Homo, Naturally Born Capitalist

April 19, 2019

And WARRIOR!… WAR & CAPITAL ARE THE FORCES THAT GAVE US LIFE!

Capitalism presided to the evolution of the genus Homo. First, apes are territorial. They have to be to survive: land and its resources do not reproduce at will, yet species do. But species can’t survive without land or resources. So, unfortunately, survivors exist, because they have defended successfully land and resources.

As a study by top experts put it in Nature: Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts.

Chimps On War Patrol. The species can’t survive without war. Or then, in a zoo!

The apparition of tools and weapons extended the notion of property crucial to survival to other capital. That coincided with a bigger brain and the rise of the genus Homo.

During those millions of years of human evolution, some limits to inequality were intrinsic, because the group could only survive if all worked for it, and that could only be done willingly. Force was not an option to ensure collaboration, because force was needed against outside threats and enemies.

Civilization threw these evolutionary conditions off, as the increasing powers it yielded enabled the apparition of a superior class capable of fighting enemies, foreign and domestic.

The monopolization of the means of production by these superior types included intellectual capital, which, in turn, brought superior weapons. However, intellectual capital grew the more, the more intellectuals, scientists and engineers were at work. Thus oligarchic regimes, by monopolizing those mental powers found themselves less militarily inventive than democracies, which unleashed those mental creative powers (hence developed better weapons).

Therefrom, the old struggle between  oligarchies and democracies.

How to create democracies? By outlawing runaway oligarchies. Thus the Roman Republic put an absolute limit on wealth. Enforcing equality is the fundamental reason for taxation.

Continually, the naive arise, and ask for an end to war and capital. When they get better organized, those plaintiffs succeed to hold ultimate power for a while. Spartacus, the Paris Commune, and Lenino-Stalinism are examples. However, that very organization, which put them on top, is itself from superior capital and war capability (however ephemeral). For example the Kaiser, and later Trotsky (head of the Red Army) took the military actions necessary for success.

Capitalism, war, democracy, oligarchy and plutocracy all belong to the same space. One can’t leave it. It, and only it, provides the human experience. Thus simplistic slogans have to be put to rest. It’s the correct analysis of subtlety which should rule, not this, or that idea, let alone person…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

From the Nature article about the killing of chimps by chimps in the wild:

