat online abuse, bots and fraud. “Follower counts are one of the factors social media platforms use.”

A mood of fakery and theft has settled over civilization. Indeed, critters monetarize their follower counts, and certainly, even more so, their power.

“While some said they believed Devumi was supplying real potential fans or customers, others acknowledged that they knew or suspected they were getting fake accounts. Several said they regretted their purchases. “It’s fraud,” said James Cracknell, a British rower and Olympic gold medalist who bought 50,000 followers from Devumi. “People who judge by how many likes or how many followers, it’s not a healthy thing…”

A Twitter account belonging to Paul Hollywood, the celebrity baker, was deleted after The Times emailed him with questions. Mr. Hollywood then sent a reply: “Account does not exist…”

Ms. Ireland has over a million followers on Twitter, which she often uses to promote companies with whom she has endorsement deals. The Wisconsin-based American Family Insurance, for example, said that the former model was one of its most influential Twitter “brand ambassadors,” celebrities who are paid to help promote products.

But in January last year, Ms. Ireland had only about 160,000 followers. The next month, an employee at the branding agency she owns, Sterling/Winters, spent about $2,000 for 300,000 more followers, according to Devumi records. The employee later made more purchases…”

Lane Fox is a spectacular example of how plutocracy works nowadays. Born and raised into and attending Oxford U. (in drama and politics, of course), she got on the “.com bubble“, became very rich that way (her company was bought for nearly a billion; we don’t know who slept with whom… I knew once a pretty pushy young lady, without much education (I use to climb with her), she met the right guys and made millions at the time). Lane Fox was made a member of the “most excellent” Order of the British Empire, and a member of the House of Lord, where she sits as a baroness with a fancy title. This is most excellent, and most rotten by the same token. We The People will erroneously scoff: such people “lead” the world, into the abyss.

Says the New York Times: “Martha Lane Fox, a businesswoman and member of Britain’s House of Lords, blamed a rogue employee for at least seven Devumi purchases made using Ms. Lane Fox’s email address. The biggest — 25,000 followers — was made days after she became a Twitter board member in April 2016.”

They would kill you with their own kitchen knife, with their DNA, and only their DNA, all over, and blame “rogue employees”. But how uncouth of me: I forgot, those celebrities own the world, we are all their employees… when we are lucky (otherwise we would be homeless…)

***

Influenced By 14 Years Old:

The New York Times observes: “More than a hundred self-described influencers — whose market value is even more directly linked to their follower counts on social media — have purchased Twitter followers from Devumi. Justin Blau, a popular Las Vegas-based D.J. who performs as 3LAU, acquired 50,000 followers and thousands of retweets. In an email, Mr. Blau said a former member of his management team bought them without his approval.

At least five Devumi influencer customers are also contractors for HelloSociety, an influencer agency owned by The New York Times Company.

Influencers need not be well known to rake in endorsement money. According to a recent profile in the British tabloid The Sun, two young siblings, Arabella and Jaadin Daho, earn a combined $100,000 a year as influencers, working with brands such as Amazon, Disney, Louis Vuitton and Nintendo. Arabella, who is 14, tweets under the name Amazing Arabella.

But her Twitter account — and her brother’s — are boosted by thousands of retweets purchased by their mother and manager, Shadia Daho, according to Devumi records. Ms. Daho did not respond to repeated attempts to reach her.”

***

None Of This Is Legal, So Why Do They Rule Over US?

New York Attorney General woke up, after the publication of the preceding, online, by the NYT. “Impersonation and deception are illegal under New York law,” Mr. Schneiderman wrote on Twitter. “We’re opening an investigation into Devumi and its apparent sale of bots using stolen identities.”

The problem of truth is fundamental. Without truth on the basic facts, one can’t think correctly. The problem of robotic accounts is simple to solve: there is existing law, as Mr. Schneiderman noticed. More generally a star system should be used. It should be multidimensional. One dimension for plausible veracity, another for significance. And probably more.

Plausible veracity” is different from “truth”. “Truth” is whn one has elimianted the alternatives. “Plausible veracity” is when no blatantly false fake facts are used.

For example my highly significant (were they true wisdom) have high plausible veracity: I genuinely search and destroy inaccurate facts. Indeed, although I generally compose my history essays from memory, I check particular facts when I use them crucially. For example, although I know pretty well the story of the siege of Vercingetorix by Caesar at Alesia, should i write an essay on this, I would check the troop number (I think Caesar had around 50,000 soldiers, and the Gauls at least 4 times that; if I wrote an essay, i would check the latest numbers, and exert judgment whether they are reliable or not).

***

Should “Truth” Be Privately Determined By Plutocrats And Their Servants?

A crucial point missed about big social networks is that they have become “public utilities“. They are not owned just by themselves, but, de facto, by the public. Actually, if not for the public, they would be content empty. Ideally, We The People would be owners of these “social networks”, as we already own all their content.

To police “social media”, it has been suggested that “social media”, which, at this point, are private companies, not “public utilities” in the legal sense, would do it themselves. In particular, that they would evaluate truth. As we saw above, that’s not what they do. Mark Z, founder of Facebook, is a guy whose ultimate philosophy, one year was “eat what he killed”. So Mark spent a year educating himself by killing rabbits, chicken, pigs, and carrying the corpses in a car’s trunk with an elated restaurant owner driving around Silicon Valley (my spouse interviewed said elated and grateful restaurant owner).

Those individuals, those multi billionaires, those plutocrats can’t do it: all the education they have is dollars and how to make dirty deals, all the way to presidential level, to gather more dollars, influence, powers, and no taxes to pay, while posing as lovers of man (“philanthropists”). Some have little education aside from computer program tinkering (Gates and Zuckenberg left in second year college at Harvard; Bezos completed college, but not the late Steve Jobs). That makes these one-track minds particularly apt to misunderstand the notion of plausibility and a general appreciation for human culture. 

Truth, or, more exactly, plausible veracity, like justice, should be a matter judged by We The People, or its representative institutions… Once those who have it have been given plentiful opportunity to expose it. An example: California & France decided to vaccinate forcefully! (Ah, but the argument can be made, that the government of We The People has been captured by plutocrats. As observed. So we can’t let, as is already happening, Plutos decide of the truth. That’s not a valid retort, as plutocracy, already happening, is not democracy, indeed, that’s precisely the point! “We The Satanists, We The Plutocrats” is not “We The People“!)

We need a department of truth, or ministry of truth… but not as G. Orwell envisioned it. As I just said, this is already happening, and it will happen more if “social networks“, right now led by plutocrats, without “public utility mandate“, are encouraged, as they presently are, to exert censorship (nude female chest will get you in trouble in Saudi Arabia, and Facebook; thus face book is, at least partly so, Saudi Arabia, even though Zuckenberg had a “Bar Mitzvah”, a sort of Jewish enthronement, when he was 13…!) 

Technology has always evolved, ever more complex. Thus laws have evolved, ever more complex. Having a “department of Justice” was fiction, 5,000 years ago. Now no country goes without. But justice without truth is impossible. Just as having the proper moods, while being immersed in lies, is also impossible. Justice is mandatory, truth should be recommended. Justice is mandatory, truth should be recommended. Either are too important, too vital, without We The People oversight…

To try to fight off Russian propaganda (which is very sophisticated, have a look at “RT”), Ukraine created a “ministry of information policy”.

*** 

And what of foxy lady Lane Fox?

Here is a few more details,  thanks to Wikipedia, of how .com celebrity can be leveraged:

Lane Fox was appointed Commander of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2013 New Year Honours for “services to the digital economy and charity”.[23] In February 2013 she was assessed as one of the 100 most powerful women in the United Kingdom by Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio 4.[24] In the same month it was announced that she was to be created a life peer in the House of Lords as a crossbencher.[25]

On 25 March 2013, she was raised to the peerage as Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho, of Soho in the City of Westminster[26] and was introduced in the House of Lords the next day…

Now foxy Fox rules over Tweeter. As a director, she makes more than $200,000 a year. Not bad for meeting only a necessary three times a year (I guess first class travel from the House of Lords is paid too!) This sort of foxes owe their elevation to the ruling elite, they will serve it, tooth, claw and nail. And their souls are all devoted to the powers that be. That’s why they get rewarded so well.

Remember Obama’s Nobel peace prize? Obama went on to start a full new nukes program, and inventing “signature strikes”, in which, if people gathered somewhere, and Obama took the fancy of doing so, he would kill them all, by pressing a button. Once Obama’s soul had been bought with the Nobel Peace Prize, he would do whatever it took, to pay back his debt. Say what you want, he is no ingrate… Say what you want too, but we all now pay the moral price: the truth is Obama has made these into times of deliberate murder, and all avert their eyes, from sheer Political Correctness (Obama, having brown skin was viewed as PC, on this ground alone, by hundreds of millions, even with yours truly included, and this is the truth… Just as it is the truth that dozens of millions are starting to realize they were had, just as we were had by Hillary Clinton whose latest revealed extravaganza was to protect a harasser of women…)

This world society where fake people, fake appreciation, fake ideas, fake news, fake truths, really rule is clearly heading towards real imbecility, not just real inequality. Just when intelligence is in need of a quantum jump, to avoid an all too deplorable outcome…

The truth of the elite is the truth which serves the elite. Contemplating any alternative, is to lie to oneself.

Patrice Aymé

“Two Minutes To Midnight”: World As Dangerous As It Has Ever Been Since World War II

January 28, 2018

The idea of “LAUNCH ON WARNING” is that, should a nuclear strike look imminent, a warning would be ensued, and missiles would be launched, without waiting for impact(s) of incoming apparent warheads. We are living in a seriously, Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD world: several countries, or, at least the USA and Russia, maintain “Launch On Warning” (LOW) systems of nuclear bombs having the potential for killing 600 million people, or more, in 24 hours. Or more. From accident, short-circuit, wrong training tape, etc. That is, those systems can kill the equivalent of one hundred times more people than the much bemoaned holocaust of the Jews in WWII (it took four years to kill six million Jew). The elite bemoans Auschwitz, while having 100 Auschwitzes at the push of a button, and the ostriches out there see nothing wrong, deep in the sand they scrutinize every day.  

Not considering that hair-trigger, “Launch On Warning”, nuclear bomb systems are worthy even of a conversation, is a global moral and intellectual failure of the highest order ever seen. Advocating slavery, racism, dictatorship, Inquisition, theocracy, torture, pale in comparison!

There is no reason for those LOW, except as first strike. Even then, a first strike would cause a devastating counter-strike, a second strike, so, at first sight, it’s not clear what would be achieved (if one goes deep into nuclear war planning, though, debatable advantages of a first strike can be construed). 

Epic failure. After the rocket carried by a plane, an F4 Phantom, exploded, nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise caught fire, off Hawai’i. Had the fire extended to the main hangar, the carrier, carrying more than one hundred nuclear bombs and eight nuclear reactors, could have exploded. In several accidents with nuclear bombs, many safety mechanisms failed. At least in one case, only the last trigger didn’t trigger.., And those bombs were huge (one hundred times Hiroshima, or more…) Such incidents happened even inside the USA.

The intellectual and moral failure of preceding leaders has brought this situation: the USA and Russia should have dismantled the LOW systems. LOW nearly caused nuclear apocalypses several times, for reasons such as short-circuits, or the wrong training tape. Each time, nuclear catastrophe was avoided simply because officers on watch didn’t believe nuclear war had been launched, and acted forcefully, accordingly. So accidental nuclear war was avoided only because of the fortitude of a few individuals, some American, some Soviet.

The French Republic dismantled its LOW system (founded on dozens of ballistic missiles). French deterrence is now ensured with 300 thermonuclear nuclear warheads on four very silent nuclear ballistic submarines equipped with jet propulsion (with another 300 “tetes nucleaires oceaniques” ready as backup, should more strikes be needed in a prolonged nuclear war). France has also nuclear tipped supersonic cruise missiles launched from supersonic planes, and potentially nuclear tipped cruise missiles on board one hundred meter long Barracuda attack nuclear submarines. That’s enough firepower to destroy all Russian and Chinese cities. Plus ground hits on nuclear submarines pens (which presumably would come first, if the US or UK didn’t hit them yet). 

Because it didn’t happen yet, doesn’t mean it never will. Prime targets in a serious nuclear exchange would be thermonuclear ground bursts on submarine pens. Recently released Pentagon files show Finland was supposed to be annihilated by the fallout. Call that collateral damage.

The U.S. has 14 Ohio-class submarines carrying 24 Trident II SLBMs missiles. Each Trident, like the French missiles, have up to ten independent targetable nuclear warheads. The UK has three nuclear warhead equipped Trident subs. That’s a total of 21 Armageddon subs, which, all together, could terminate Russia and China several times over.

The subs are undetectable. A few years back, in 2009, French strategic sub Le Triomphant and British Trident sub HMS Vanguard collided in the Atlantic, “at very low speed”, while at great depth: they had detected nothing. That’s not very surprising as they are not only silent, but have anti-sonar devices. As the subs are undetectable (especially as they go hide in parts of the ocean where detection is especially hard), there is no reason to keep them on hair-trigger, ready to fire at the first alert..

So why does the USA keep 430 Minutemen Launch On Warning rockets at ready to launch within seconds, 24/7, at the first alert, in other words, ready to cause accidental nuclear war?   

Counter-intuitively (they are supposed by the “left” to be right-wing bastards), the two US president Bushes (I despise W), reduced nuclear weapons of the LOW type, considerably. Clinton and Obama did very little, aside from using their mouth parts in a way the gullible found admirable…

Here is what the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists think about the situation:

Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 15 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and new technologies emerging in other domains. A printable PDF of this statement, complete with the President and CEO’s statement and Science and Security Board biographies, is available here.

To: Leaders and citizens of the world Re: Two minutes to midnight. Date: January 25, 2018

In 2017, world leaders failed to respond effectively to the looming threats of nuclear war and climate change, making the world security situation more dangerous than it was a year ago—and as dangerous as it has been since World War II.

The greatest risks last year arose in the nuclear realm. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program made remarkable progress in 2017, increasing risks to North Korea itself, other countries in the region, and the United States.Hyperbolic rhetoric and provocative actions by both sides have increased the possibility of nuclear war by accident or miscalculation.

But the dangers brewing on the Korean Peninsula were not the only nuclear risks evident in 2017: The United States and Russia remained at odds, continuing military exercises along the borders of NATO, undermining the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), upgrading their nuclear arsenals, and eschewing arms control negotiations.

In the Asia-Pacific region, tensions over the South China Sea have increased, with relations between the United States and China insufficient to re-establish a stable security situation.

In South Asia, Pakistan and India have continued to build ever-larger arsenals of nuclear weapons.

And in the Middle East, uncertainty about continued US support for the landmark Iranian nuclear deal adds to a bleak overall picture.

To call the world nuclear situation dire is to understate the danger—and its immediacy.

After colliding with the deck of aircraft carrier USS Kennedy, during a storm, this US cruiser caught fire, off Sicily. The nuclear magazine would have probably exploded, had the fire got there.

On the climate change front, the danger may seem less immediate, but avoiding catastrophic temperature increases in the long run requires urgent attention now. Global carbon dioxide emissions have not yet shown the beginnings of the sustained decline towards zero that must occur if ever-greater warming is to be avoided. The nations of the world will have to significantly decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to keep climate risks manageable, and so far, the global response has fallen far short of meeting this challenge.

Beyond the nuclear and climate domains, technological change is disrupting democracies around the world as states seek and exploit opportunities to use information technologies as weapons, among them internet-based deception campaigns aimed at undermining elections and popular confidence in institutions essential to free thought and global security.

Did wars get started accidentally? Rarely so, but this was before. Now the technology has become faster, and immensely more powerful. A case in point is the explosion of the US battleship Maine in Havana’s harbor, in 1898. It was alleged at the time by the New York Journal and New York World, owned respectively by plutocrats William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, that Spain did it. They gave the Maine destruction intense press coverage, but employed tactics that would later be labeled “yellow journalism“… Fake news! That brought a mood which led to war of the US with Spain.

US Admiral Rickover, father of nuclear submarine deterrence,  launched an inquiry, seventy years later, in the Maine destruction (it is easy to construe a scenario with a nuclear sub exploding next to Saint Petersburg, with possible detonation of nuclear bombs). It was found to have been probably accidental, from methane built-up, most explosive at 10% CH4.

The much admired nuclear Nobel peace prize Obama didn’t do anything about reducing the danger of nuclear war happening by accident. No more than the lunatic Putin. That made them accomplices of the potential holocaust they managed. Trump? A bit too early to judge. Trump inherited a potentially disastrous military situation, especially with North Korea, but not only. Sometimes, there are no more nice exits.

Thanks to our amoral, imbecilic “leaders”, we are all in the situation of the crew of the Maine. When the battleship exploded, three quarter of the crew died. Many officers survived, as their quarters were far removed from the explosion. Similarly, crafty plutocrats buy land in New Zealand, a fully autonomous mini-continent, far removed from potential nuclear explosions.

In any case, those who value the most correct intellectual and moral positions, should exert pressure for an immediate worldwide dismantlement of “Launch On Warning” nuclear bomb systems.

Patrice Aymé  

P/S: The preceding essay, although full of data, is philosophical in nature. It may be a bit unfair to Obama, as it doesn’t mention the new START Treaty signed under that president. However, that treaty was way too timid, and didn’t eliminate LOW. Right now the USA has 399 Minutemen missiles deployed, ready to launch. 70% of existing nuclear warheads are deployed on the 14 strategic submarines of the USA, most of them deployed in Washington state. That gives an estimated 945 thermonuclear warheads deployed on US submarines (France has officially 300). All the details in:

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/01/new-start-full-data/

Humans: Neanderthals, Other Ancestors, Colonized & Migrated, Back & Forth. Therein Our Smarts

January 26, 2018

What does it mean to be human? It used to mean a race, then “Homo Sapiens”. Now, it’s getting seriously more complicated, in other words: mathematical. Titles in the media know, repeating what semi-brainless academics erupted with: “In Cave in Israel, Scientists Find Jawbone Fossil From Oldest Modern Human Out of Africa”.

Paleontologists announced in January 2018 the discovery of a fossilized “modern human” jawbone in a collapsed cave in Israel that they said is between 177,000 and 194,000 years old. By “modern human” they mean: like us.

If confirmed, the find, a find of a kind I expected, will rewrite the official, academic early migration story of our species, pushing back by about 50,000 years the textbook time that Homo sapiens first ventured out of Africa. 

Neanderthals all over us… Fair skin genes seem to have come from Neanderthals … and African from Subsaharan Africa have them to, before much more recent mutations darkened their skins… Yes, matters are becoming complicated. Th argument has been made, by comparison with the mysterious Homo Antecessor, that the Neanderthal face was actually more evolved. Yes, evolved. 

However, one has to be careful: a jaw doesn’t a mind makes. Homo Sapiens Sapiens’ DNA were already found, without any modern DNA descendants (whereas we all, or nearly all, have Neanderthal and Denisovan genetics!)

Previous discoveries in Israel limestone caves indicated that so-called “modern” humans began leaving Africa between 90,000 and 120,000 years ago. But the recently dated jawbone is unraveling that narrative, big time. It is replacing it by the mathematical mix and match I favor..

This would be the earliest modern human anyone has found outside of Africa, ever,” said John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist from the University of Wisconsin, Madison who was not involved in the study… But is an old fashion thinker.

Oldest modern human” is slippery conceptual ground: it seems to insinuate that most humans then occupying Eurasia, and who were to occupy Eurasia for the next 150,000 years, during the 200,000 to 50,000 years span, were not really human, or “modern”.  Yet, those humans made discoveries such as burning coal for energy, genetically engineering European wolves into wolves, etc… Insinuating that Neanderthals and Denisovans were not human is, arguably, the mother of all racism. And against our own ancestors! Sadomasochist racism?

To the contrary, evidence instead points out that Neanderthals and Denisovans were not just human, but super-human (Neanderthals had much larger brains than today’s “Sapiens”, by up to 20%!). It seems highly likely they invented so many technologies, they guaranteeing the evanescence of their own genetic modifications (they obsolesced themselves!)

So what of this “modern human” concept? A “modern jaw” does not make a modern mind.

I have proposed that the dilution of Neanderthals and Denisovans characteristics in Sapiens Sapiens genomics was most probably a mathematical effect, helped by climate change and advancing technology: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/why-did-neanderthals-disappear/

The upper jawbone — which includes seven intact teeth and one broken incisor, and was described in a paper in the journal Science — provides fossil evidence that lends support to genetic studies that have suggested modern humans moved from Africa far earlier than had been suspected.

In a way, that theory, the all-out of Africa, and Africa only theory, was silly: Homo Ergaster was in the Caucasus around 1.9 million years ago, in force. In those tough conditions, Homo Ergaster, an early prototype of Homo Erectus, was probably dressed in furs (at least, so they were represented on the cover of Science at the time! The winter is cold in the Caucasus!)

What didn’t kill them should have made them stronger, and smarter. Colonization, immigration is not just a hope, it’s a school. By conquering Eurasia, Homo Ergaster made the species stronger and smarter. Actually the earliest example of domestication of fire comes from China, and it’s 1.3 million years old. China, not Africa (right, some parts of China are colder than anywhere in Africa but for the glaciers of Ruwenzori).

It seems likely that colonizing Eurasia made the species more superior than it would have been otherwise. Just as Neanderthal genes were found all the way down Africa, why would not a back colonization, or back migration from eurasia to Africa have happened?

This is exactly what my little “math extinguished Neanderthal” theory predicted, and now what is found ou. Consider : “Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals” Wherein it is shown that African Homo Sapiens genes passed into the Neanderthal gene pool around 270,000 years ago!

It’s not because Darwin said humanity originated in Africa, that it really did in all ways. Maybe it didn’t, in crucial ways. Well, actually, it’s now proven… And guess what? It was only logical. That enemy of Darwin, Nietzsche (“What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger”), would have been delighted: Eurasian colonization made Homo stronger, and yes, neanderthals were fully human.  

Colonialism springs eternal! This, colonialism, immigration, exploration, is what humanity does, and has always done, and used as an engine of evolution, not to say creation. Notice here the problem with uncorrected, rampant and unthinking Political Correctness: it hates colonialism, thus hates what made us, the core of the human adventure. (OK, paradoxically, although it hates “colonialism”, much of the PC herd loves another way to describe it, immigration! Mental coherence is the first victim of Political Correctness.)

Once again, it turns out that Homo Sapiens Sapiens was actually in Eurasia 100,000 years before we thought (as recently as last year!) that he was. So the interaction with Neanderthals and Denisovans was not a short affair, but something that lasted at least 140,000 years. This indicates that Neanderthals and Denisovans were not inferior, they may actually have been superior, and math extinguished them!

Not only Neanderthals had bigger brains, but they had bigger faces, and those faces differed more from ours than ours may have differed from Homo Antecessor (an ancestor known from just remnants of four individuals at this point; it lived 800,000 years ago, and looked surprisingly “modern”). It’s not me who made this shocking observation, but one of the top specialist of the subject, fellow Algerian Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Hublin and his colleagues created computer models that let them “grow” skulls virtually. “When we do this, we can explain the variation in shape between Neanderthals,” says Hublin. “But if we grow a modern human skull to the size of a Neanderthal, we don’t have something that looks like a Neanderthal. You get something different.

Hublin thinks that modern humans have retained a lot of primitive features from our distant ancestors. “It seems the Neanderthals are more evolved in their own direction than modern humans.” He observes. Said differently, the faces of modern humans may not be that modern.

The term ‘modern’ is somewhat misleading,” says Hublin. “When you say ‘modern’, people assume you mean ‘more evolved’, but in fact in our case it may mean ‘more primitive’.” We have met supermen, and we diluted, we degenerated from them, long ago…

In any case, our ancestors were colonists, here, there, now and then, and everywhere. From DNA studies, it is known that, around 10,000 years ago, Fertile Crescent peasant colonized the Mediterranean islands, and went all the way to Italy, and probably beyond, bringing along their agricultural know-how. So when we go conquer back Iraq, we are going home, Neocons are sure to add, but we will smile sardonically… There had been a controversy about how they proceeded: through land, or islands? Islands! In particular, Crete.

Big data is fashionable. we were created by big data, and, even more, significant data. That data was found in other places than Africa. That data made us smarter.

So now, what’s next? The Moon! Mars! They are within easier reach than the bottom of the ocean, that’s for sure… Colonization will us strong, smart, push us forward, just like our ancestors

Patrice Aymé

Davos, Diabolos and the Decider-Leader Principle

January 23, 2018

The present world economic order is nothing new. It originated even earlier than 1919, when US plutocracy, having steered and profiteered from the First World War that it helped incite, suggest, and organize, just so… took command of the world… And didn’t release it ever since (its next tool, Nazism, and various European fascisms it carefully helped nurture, made the situation even worse).

The present economic system originated then, by 1919. An economy is a philosophy. A philosophy has metaprinciples. The economic metaprinciple imposed by the USA at the Versailles conference in 1919 was that greed is good, so greed should rule, that’s how the West was won, & greed rules when the wealthiest people lead, decide, steer the world, and help it think and feel. This idea became central to Nazism as the “Führerprinzip”.

Führerprinzip: in English, the leader principle, a principle thoroughly embraced by that well-known,and all too admired child, Obama (who took himself for a great leader, or so he said, although he objectively left the US healthcare system in the most disastrous state in a century, as life expectancy is down three years in a row). When children lead a very mature biosphere, what happens?

At Davos, the self-declared “leaders” accumulate, in an orgasm of mutually self-congratulatory greedy madness. Yes, some of them were elected. But no, they should not have the right to decide for all of us, nor the right to decide, just a few thousands of them, the fate of a four billion years old biosphere. A fortiori without proper debate. The failure of present day economics is not just a political failure, it’s all the way to a philosophical failure, the most major philosophical failure, ever. (The latter point is little noticed… although it’s crucial.)

In the case of the USA, the initial leaders were in the ilk of George Washington in 1776 CE, a slave owner with 250 slaves, or so, who was also a top commander (in the British army, initially), when he was not a real estate investor (on land stolen from french and Indian alike). And then of course Jefferson, another slave owner who, in a frenzy of greed, conquered a gigantic part of North America (a part Britain was keen to leave to the American Natives, thus the US war of independence!)

What’s the big deal with the Davos Obscenity? The world’s “deciders” are breathing together, in other words, they are con-spiring together, for all to see (con, with; spirare, respire). 70 heads of states and governments. 2,500 guests, including the Indian PM, Donald Trump, watched over by 5,000 Swiss military.  In a token gesture to denigrating, subjugating, exploiting, harassing and demeaning women,  seven women are co-chairing the forum (Hey. guys, should you happen to be sincere, change the laws, not the faces!).

Brexit of the UK, the United Kingdom, was a plutocratic propaganda plot, a conspiracy to foil EU attempts to moderate plutocracy. In Brussels, more than 30,000 paid and registered lobbyists influence the so-called “deciders”, and great “leaders” who are later rewarded with jobs, careers, consultancies and various riches and power. See ex-PM Blair’s career, post PM, for an inkling… This is not just disgusting, it’s criminal. And the fate of the biosphere is one of the victims, besides all the rest of humanity. When civilizations starts to misfire, billions may die, and that will be entirely the fault of this satanic system of governance which is presently in place.

Kate Blanchet, a movies star who is ambassador of the UN HCR is also there. She said: ”I teach compassion to my children but all around proves them the opposite.”

Half of the world’s population received no share of all wealth created globally last year, while 82 percent went to the richest one percent, a report by Oxfam International revealed. Eight men (including pseudo-ecologists Gates of hell, and Bloom-berg) have as much wealth as 3.6 BILLION people (half of humanity): don’t they represent a toxic environment, all by themselves? Just a question, ladies, gentlemen, and critters!

Billionaires in 2017 increased their wealth by $762 billion, enough to end “global extreme poverty seven times over“, the United Kingdom headquartered charity’s annual inequality report, said. Winnie Byanyima, the organisation’s executive director, called the billionaire boom a “symptom of a failing economic system“. “The people who make our clothes, assemble our phones and grow our food are being exploited to ensure a steady supply of cheap goods, and swell the profits of corporations and billionaire investors,” she said on January 19, 2018.

Plutocrats are very crafty. That’s how they became so mighty: using all tricks imaginable, no holds barred. The New York Times gave the example of Mr. Steyer, a guy who started at the usual places: Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, etc, managing a hedge fund for “high worth individuals”. Steyer wants to impeach Trump, because Trump is “unfit for office”, whereas, of course, Steyer is fit for office. The arrogance of it all makes even the self-described “Democrats” nervous: “A Billionaire Keeps Pushing to Impeach Trump. Democrats Are Rattled.” (Lest the association of their party with that of Pluto becomes too obvious?)

I would suggest that billionaire financial plutocrat Steyer is all about brandishing red-herrings, and calling them the problem. Why? To distract the masses from real reform, the sort that would expose the likes of him for what they are. Indeed, a multi-billionaire hedge fund manager more democrat than the democrats? Why doesn’t Steyer propose a campaign for very high taxes on financial vultures instead? Because to talk about one particular person prevents to talk about inequality? That inequality which gives him so much power that he can run against elected officials, employing hundreds, to do so, because of all this money he got during Quantitative Easing, or from financing coal companies? And now of course he is more white than white… (Claiming, of course, to be an ecologist…)

Last year saw the biggest increase in billionaires in recorded history, with one minted every two days, according to the report, entitled ‘Reward work, not wealth‘.

There are now 2,043 billionaires worldwide – 90 percent of which are men – the report, based on data from Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Databook for 2017, said. Oxfam found that: “Tax evasion, erosion of workers’ rights and automation are responsible for the world’s economic inequality.  The organisation has called for greater redistribution of wealth through the use of taxation and public spending programmes by governments worldwide, the elimination of the gender pay gap and a focus on ‘living wages‘ rather than minimum wages.

Sixty guys hold more than half of the world’s wealth. Those vultures, and their obsequious servants, hold the world’s public opinion in their talons. And what of the public? We The People?

The public think as they’re programmed. The public feels, as programmed. Citizens do, as they’re programmed. They even whine, just a bit, as they’re programmed, & march, as programmed. They critique & know, just a little, no more than they were programmed to. What could go wrong? For the owners of it all?

To wit: In the USA, “democrats” revere Bill Clinton a governor cum de facto rapist who made it to the presidency, thanks for helping Reagan in “Iran Contra”, and whose greatest claim to fame, aside from being the only president who was impeached, was to have abrogated President Roosevelt’ Banking Act of 1933 (“Glass-Steagall”).  

Yes, guys, it’s not all about the Russians loving Putin. Right, Putin is a murderer, but Obama’s policy of “signature strikes” (on… weddings, several times… in countries the US was not at war with), was not any better, for all to see.

As long as We The People will agree with the decider-leader principle, there is no hope. But it’s time to find some hope. Hopefully before the ocean start lapping up all shores… And the floods, and the drought, and the world food supply system stats to falter.

Polls show that around half of the French population never heard of the “Paradise Papers”, papers from a law firm which revealed some of the world’s leaders’ incredible corruption.

As CBS abstracted it: “American individuals and corporations represent the largest share of addresses in Appleby’s records, according to the ICIJ. Its clients also come from the U.K., China and Canada.

The leaks link Ross to a shipping company called Navigator Holdings, which has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle. According to the ICIJ, Ross’ private equity firm was one of Appleby’s biggest clients.

While Ross diverted most of his holdings when he took his post as commerce secretary in the Trump administration, he maintained a stake in Navigator through two chains of Cayman Islands companies, the group said, citing Appleby files and public records.

Navigator’s biggest clients include Russian energy company Sibur…”

The present system goes on, because “We The People” has not realized that most evil in the Twentieth Century originated from that precise economic system. Notice that I don’t accuse “capital” and “capitalism”. Those two terms means nothing: civilization rests on capital. Civilization without capital is a contradiction. What civilization can do without, and has to do without, is inequality.

And inequality is not just inequality of riches. Or wealth. It is inequality of power, and that means, inequality of decision-making. A few idiotically self-aggrandizing Davos cretins shouldn’t decide for us all. Us all should decide for us all. By debating. Intelligently, as billions of us can do much better.

Patrice Aymé

 

Peter Woit vs Sean Carroll: string theory, the multiverse, and Popperazism

January 22, 2018

The present observable universe is at least 91 billion light years across. The universe may be one million billions light years across. We don’t know. But to consider we should make first wild guesses about other universes, is a bit like imagining unicorns, in another cave, when one does even know how big the cave one inhabits is. Why to make wild, untestable guesses, when more sedate guesses could be experimentally tested, if they were only considered?
As Einstein proposed that a particle “in flight” was localized (he had no proof of this, and there are near-proofs that this is false), it came to be considered that all eigenstates were to receive said localized particle (albeit with varying probabilities). But the reception of one particle per eigenstate is possible only if the universe has split in as many universes as there are eigenstates. Therein the genesis of the Many-World “interpretation” of Quantum Mechanics…which many specialists consider equivalent to the Multiverse.
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/
So what is the scientifically minded to do? Well, make an experiment! In the lab. It’s simple: miniaturize, and find out whether the photon gravitationally spreads (as I believe it does), or whether the photon doesn’t spread (as Einstein believed it didn’t). My assumption is that Quantum spreads corresponds to a gravitational spread. In other words, is the Quantum Collapse real, or not? (If it is, Einstein was wrong in his 1905 paper.)
No need to evoke other universes, and unicorns. One should just reach a higher level of experimental accuracy. Not a fancier level of religious prophecy.
Interestingly, Einstein himself, in his 1935 EPR paper, predicted, or, more exactly observed, that the Quantum Theory implied “Entanglement” (so named by Schrodinger, soon afterwards). Entanglement is experimentally proven, collapse is not… Not yet. But one can’t get entanglement without collapse. Methinks top physicists would be better off thinking about these issues (which lead to lab experiments and the Quantum Computer), rather than to try to imagine other universes…

Footnotes to Plato

Peter Woit vs Sean Carroll Peter Woit (left) vs Sean Carroll (right)

The string and multiverse wars are going strong in fundamental physics! And philosophy of science is very much at the center of the storm. I am no physicist, not even a philosopher of physics, in fact (my specialty is evolutionary biology), so I will not comment on the science itself. I take it that the protagonists of this diatribe are more than competent enough to know what they are talking about. But they keep bringing in Karl Popper and his ideas on the nature of science, as well as invoke — or criticize — Richard Dawid’s concept of non-empirical theory confirmation, so I feel a bit of a modest commentary as a philosopher of science is not entirely out of order.

Let me begin with two caveats: first, there are many people involved in the controversy, including Sean Carroll, Peter Woit,

View original post 2,126 more words

Loving Life Is The Way. Leif Ramos (1972-2017).

January 22, 2018

My brother-in-law Leif suffered a heart attack ten years ago, and was given a bypass. His father had died of a heart attack. He followed a scrupulously correct vegetarian and exercise diet thereafter. However, he also had to be “off the grid” for mitigating interest on non-reimbursed student loans. In the USA, nowadays, student loans are never forgiven: the chains which hold the slaves down, are not made of metal anymore.

Whereas the colossal, multi-billion dollars debts of plutocrats such as Donald Trump, or any of the millions of California homeowners millionaires are readily forgiven, it is not the case for modest students without rich parents. Then  interests pile up and states “garnish” whatever income the ex-student, now a victim, may incur. Nice, keeps the low lives in check! This efficient, apparently neutral mechanism drives millions of US citizens into the underclass (precisely those who had the effrontery to want to learn something). If one’s parents belong to the .1%, student loans are a rounding error. For others, it’s a crushing burden. Indeed, the rest of the US can live in slavery: it fits them just right. For not revolting, and just swallowing all the lies served to them, as if they were delicious junk foods.

Leif paddling in his state of Alaska. Nature is the way, tempered by humanity.

Leif had a second heart attack December 1, 2017. Five stents were installed. His surgeon had to leave for a scheduled trip, but asked the hospital to keep him in hospitalized. However, Leif had no health insurance, thus the hospital, searching, as they all are, for higher profits, kicked him out, after the surgeon left for very far places, overseas (this was all happening in Anchorage, Alaska, travelling from there generally means long flights on the other side of an ocean, or two).

Leif did worse on December 30th. He apparently tried to drive himself to another, more hospitable, hospital, Alaska General. At 5am. He nearly made it.

He leaves behind a loving family, including his ailing mother, herself with her own heart trouble, now doubled.

Leif’s life was not easy, and made him suffer, in a number of inordinate ways, but it was worth having, he took it with a smile.  

***

Leif with aurora. His award-winning pictures are there to stay. So are his musical compositions.

Leif loved life. That sounds simple, but it’s not. Life is not the grid all too many others are forced to live on (thus perpetuating it in its sorry state). People know this more easily in Alaska and Hawai’i, some of those increasingly rare places on Earth where it is possible to stay in touch with nature. Leif’s love of life forced him, greatly from circumstances he didn’t control, to live off the grid. Loving life requires to go further than just being told what to do.

Who knows what to do correctly in life, who doesn’t love life?

One can’t tell all & sundry, life is absurd, or unlovable, then switch around, been good, well-meaning, giving.

One may not get back all the love one gives to life, but one has to: others will, that’s how humanity is. How humanity became possible.

Leif’s love of life is a mood worth caring forth. What better choice is there? Loving other creatures and the world they share, with us, is not just the best we can do. It’s the only thing humanity can do, and the most significant thing humanity, overall, has done and does. As long as we keep on sharing this way of having a world, Leif lives with us. Let’s live!

Patrice Aymé

The Plutocratic Chain Reaction, Civilization Killer, Biosphere Terminator, Neurobiological Disaster

January 19, 2018

Plutocracy is the most important disease of economics, sociology, civilization. Even worse: it interferes with neurobiology as a pathogene! It’s not intrinsic to humanity, but intrinsic to the combination of humanity’s intrinsic Dark Side, with civilization itself.

Our world is dying from plutocracy (although the patient is still talking and walking around, it is devoured from inside, its mind has become cancerous; look at the forests, not just the oceans, which are dying). Even without considering the potential of nuclear war…

Around 26 centuries ago, Pluto became the new name for Hades, God of the underworld, the world where the dead roamed. It was a Public Relation operation: the reputation of Hades was so terrible, nobody wanted to utter his name anymore. So a new name surfaced for Hades: Pluto. Pluto was then the god of hell, riches (precious minerals and stones are underground). Pluto could make itself invisible (thus the notion of lying, dissemblances and conspiracy are intrinsic to Pluto). After Hades promotion to the more general notion of Pluto, the latter meaning merged further with “daemon”, diablo, devil (from the Greek diaballein, to throw across), and, of course, Satan (from the Hebrew root “stn“, an adversary, often sent by God to bother humans, a meaning rather conserved in the Qur’an, intriguingly, yet coherently enough). PLUTOCRACY ARISES FROM SIMPLE MATHEMATICS:

Plutocracy is fundamentally just the fruit of a mathematical theorem: the quotient of two exponentials is itself an exponential. That’s how I explained (most of) the attenuation of Neanderthal genetic alleles, and also mass extinctions such as the disappearance of dinosaurs and their ilk. Indeed, the fastest growing wealth, or power (in the Pluto case) will overwhelm any other. So the apparition of monopolies of power is simple math.

Yes, the mathematics, and the root causes are the same as for the disappearance of Neanderthals, dinosaurs, etc:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/why-did-neanderthals-disappear/

But this time, the disappearance at hand is that of humanity and the entire biosphere!

Plutocracy didn’t invent the Dark Side of humanity. Right. However, it leverages it, using civilization itself. (This argument is used in Star Wars, implicitly: the immense power of the Jedis furthers leverages the Dark Side; this is what Luke Skywalker discovered to his dismay, in his older years! That’s the main theme of the 2017 movies, “The Last Jedi“). That doesn’t mean we have to throw civilization through the window (as various fascist systems proposed in the Twentieth Century; and many political and religious movements, including Chrsitianism, had effected prior: consider Saint Augustine’s tale of “Two Cities”, where the one on Earth, Rome, the Roman empire, had to cease to be, so the one is Heavens could rise…)

Modern sophisticates with a perverse, underhanded and conspiratorial agenda reduced the meaning of “Pluto” to “riches”. Thus, according to these hypocrites, according to those under-criticizing critters, “plutocracy” is just, solamente, the rule of wealth. However, this is in contradiction with multi-millennial wisdom. Old wisdom equated wealth and the commission of the worst sins. Time for civilization to re-read the classics!

The reduced interpretation of “plutocracy”, as just the rule of wealth is so primitive, unsophisticated and reductive that it misses a wisdom which is at the root of Bible. The Old Testament condemns those who gave themselves to the cult of the “Golden Calf”. The New Testament makes things even clearer by saying the rich man has as much chance to finish in heavens as a camel has to go through the eye of a needle. The Qur’an, while not as extreme on that point (how could it, with those wealthy Arabs owning all these slave girls?), mandates to give to charity (otherwise one is no Muslim).

Thus the rule of wealth is NOT the rule of what “Pluto” is, in full. It is just a small portion of it, the most visible, less significant part. It’s like the magnificent coat of a super venomous snake; what counts is the venom, not the shiny iridescent scales. In full Pluto is not just about riches, but also about hell, death, invisibility (thus fake news, lies and dissemblance). Plutocracy itself, Pluto + Kratos, is power (kratos), the power of Hell (Pluto).

Plutocracy is the rule of the few: few are wealthy enough, or evil enough to exert the rule of hell.

The exponential function tends to make civilizations unstable: the more power, or, what boils down to the same, wealth, a few individuals have, the more they tend to have.

Civilization is all about power: it provides enormous power to the collective, redistributes some to the individuals composing it.

Civilization provides the power to exponentiate small differences of status and riches into enormous differences. The end result is that some individuals have all the power, and others, the rest of humanity, nothing.

Now this is fundamentally inhuman. It is even worse than that. It is neurobiologically impossible. Human beings evolved to have (shared) power with other humans around them. A full human environment is an environment which empowers us.

Human brains can’t develop in full, let alone function in full otherwise. Thus the problem of having all the power only for a few is not just a moral problem, but a neurobiological one.

Indeed by making the environment serves them best, & them alone, satanically depriving others, to satisfy that glee on which they greedily suck, the hyper wealthy, the plutocrats, remove much of the environment that the rest of humanity needs to fully develop their brains, thus damaging the overall brainpower humanity can bring to bear. 

In the end, humanity’s decision making involves then only a few brains. The result is here for all to contemplate: even the Trump administration said that the rise of global temperature by 2100 could be as much as 4.8 degree Celsius. For comparison the coldest it got in the last three million years, the global temperature was only 3 degree Celsius lower than now (that was 20,000 years ago). The warmest it got was no more than more than roughly a degree Celsius higher than now (and sea level was nine meters higher; during the Eemian, 125,000 years ago).

In other words, Trump himself says we are on track for an unimaginable disaster, in the matter of climate (so why is he screaming about the Paris Accord? Trump really doesn’t want the USA to pay for the $120 billion fund to finance developing countries). It’s not Trump’s original sin, but the fault of the FASCIST principle which says only a few individuals or organizations, can, and are, habilitated to decide for all of humanity: that’s what really ruins us. The climate catastrophe was fully in evidence in 1990. But then plutocrats mobilized all the political activities so that they would serve themselves (examples: The capture of world governments by Murdoch, Goldman Sachs and its ilk, the abrogation under Clinton of the FDR laws against financial plutocracy, namely the Banking Act of 1933, Brexit, Obamacare, tax havens all over, etc.). Plutocrats are obsessed by themselves, that’s how they got where they are, and will use whatever to stay there. In their metaphysics heavens is hell, and hell, heavens.

And yet, fundamentally, plutocracy is all just mathematics gone metastatic, in civilizations which can’t compute.  

Patrice Aymé

Discrepancy In Universe’s Expansion & Quantum Interaction

January 17, 2018

In “New Dark Matter Physics Could Solve The Expanding Universe Controversy“, Ethan Siegel points out that:

“Multiple teams of scientists can’t agree on how fast the Universe expands. Dark matter may unlock why.
There’s an enormous controversy in astrophysics today over how quickly the Universe is expanding. One camp of scientists, the same camp that won the Nobel Prize for discovering dark energy, measured the expansion rate to be 73 km/s/Mpc, with an uncertainty of only 2.4%. But a second method, based on the leftover relics from the Big Bang, reveals an answer that’s incompatibly lower at 67 km/s/Mpc, with an uncertainty of only 1%. It’s possible that one of the teams has an unidentified error that’s causing this discrepancy, but independent checks have failed to show any cracks in either analysis. Instead, new physics might be the culprit. If so, we just might have our first real clue to how dark matter might be detected.

20 years ago it was peer-reviewed published, by a number of teams that we were in an ever faster expanding universe (right). The Physics Nobel was given for that to a Berkeley team and to an Australian team. There are now several methods to prove this accelerating expansion, and they (roughly) agree.

Notice the striking differences between different models in the past; only a Universe with dark energy matches our observations. Possible fates of the expanding Universe which used to be considered were, ironically enough, only the three on the left, which are now excluded.  Image credit: The Cosmic Perspective / Jeffrey O. Bennett, Megan O. Donahue, Nicholas Schneider and Mark Voit.

Three main classes of possibilities for why the Universe appears to accelerate have been considered:

  1. Vacuum energy, like a cosmological constant, is energy inherent to space itself, and drives the Universe’s expansion. (This idea comes back to Einstein who introduced a “Cosmological Constant” in the basic gravitational equation… To make the universe static, a weird idea akin to crystal sphere of Ptolemaic astronomy; later Einstein realized that, had he not done that, he could have posed as real smart by predicting the expansion of the universe… So he called it, in a self-congratulating way, his “greatest mistake”… However, in the last 20 years, the “greatest mistake” has turned to be viewed as a master stroke…).
  2. Dynamical dark energy, driven by some kind of field that changes over time, could lead to differences in the Universe’s expansion rate depending on when/how you measure it. (Also called “quintessence”; not really different from 1), from my point of view!)
  3. General Relativity could be wrong, and a modification to gravity might explain what appears to us as an apparent acceleration. (However, the basic idea of the theory of gravitation is so simplest, it’s hard to see how it could be wrong, as long as one doesn’t introduce Quantum effects… Which is exactly what I do! In my own theory, said effect occur only at large cosmic distances, on the scale of large galaxies)

Ethan: “At the dawn of 2018, however, the controversy over the expanding Universe might threaten that picture. Our Universe, made up of 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, and just 5% of all the “normal” stuff (including stars, planets, gas, dust, plasma, black holes, etc.), should be expanding at the same rate regardless of the method you use to measure it. At least, that would be the case if dark energy were truly a cosmological constant, and if dark matter were truly cold and collisionless, interacting only gravitationally. If everyone measured the same rate for the expanding Universe, there would be nothing to challenge this picture, known as standard (or “vanilla”) ΛCDM.

But everyone doesn’t measure the same rate.”

The standard, oldest, method of measuring the Hubble cosmic expansion rate is through a method known as the cosmic distance ladder. The simplest version only has three rungs. First, you measure the distances to nearby stars directly, through parallax, the variation of the angle of elevation during the year, as the Earth goes around its orbit. Most specifically you measure the distance to the long-period Cepheid stars like this. Cepheids are “standard candles”; they are stars whose luminosities vary, but their maximum power doesn’t, so we can know how far they are by looking how much they shine. Second, you then measure other properties of those same types of Cepheid stars in nearby galaxies, learning how far away those galaxies are. And lastly, in some of those galaxies, you’ll have a specific class of supernovae known as Type Ia supernovae. Those supernovae explode exactly when they accrete 1.4 solar mass, from another orbiting star (a theory of Indian Nobel Chandrasekhar, who taught at the University of Chicago). One can see these 1a supernovae all over the universe. Inside the Milky Way, as well as many of billions of light years away. With just these three steps, you can measure the expanding Universe, arriving at a result of 73.24 ± 1.74 km/s/Mpc.

The other methods makes all sorts of suppositions about the early universe. I view it as a miracle that it is as close as it is: 66.9 km/s/Megaparsec…

Ethan concludes that: “Currently, the fact that distance ladder measurements say the Universe expands 9% faster than the leftover relic method is one of the greatest puzzles in modern cosmology. Whether that’s because there’s a systematic error in one of the two methods used to measure the expansion rate or because there’s new physics afoot is still undetermined, but it’s vital to remain open-minded to both possibilities. As improvements are made to parallax data, as more Cepheids are found, and as we come to better understand the rungs of the distance ladder, it becomes harder and harder to justify blaming systematics. The resolution to this paradox may be new physics, after all. And if it is, it just might teach us something about the dark side of the Universe.”

My comment: The QUANTUM INTERACTION CHANGES EVERYTHING:

My own starting point is a revision of Quantum Mechanics: I simply assume that Newton was right (that’s supposed to be a joke, but with wisdom attached). Newton described his own theory of gravitation to be absurd (the basic equation, F = M1 M2/dd. where d was the distance was from a French astronomer, Ishmael Boulliau, as Newton himself said. Actually this “Bullaldius” then spoiled his basic correct reasoning with a number of absurdities which Newton corrected).

Newton was actually insulting against his own theory. He said no one with the slightest understanding of philosophy would assume that gravitation was instantaneous.

Newton’s condemnation was resolved by Laplace, a century later. Laplace just introduced a finite speed for the propagation of the gravitational field. That implied gravitational waves, for the same reason as a whip makes waves.

We are in a similar situation now. Present Quantum Physics assumes that the Quantum Interaction (the one which carries Quantum Entanglement) is instantaneous. This is absurd for exactly the same reason Newton presented, and Laplace took seriously, for gravitation.

Supposing that the Quantum Interaction has a finite speed (it could be bigger than 10^23c, where c is the speed of light.

Supposing this implies (after a number of logical and plausible steps) both Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It is worth looking at. But let’s remember the telescope (which could have been invented in antiquity) was invented not to prove that the Moon was not a crystal ball, but simply to make money (by distinguishing first which sort of cargo was coming back from the Indies).

We see what we want to see, because that’s we have been taught to see, we search what we want to search, because that’s what we have been taught to search. Keeping an open mind is great, but a fully open mind is a most disturbing thing… 

Patrice Aymé

Sartre and De Beauvoir Were Nazis. Is Existentialism A Euphemism For Nazism?

January 15, 2018

Abstract: Once I went climbing somewhere. The equipment was heavy, the rope cumbersome, the slope steep. On the side of that upward struggle, a foot away, a boulder with a flat top, pretty crystalline colors. It invited me to put my hand on it, for a welcome rest. As I engaged the motion, some engine of systematic suspicion inside my brain addled by the effort, had an automatic, and, it turned out, life saving, second look. A magnificent viper was coiled on the colored rock, its pretty camouflage perfectly adapted. It puffed, ready to strike when I jerked back. As we will see, human vipers, are also perfectly adapted, perfectly camouflaged, and that’s what makes them so pretty.

It’s not because an ideology sounds good, that it is.  All the more as plutocratic propaganda finds good all and any ideology which serves it. And one obviously true and delicious ideology can hide another, non-obviously poisoned. De Beauvoir’s position on sexism, is pretty much unassailable. (However it is also pretty self-obvious.) De Beauvoir hides the fakeness of her convoluted “Existentialism” behind the trite truth of anti-sexism.

I am getting a bit impatient with extending respect to second, if not third, or fourth, order thinking. Nowadays, people go around saying that the president of the USA is an unbalanced idiot, and what they truly mean, deep inside their subconscious, is that the one before that, and his six  predecessors were idiots, because they were. What was Carter thinking of, attacking Afghanistan?

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/usa-attack-against-afghanistan/

How can Carter look himself in a mirror? What are those admiring Carter still thinking? That they never heard of Afghanistan, Carter’s war? Do they really think? Shouldn’t they be thinking that they are, themselves, Trump? Without the money?

The diseases, the various diseases of the mind which misled humanity, are much older than those recent US presidents. In truth, evil conditions of ancient history put civilization on rails. Example: the true story of the causes, not just of Nazism, but of the First World War, was never told by classical historians. Consider this instead:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/real-history-world-war-one-inception/

And it has very practical consequence: the worst of what Trumpism is alleged to be, started much more than a century ago, it has been the bread and butter of America (and not that it needed to be!)

Ruinous ideologies are devastating the planet. One of them is what passes for the study of economics: actually it is just what one needs to believe to serve plutocracy, as even banks, which create nearly all the money, are excluded from the study of economics.

An example of a ruinous ideology has been so-called “Existentialism”, a nebulous “philosophy” preoccupied with the self, which played a crucial role in deploying, and justifying Lenino-Stalinism, Nazism, the “American Century”, also known as “neo-liberalism”, and “Maoim”… Existentialism gave a justification, if not inception to the “Et Moi, Et Moi, Et Moi” philosophy, which brought us, in turn, both the cult of wealth supreme (“neo-liberalism”, “inequality”) and “communitarianism” (my community is all I need to enjoy and know, by birthright; in particular Islamism, but it could be Buddhism in Burma… or sexism). 

“Neo-liberalism” is neither: neither “liberal”, nor new in any sense.

Existentialism was founded by Kierkegaard, and can be viewed as a form of nihilism, or, more exactly selfishness using nihilism to thrive. Fundamental to “Existentialism” has been the personality cult of De Beauvoir and Sartre (to be skewered and slowly roasted below). Personality-cultism is, per se, an ideology, a meta-ideology: it pervades philosophy, politics, history, science, religions, etc., replacing the debate, and landscape of ideas, with childish obsessions for particular dolls.

So here we will apply a remedy, demolishing the founders of “Existentialism” by showing they were anything but wise. Or showing existentialism for what it was: selfishness covered-up by big words obscurantism. Not to say all what Sartre and De Beauvoir said, and did, was idiotic, worthless, and misleading. Far from it. But from their worst errors, and the follies of their blind admirers, we can learn more than from any of their mellifluous dissemblance.

***

Here is a true, top notch, break-through feminist, the real thing, major plutocrat, Queen Marguerite de Valois. She was known for her great beauty, towering wits, extreme erudition (she was a polyglot mastering Latin, Greek and several European languages), countless lovers, extreme courage and humanism during the religious wars, and scandalous feminism. She started also several fashions, doing away with enormous collars, instead putting to advantage her colossal chest all the way to he nipples, and launching a new colors mixing red and orange. Her robes, often with gold thread, could cost the equivalent of millions of dollars today. Daughter, sister, and wife of French and Navarre monarchs, she  played several important philosophical roles. An author herself, and a historian, her provocative feminism knew no bounds. She goaded Montaigne in writing his essays, using the basest flattery to urge him on back to work. She chose, and imposed a child-bearing wife for her husband, King Henri IV, another Medici (like her own mom). She died in her sixties, in 1614, a queen, and celebrated throughout Europe. Breakthrough thinkers are conditions sine qua non of humanity’s progress, and I have to recognize that, often, they emanate from plutocracy…

Being Nazis, as Sartre and De Beauvoir were, is different from being forced to collaborate with Nazis:

When the Nazis imposed their ideology, Nazism, on a French Republic which they occupied with two million (deep-down, in truth, below the sheen of correction) blood thirsty soldiers, De Beauvoir and Sartre used Nazism for their enjoyment and aggrandizement: among other crimes, Sartre stole his employment from a Jew, De Beauvoir worked as a Nazi propagandist. No wonder they thereafter posed as Stalinists (actually, Stalin was allied with German fascist for 25 years, so the contradiction is shallower than it sounds), or as freedom fighters for those who set bombs in Algiers (in the guise of progress, and justice). 

Here is the meat of the matter: most individuals in occupied Europe, even Jews condemned to death, had to collaborate with the Nazis, whether they wanted it or not (when not engaging in actual lethal combat with said Nazis). Sartre and De Beauvoir were different: they were among those few who met, engaged, helped, and were helped, when not outright employed, by Nazis at the highest level. This is what “Existenz” meant. This is what “absurd” meant.

For mongrels with intellectual pretense not to have noticed this is telling. Not to say absurd. If they get kicked around, one should welcome their yelping.

If one votes for “the lesser of two evils”, one votes for evil. Doing this repeatedly makes one a source of evil.  This is how “representative democracy” generates the power of evil (Pluto-kratos), election after election.

Thus some, such as Céline, advocated, even before WWII not to vote: “I have never voted in my life… I have always known and understood that the idiots are in a majority so it’s certain they will win.”

Louis-Ferdinand Céline 

But the evils of everyday life don’t stop there. One can vote at the ballot box. One can also vote with one’s mind. Or can vote with one’s culture. 

De Beauvoir’s nude pictures are many, thus implying that she had nothing to hide. Actually, she fiercely lied about her sexual ways massively, all her life, as countless letters revealed after her death.

***

Is France’s Encroaching Mental Retardation, A Result of too Much Embracing Existentialism? 

In the 1950s, all too many people, in a leading intellectual country like France, having just escaped from her mortal combat with Nazism, voted for so-called “Existentialism”. In practice it seems to have meant, take care of oneself, and roll over all ethics, and others. It was revealed, after their deaths, and more is coming, so far hidden from view, as it is so shameful, that Sartre and De Beauvoir were obsessive sexual predators… for decades. Virgins preferred. De Beauvoir lost her teaching credentials for statutory rape. One second sex too far….   

Most of those with intellectual pretense adopted “Existentialism”, not knowing what it was that they were truly swallowing… Nazism (or Stalinism, or Maoism, not as bad as Nazism, agreed, but Nazism arguably got completely insane after the French war declaration condemned it to death).

After two generations of “Existentialism”, Muslim nihilism has been embraced as… anti-racism (!), and, not surprisingly, French intellectual leadership long assumed, 16 centuries and counting, has been in clear recess. Among 65 tested nations, only the Netherlands and France have deteriorated in students’ ability since 2001. In the latest TIMMS test, evaluating science and math, France tested below the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.Not to insinuate, as Trump may say, that these are “shithole countries”, but certainly, France, by her own ancient standards, is heading there!

I will suggest, indeed, that so-called “Existentialism” in general, and the sort of fake intellectuality De Beauvoir and Sartre incarnated, (partly) originated this degradation. Because it was fundamentally a collaboration with the powers that be: Nazism before 1945, the USSR and the USA afterwards. For the existentialist, the starting point is “the existential attitude“, a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world (all feelings fundamentally alien to prehistoric man). Indeed, if one has been Nazis, as Sartre and De Beauvoir were, and one suddenly is depicted as great resistance figure, disorientation will ensue, a feeling of absurdity will creep in. “Existentialism” makes absurdity, confusion, disorientation, the new religions.

Existentialism’s exemplary struggles were for “Algerian Independence”, anti-colonialism, and Stalinism. 70 years later, we observe that the anti-colonialist struggle was a “trompe l’oeil”. It was greatly make-belief. In 2017, there was officially 97,000 refugees admitted to France (and much more in truth), all coming from ex-colonized countries (if one let them all come in, without drowning, or being reduced to slavery in Libya, and by hyenas in the Sahara, it would be millions).

Tiny French philosophers meet with gigantic Dr. Lynch (the real name of the one with nom de guerre: Che Guevara). This is not meant as an approbation of the assassination of the Che by the CIA. However, the alacrity with whom Beauvoir and Sartre embraced dictatorships is to be noticed: more of the same always. As US extremism fighting dictators depended upon those dictators being dictatorial, this sort of silly embrace actually advanced the US empire, while feigning to fight it.

The rage of “Existentialism” against the European empires was make-belief, it was accompanied by great effective friendliness towards these mightier empires, Stalinism, Sovietism, Americanism, and, or, deep down inside in all cases, global plutocracy. Just obeying greater gods! (Those preoccupied by the self first, will make their morality slave to their creatures comfort.)

Arguably many of the “decolonized” countries were, and are, more exploited afterwards than they were under colonial administration (and would have been a fortiori if the colonial model had been replaced by more advanced civilization); that’s roughly obvious for the entire Sahelian zone, from Senegal to Somalia. Under the French empire, the fisheries had not been nearly extinguished by powers foreign to Africa, so people could eat. Algeria is a FNL dictatorship, ever since “independence”. Tunisia is on the verge of civil war, one-third of the economy depending on olive oil paid to the locals, one cent per liter… Morocco is one man show plutocracy, and so on…

***

Sex Crazed Maniacs Exists, The Existentialist Way, Prior to Any morality whatsoever:

Sartre claimed that a central proposition of Existentialism is that existence precedes essence. This can be variously interpreted in diverse, sometimes quite opposite, ways (the usual interpretation is that what one does precedes one’s morality). Apparently, looking at Sartre’s life, it meant having sex with as many young girls (procured by De Beauvoir) as possible. When asked by Camus what the problem was with all the crazed sleeping around with youth, Sartre retorted that he was uglier than a toad (paraphrasing), and thus he had to reassure himself all day long, with young, fresh female flesh. Surely, Sartre couldn’t be that infantile. So the more natural explanation is that he was just a sadistic conqueror. Sartre had sex with De Beauvoir’s students, who were teenage girls. OK, maybe it could be sincere and happen once, understandable, however, this was systematic, industrial. In 1943, the parents of a minor sued, and De Beauvoir was thrown out of the public school system. The Harry Weinstein of philosophy. Is that the top philosopher of the Twentieth century.

Or is it what Sartre looked like, namely a half crushed toad, with accompanying half smashed brain??  

In “Being and Nothingness”, Sartre attracts attention to the hypocrisy, the fakeness of the “Garçons de Café”. Right, it takes one to know one. Except Sartre was  Garçon de Café to the top German Nazi censor in France (who later revealed Sartre to be a hypocrite; and we know he was a hypocrite in independent ways).   

Sartre’s lifelong (APPARENT) commitment to socialism, anti-fascism and anti-imperialism still resonate. The problem is that as with Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, or Obama, appearances are there to deceive (not to say that the insignificant Obama was as nasty as Lenin, on a personal basis; but the missed opportunity may have been greater).

***

I am, therefore let me Nazi splurge:

Sartre: “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards”

Long after World War Two, Sartre is a rare introspective, yet FAKE contrition claimed that: ““the whole country both resisted and collaborated. Everything we did was equivocal; we never quite knew whether we were doing right or wrong; a subtle poison corrupted even our best actions.” That was a positive interpretation of what he wanted us to believe he did. In truth, thousands of French intellectuals resisted for real, and were tortured and assassinated by the Nazis, as early as 1942 (when seven intellectuals of the Museum of Man in Paris were executed for resistance, inter alia).

The problem with Sartre and company is that the Devil is in the details. Sartre and company had a very comfortable Second World War. Sartre and De Beauvoir met with Nazi operatives, at the highest level, and it was not because they were double agents. It was because they were ingratiating themselves with the power that be. Sartre was brought out of his war prisoner status, probably because of the intervention of some high level Vichy gangster. Sartre even took the position of a professor who had been deprived of his job for being a “Jew” (you are welcome to imagine Sartre as a vulture with Swastika ornamented wings, devouring the corpse of a dying Jew)..

Power corrupts, and apocalyptic power corrupts apocalyptically. When Sartre was sitting in the office of the main Nazi censor in France, chewing the fat, it was all about power. By honoring top occupiers by his presence, and singing the praises of German culture, Sartre was encouraging the executioners of civilization to go with their grisly task. The average Frenchman, at the time, was just ignoring German soldiers when crossing them in the streets.

***

US Thinking: What Philosophically Matters Is Accusing The Victims One Made Of Collaboration:

When Philosophy Matters (which has nearly 30,000 followers) thought smart to wish “Happy Birthday, Simone de Beauvoir !”, 9 Jan 2018. I discerned there immediately the uncritical agenda of the personality cult and collaborationist bend: start with blind love for Simone, end by blind love for Maréchal Pétain (as will be shown below, a Philosophy Matters promotes the fascist lie that “France collaborated”, something as perverse as saying someone being executed “collaborated” with the executioner; so, indeed, “Philosophy Matters” ended and revealed itself to be of the exact “Maréchal Nous Voila!” school of politics as Simone herself….). Make no mistake: I have quoted Simone de Beauvoir approvingly. However, of the galaxy of people I have quoted, most I have quoted approvingly. Even Muhammad, FDR, Jesus and Adolf have said something I agreed with at some point. What I discerned there was personality cult. De Beauvoir was a feminist, true, and so I am, and so have been most women. However, there has been feminists in France for more than 14 centuries, and feminists of 14 centuries ago in France were much more important than the relatively insignificant Simone: some of those now forgotten feminists were heads of state, no less, and one of them abrogated slavery.

Cats pounce when they smell a rat, I replied:

“Simone De Beauvoir was employed as a Vichy history propagandist. It’s unlikely someone as misdirected, racist, arriviste, Nazi, criminally vicious ever said something philosophically valuable. Simone De Beauvoir worked for the Nazis as late as 1944: she was an imbecile too!”

(By 1944, it was clear that the Nazis would lose and that they were all criminally insane maniacs. Their collaborators had become fair game for the resistance in France. A collabo like De Beauvoir could expect the well-justified death she deserved at any moment (as Sartre hypocritically, but correctly insisted Brasillach deserved later). Let me say slowly: had I been behind De Beauvoir with a loaded gun in 1944, I would have shot her, as I would have any talking head on Radio Vichy. That was the correct thing to do.

Would we have been deprived of a great feminist? Probably not. What I meant by this is that De Beauvoir sucked up her feminism right and left. After all, the last of the Valois of France, Queen marguerite de Valois, known also as “Margot” wrote a much inflammatory book on the subject, more than four centuries before.

Predictably, Philosophy Matters gulped down the poisoned bait, and retorted with what passes as smart over the Internet: “Tyranosopher, You will have to prove and not merely assert such claims.”

On the Internet, if you assert that 1 + 1  = 2, smart asses without any education whatsoever, come around and ask you to not merely assert, but prove such a claim. This is what happens when instruction and education have been replaced by coding. Anybody with a modicum of education in philosophical matters should know that the child molesting De Beauvoir worked as a propagandist for Radio Vichy, and that Sartre, inter alia, stole the job of a “Jewish” professor.

On the Internet, if one is an idiot similar to all other idiots, one has to prove nothing: it’s all about galloping in the same manner to the same music, the orgasm of the stampeding herd down well-known avenues of what passes for thinking. I replied in a deliberately provocative fashion, a cat playing with a mouse: Advanced wisdom doesn’t “have to prove” anything basic to the grossly ignorant. Knowing fascism thoroughly should be essential for those who pretend to love wisdom. BTW, Sartre was such a notorious lover of fascism, he embraced at least three sorts thereof (contrarily to Camus!)

But that mouse, I guessed, was up to no good Philosophy Matters inner Trump got revealed when it replied with fake opinion and real insult:

Philosophy Matters:

You are delusional.  If you cannot support your outlandish claims with anything resembling fact then please stop making them.” (Latter on Philosophy Matters would assert it knew what I talked about all along; by then it was all upset and making plenty of spelling mistakes.)

Patrice: Calling me delusional is an insult. 😉 I express a judgement about historical figures, I get insulted. Typical Internet, ad hominem violence. Sartre and de Beauvoir didn’t just collaborate, they WERE Nazis. It is a matter of historical record, not opinion. Philosophy Matters didn’t bother to check. Instead, it calls me outlandish. This is a compounding error. In English: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/04/blood-on-their-hands/ …

Notice here that I introduced a new notion. Some non Germans, even some Frenchmen, were not just “collaborators”. Collaborators means co-working. Instead, some went beyond forced collaboration, and, instead, espoused Nazism itself. This is what Sartre and De Beauvoir did. And I am saying this is intrinsic to the “Existentialist” attitude: their existence is more important than our morality. The morality of us, humanity, our nature provided ethology extends to us (Sartre made that point again and again, by claiming that he, Sartre, was free whatever he wanted, and it didn’t matter what Spinoza thought about it.

When the Nazis occupied countries, people in authority were forced to collaborate with them. The occupied part of France, in particular, consisted of half of the metropolitan French territory. France was occupied in 1940 by two million German soldiers. Some government officials tried to resist orders, right away. An example is Jean Moulin, who was a prefect, and refused to obey strictly orders by the Nazi occupiers. He was immediately arrested and tortured so extensively, that he tried to commit suicide by cutting his own throat (that’s why later Jean Moulin always wore a scarf and had a scratchy voice). Then Jean Moulin switched to apparent obedience, while starting contacts with all the resistance networks. Arrested as head of the resistance, Moulin was tortured to death, over several days, by the future CIA employee, Klaus barbie (who tortured to death personally another 5,000 people, Barbie himself declared: he finished his life, decades later, in a French prison).

Replying to “Philosophy Matters’ claim that Patrice was “outlandish”:

“Books (en français) were written about De Beauvoir and Sartre’s Nazism. You apparently do not even know that they exist. BTW, I am from a hard-core resistance family, on all sides, which was personally hunted by the Gestapo. Family members were injured & killed fighting fascism!”

In one of these supposedly smart pirouette the Internet is famous for, Philosophy Matters, opting for a majestic plural, admitted that what it just described as my “outlandish claims” was actually well-known:

“We are very familiar with that book, and several others, and the kinds of claims you are making are simply not supported by it.  They [Sartre and De Beauvoir] may not have been heroes of the resistance, but they were by no means nazis or collaborators.   Try reading it instead if reviews of it.”

(Notice the spelling mistakes: apparently Philosophy matters less than agitation and lack of correct logic: “if” is not “of”. It turns out I am much more familiar with the subject than “Philosophy Matters”)

Patrice: “De Beauvoir was talking head for Radio Vichy. Her own program was sandwiched between horrendous 100% criminally insane, racially maniacal propaganda programs. She was socializing with those insane criminals off the mike. Philosophically Matters claims that being a propagandist on the radio between mass murderous ultra-racist programs is not collaboration? Sartre got approbation from Goebbels. According to Philosophy Matters, getting Goebbels’ personal approval isn’t collaboration? Sartre waxed, lyrical, about the corrections of Nazi officers, throughout the war. Writing praises of the Nazis, according to Sartre’s admirers, is not Nazism? I read thousands of pages on this, much directly from Sartre. His tunnel vision was fascinating. Is that a philosopher?” http://www.lescrutateur.com/article-le-vrai-visage-de-jean-paul-sartre-par-edouard-boulogne-76118361.html …

“Philosophy Matters” didn’t quit while it was already losing badly, and started to reveal its true colors, its true fascist colors, as I had guessed all along:

“This is sort of our aos, so yes, we are familiar with them.  We are also quite familiar with the ongoing mythology proferred by the likes of lepen and melenchon that france didnt collaborate.  Which is nonsense[Original spelling, full of mistakes, which shows PM was losing its cool, as its bearings were threatened.]

Here “Philosophy Matters” reveals the fundamental anti-French, Francophobic, so pro-Roosevelt, pro-plutocratic, pro-US imperialism position that “France” was a major collaborator. This is a level of hatred and lying unequaled even by the worst allegations made against Trump, by a very long shot. However, ask the average pseudo-cultivated person in the average US street, and that person will utter the same lie from US Big Brother: France did collaborate with Hitler. And by “collaborate” they don’t mean obeying two million guns pointed at French necks. No, they mean killing Jews and the like.

That “France collaborated” was a semantically outrageous lie promoted by right-wing, more or less corrupt French president Chirac, and his corrupt family, who presided over the latest decay of France, and was great friend of the ideology of harasser and plutophile B. Clinton (although he resisted invader W. Bush). it was in complete contradiction with historical evidence and the position of preceding French governments in the 50 years prior.

However, France WWII bashing is fundamental to the present worldwide plutocracy. Because worldwide plutocracy was behind Nazism, and never forgave France to have spoiled the party, and nearly pulled of the stunt of turning fascism itself against the plutocracy which had engineered it.

I tried to educate “Philosophy Matters” with the most basic notion of that subject: France declared war to Hitler, September 3, 1939: that’s not collaboration. The USA, headed by plutocrat president Roosevelt DID collaborate with Hitler, and throughout the war (Hitler declared war TO the USA, December 11, 1941). Start by reading Black’s “IBM and the Holocaust”.

The point here is this: it’s the truth. It’s not fake history, nor fake thinking. France plotted, conspired and finally attacked Hitler. The USA did the exact opposite. In complete contrast, the collaboration of the USA with Nazism was more than deliberate, more than enabling. It was causative. Causative of Nazism. Roosevelt knew of this collaboration of the USA with Nazism so well that when his own ambassador, the historian Dodd, told him, in 1937, that the USA should stop Nazism, whatever it took, Roosevelt replaced Dodd by a pro-Nazi ambassador. FDR did the same in London.

(One can read the book “The Garden of the Beasts” as a reference. Dodd was great friend with the French ambassador, Francois-Poncet, they would meet in Berlin Tier Garten (beast garden, the Berlin zoo), to avoid being recorded; hence the name of the book.)

Roosevelt didn’t just betray France, Europe, civilization, and, ultimately, the Germans themselves, or the US middle class. FDR was instrumental in the Holocaust. Even covering it up, when various governments in exile, including the French government, informed him of it. FDR hated the French even more, as a result: FDR was furious the French were going around, claiming millions were assassinated by the Nazis, when FDR’s grand plan was NOT to go to war with Germany in 1942 (the Japs and Nazis decided otherwise, because they were already losing the war, so had nothing more to lose… Except for a sense of vengeance!)

So who was collaborating? France, attacking Hitler, and thus US plutocracy, firmly entrenched in Spain, Italy and Germany? Or the dual use US government, entangled with the global plutocracy it had set-up, and which originated in Washington and Wall Street?

The assumptions made by Philosophy Matters about yours truly, are funny: try reading? I have read thousands of pages of Sartre, books and interviews, in French, over the last few decades. Sartre and De Beauvoir’s Nazism (implicitly recognized) are actually fascinating & help us understand better their “existentialism”….

***

Nothing to see, they were all Nazis, say those who side with the elite:

Mussolini, Hitler (and to some extent Stalin) were US plutocrats’ pawns. That’s why Mussolini was hung from a US gas station in Milan. The Italian resistance knew about the connection between Mussolini and Standard Oil. Today’s US citizens have no idea, whatsoever, of the role the USA played in the rise of fascism. It was fundamental.

The pattern displayed above is familiar, it’s always the same trick: first claim that some of the most important collaborators of Nazism were not Nazis in any sense. Secondly, insist that their pro-Nazi behavior was not pro-Nazi, but just something that happened to exist (get it? Like existence-tialism). A major instance of that is so-called “American Isolationism”. It was actually a pro-Nazi policy, which was both necessary and sufficient to make Nazism and its monstrous policies possible.

Thirdly, one turns around and claim everybody collaborated with the Nazis. Proof? France, which declared war to Nazism, and thus initiated its destruction sequence, was actually a collaborator.

And this is the ultimate trick: this way, nobody is responsible of Nazism. Thus no ideology, no way of practicing business, no plutocratic system, no ideology is the cause of Nazism: nothing to see, just circulate.

***

Shithole Ideologies:

Shithole ideologies are all over. Ask a Euro-US philosopher about ethics, and there is a high probability that it will start evoking Kant. Kant was a moralist of slavery (he was for it), and Nazism (at least so the Nazis thought, and evoked Kant each time they were perplexed, or on trial: Kant had said morality consisted in obeying the powers that be; Kant guided them in their obedience to the “Guide“).

Why is it that there are so many shithole ideologies, and nobody condemns them? Because corrupt elites are sustained by them. 52 African countries screamed against Trump for (allegedly, Trump denies it) evoking the concept of “shithole countries”. This is not a concept I agree with, prima facie, but, certainly, “shithole ideologies”, just good for excretion, exist. Africa has a long and rich history, mastering many elements of civilization already 7,000 years ago. Why Africa didn’t take off is because of erroneous, or, more exactly, shithole ideologies.

A case in point is Egypt: several of the mightiest pharaohs, over several millennia, were women. Egypt partook in the invention of the alphabet, originated basic mathematics and geometry, even the steam engine (in its simplest form). Now, though, Egypt is crushed by Islamist ideology, a primitivism on steroids, and Egypt, because of this, is not at the forefront of civilization (it was, until the rabid Christians and their Muslim parrots cultivated the habit of burning libraries, intellectuals, and any critical thinking…)

“Neo-Liberalism” is a case in point, as a shithole ideology, so is today’s “Economics”. Putinism gets criticized, but that’s easy, being Russian (thus alien, special, antique, something about brutal souls deep in the forest).

Existentialism is not just a shithole ideology, it is the master shithole ideology. It was intimately connected to a whole succession of disastrous “isms”. And Political Correctness, which is the institutionalization of dissemblance, lying and hypocrisy.  

Existentialism boils down to “me, driven by the lowest instincts, no questions asked, I am free, absolutely”. When Sartre chewed the fat with top German Nazis & fascists, he advanced his career, not minding for a second how many innocent victims the Nazi machine killed per second.

The essence of Sartre’s “existence precedes essence” means that the selfish subject “existence” is a more important motor of behavior than morality and the like, what Sartre called “essence”.

To Sartre, “existence precedes essence” means that a personality is not built over a previously designed model or a precise purpose, because it is the human being who chooses to engage in such enterprise. While not denying the constraining conditions of human existence, he answers to Spinoza who affirmed the obvious fact that man is determined by what surrounds him. Therefore, to Sartre an oppressive situation is not intolerable in itself, but once regarded as such by those who feel oppressed the situation becomes intolerable (this explains why Sartre made his accommodation with the Nazis). So by projecting my intentions onto my present condition, “It is I who freely transform it into action… the world is a mirror of my freedom”, meaning he was free to leverage himself from Nazism, and, later, Stalinism and Maoism, so he did! The world obliged us to react, to overtake ourselves, he admits. It is this overtaking of a present constraining situation by a project to come that Sartre names transcendence. He added that “we are condemned to be free“.

Same with De Beauvoir and Radio Vichy (she was a successful novelist, and, considering she was pretty good-looking, she could have supported herself as a prostitute, even a prostitute for Nazi officers… which would have been infinitely better than being a Nazi propagandist… as she insisted she had to do).

***

Should we avoid De Beauvoir and Sartre?

No! Be it only because they are excellent, smart lab rats, and, considering how malevolent they turned out to be, in some ways, we can have no qualms about trashing them around, as deserved. Most people are much more stupid and uninteresting than De Beauvoir and Sartre, so I recommend their company (Montaigne and many others are to be preferred, though).

I also esteem Simone and the big feminist horse she hypocritically straddled, much more than I do Jean-Paul (readers nearly escaped the famous photograph of Simone naked, from fear of US censorship, led by smart idiots such as Mr. Z).

Simone had the courage to ask some courageous questions, even though she answered them in a conservative manner: “Faut-il bruler Sade?” (Must one burn Sade?) She got carried over, in the Second Sex (good title!) when she said one weren’t born a woman, one became one. Carried over, because there are real differences between men and women. Jokes aside, and even if male and female brains are just the same genetico-physiologically (something that may well be true), they aren’t the same in every day physiology. As they bath in different neurohormones. Nothing very mysterious here: one of my long snow mountain runs went wrong recently, and I really had to fight, survival in balance. I can guarantee you that my brain, then, was in another universe. It was flooded my different neurohormones. In cases like that I get the impression to be on the deck of a starship, cooling giving orders to the crew.

De Beauvoir and Sartre never got there, in full contact with the universe, because all they knew was the garçon de café and sex-love-seduction-statutory rape games frenzy they pathologically thrived in, destroying all hearts in their wakes. How more artificial can one be? (Foucault himself said his philosophical drive was all about seducing “pretty boys”, roughly the only thing he has in common with Socrates… I am skeptical of philosophers driven monopolistically by sex mania…)

Well, one can have trained by living in Bad Faith during all of World War Two, and afterwards too, as Sartre and De Beauvoir did. People tend to speak a lot, of what they know all too well. Shithole existentialism was the metaphysics of shithole plutocracy, and attacks against “bad faith” were a vaccination against noticing this.

Concepts such as “conservatives” and “progressives” aren’t appropriate anymore. One can be very progressive in some ways, precisely because one is extremely conservative. Ecology is an example: the drive is to conserve, the tool is to legislatively progress. The difference is information and reflection, thinking power… While being honest in, and with, one’s true logic. Maximally informed and subtle good faith, not ready-made jerkiness.

Other concepts still apply. De Beauvoir and Sartre were treasonous, self-obsessed, partook into the commission of crimes against humanity at the highest level, and then covered the whole thing up with absurd mumbo-jumbo (“Absolute Freedom! People always essentially free! En-soi! Pour-soi!”). Pour-soi ou pourceau? That is the true question! Even an official, major card-carrying Nazi such as Heidegger, who took command of his university, in Nazi uniform, and expelled the “Jews” (although his thesis adviser had been a “Jew”) was disgusted. Sartre was going around, saying he was absoltely free, while, in truth he was prisoner of his glands, and, as he admitted to Camus, the obsession of proving to himself he was worthy, when what he viewed as his disjointed toad face (what else?) showed him, in the mirror, the exact opposite. And the lower he went, the worse he felt, so the more he had to compensate. Instead of going from Charybdis to Scylla, he went from Hitler, to Stalin, to Che, to Mao…

Sartre and De Beauvoir went around, insisting, implicitly, like Nixon, that they were not crooks.

Intellectuals such as De Beauvoir and Sartre played a major role in the Twentieth Century: they influenced other intellectuals and writers, who in turn influenced professors, who taught students at major universities, who became opinion makers, etc.  what came out was an inability to think disguised as “Political Correctness”, so acute that now a whole class of young people can’t even see the interest of debate, let alone have the capacity to carry it. A characteristic is to emphasize the crimes of some, while ignoring the much larger crimes of others, who brought the first as a reaction to the latter (for example the silly crimes of the British in India are blown out of proportion, whereas those which brought the partition of India, and Islamism in Pakistan, are overlooked…).

To be fully human, one has sometimes to do not what one wants, but what one has to do. Homo is the metaphysical animal. Existence is all what matters, driving what we do, but it’s not just existence as we used to know it, in the absent remembrance of times passed away. Existence is nothing if not kneaded with the hopes of better futures to come, smartly informed by the past.

Who knows what to do correctly in life, who doesn’t love life?

One can’t tell all & sundry, life is absurd (“Existentialism”), or unlovable (“Christianism, Islamism, Buddhism”), then switch around, been good, well-meaning, giving.

One may not get back all the love one gives to life, but one has to: others will, that’s how humanity is. How humanity became possible.

Patrice Aymé

DOING AWAY WITH INFINITY SOLVES MUCH MATH & PHYSICS

January 11, 2018

Particle physics: Fundamental physics is frustrating physicists: No GUTs, no glory, intones the Economist, January 11, 2018. Is this caused by a fundamental flaw in logic? That’s what I long suggested.

Says The Economist:“Persistence in the face of adversity is a virtue… physicists have been nothing if not persistent. Yet it is an uncomfortable fact that the relentless pursuit of ever bigger and better experiments in their field is driven as much by belief as by evidence. The core of this belief is that Nature’s rules should be mathematically elegant. So far, they have been, so it is not a belief without foundation. But the conviction that the truth must be mathematically elegant can easily lead to a false obverse: that what is mathematically elegant must be true. Hence the unwillingness to give up on GUTs and supersymmetry.”

Mathematical elegance? What is mathematics already? What maybe at fault is the logic brought to bear in present day theoretical physics. And I will say even more: all of today logic may be at fault. It’s not just physics which should tremble. The Economist gives a good description of the developing situation, arguably the greatest standstill in physics in four centuries:

“In the dark

GUTs are among several long-established theories that remain stubbornly unsupported by the big, costly experiments testing them. Supersymmetry, which posits that all known fundamental particles have a heavier supersymmetric partner, called a sparticle, is another creature of the seventies that remains in limbo. ADD, a relative newcomer (it is barely 20 years old), proposes the existence of extra dimensions beyond the familiar four: the three of space and the one of time. These other dimensions, if they exist, remain hidden from those searching for them.

Finally, theories that touch on the composition of dark matter (of which supersymmetry is one, but not the only one) have also suffered blows in the past few years. The existence of this mysterious stuff, which is thought to make up almost 85% of the matter in the universe, can be inferred from its gravitational effects on the motion of galaxies. Yet no experiment has glimpsed any of the menagerie of hypothetical particles physicists have speculated might compose it.

Despite the dearth of data, the answers that all these theories offer to some of the most vexing questions in physics are so elegant that they populate postgraduate textbooks. As Peter Woit of Columbia University observes, “Over time, these ideas became institutionalised. People stopped thinking of them as speculative.” That is understandable, for they appear to have great explanatory power.”

A lot of the theories found in theoretical physics “go to infinity”, and a lot of their properties depend upon infinity computations (for example “renormalization”). Also a lot of problems which appear and that, say, “supersymmetry” tries to “solve”, have to do with turning around infinite computations which go mad for all to see. For example, plethora of virtual particles make Quantum Field Theory miss reality by a factor of 10^120. Thus curiously, Quantum Field Theory is both the most precise, and most false theory ever devised. Confronted to all this, physicists have tried to do what has worked in the past, liked finding the keys below the same lighted lamp post, and counting the same angels on the same pinhead.

A radical way out presents itself. It is simple. And it is global, clearing out much of logic, mathematics and physics, of a dreadful madness which has seized those fields: INFINITY. Observe that infinity itself is not just a mathematical hypothesis, it is a mathematically impossible hypothesis: infinity is not an object. Infinity has been used as a device (for computations in mathematics). But what if that device is not an object, is not constructible?

Then lots of the problems theoretical physics try to solve, a lot of these “infinities“, simply disappear. 

Colliding Galaxies In the X Ray Spectrum (Spitzer Telescope, NASA). Very very very big is not infinity! We have no time for infinity!

The conventional way is to cancel particles with particles: “as a Higgs boson moves through space, it encounters “virtual” versions of Standard Model particles (like photons and electrons) that are constantly popping in and out of existence. According to the Standard Model, these interactions drive the mass of the Higgs up to improbable values. In supersymmetry, however, they are cancelled out by interactions with their sparticle equivalents.” Having a finite cut-off would do the same.

A related logic creates the difficulty with Dark Matter, in my opinion. Here is why. Usual Quantum Mechanics assumes the existence of infinity in the basic formalism of Quantum Mechanics. This brings the non-prediction of Dark Matter. Some physicists will scoff: infinity? In Quantum Mechanics? However, the Hilbert spaces which Quantum Mechanical formalism uses are often infinite in extent. Crucial to Quantum Mechanics formalism, but still extraneous to it, festers an ubiquitous instantaneous collapse (semantically partly erased as “decoherence” nowadays). “Instantaneous” is the inverse of “infinity” (in perverse infinity logic). If the later has got to go, so does the former. As it is Quantum Mechanics depends upon infinity. Removing the latter requires us to change the former.

Laplace did exactly this with gravity around 1800 CE. Laplace removed the infinity in gravitation, which had aggravated Isaac Newton, a century earlier. Laplace made gravity into a field theory, with gravitation propagating at finite speed, and thus predicted gravitational waves (relativized by Poincaré in 1905).

Thus, doing away with infinity makes GUTS’ logic faulty, and predicts Dark Matter, and even Dark Energy, in one blow.

If one new hypothesis puts in a new light, and explains, much of physics in one blow, it has got to be right.

Besides doing away with infinity would clean out a lot of hopelessly all-too-sophisticated mathematics, which shouldn’t even exist, IMHO. By the way, computers don’t use infinity (as I said, infinity can’t be defined, let alone constructed).

Sometimes one has to let go of the past, drastically. Theories of infinity should go the way of those crystal balls theories which were supposed to explain the universe: silly stuff, collective madness.

Patrice Aymé

Notes: What do I mean by infinity not constructible? There are two approaches to mathematics:1) counting on one’s digits, out of which comes all of arithmetics. If one counts on one’s digits, one runs of digits after a while, as any computer knows, and I have made into a global objection, by observing that, de facto, there is a largest number (contrarily to what fake, yet time-honored, 25 centuries old “proofs” pretend to demonstrate; basically the “proof” assumes what it pretends to demonstrate, by claiming that, once one has “N”, there is always “N + 1”).

2) Set theory. Set theory is about sets. An example of “set” could be the set of all atoms in the universe. That may, or may not, be “infinite”. In any case, it is not “constructible”, not even to be extended consideration, precisely because it is so considerable (conventional Special Relativity, let alone basic practicality prevent that; Axiomatic Set Theory a la Bertrand Russell has tried to turn around infinity with the notion of  a proper class…)

In both 1) and 2), infinite can’t be considered, precisely, because it doesn’t finish.

Some will scoff, that I am going back to Zeno’s paradox, being baffled by what baffled Zeno. But I know Zeno, he is a friend of mine. My own theory explains Zeno’s paradox. And, in any case, so does Cauchy’s theory of limits (which depends upon infinity only superficially; even infinitesimal theory, aka non-standard analysis, from Leibnitz + Model Theory survives my scathing refounding of all of logics, math, physics).  

By the way, this is all so true that mathematicians have developed still another notion, which makes, de facto, logic local, and spurn infinity, namely Category Theory. Category Theory is very practical, but also an implicit admission that mathematicians don’t need infinity to make mathematics. Category Theory has now become fashionable in some corners of theoretical physics.

3) The famous mathematician Brouwer threw out some of the famous mathematical results he had himself established, on grounds somewhat similar to those evoked above, when he promoted “Intuitionism”. The latter field was started by Émile Borel and Henri Lebesgue (of the Lebesgue integral), two important French analysts, viewed as  semi-intuitionists. They elaborated a constructive treatment of the continuum (the real line, R), leading to the definition of the Borel hierarchy. For Borel and Lebesgue considering the set of all sets of real numbers is meaningless, and therefore has to be replaced by a hierarchy of subsets that do have a clear description. My own position is much more radical, and can be described as ultra-finitism: it does away even with so-called “potential infinity” (this is how I get rid of many infinities in physics, which truly are artefacts from mathematical infinity).  I expect no sympathy: thousands of mathematicians live off infinity.

4) Let me help those who want to cling to infinity. I would propose two sort of mathematical problems: 1) those who can be solved when considered in Ultra Finite mathematics  (“UF”). 2) Those which stay hard, not yet solved, even in UF mathematics.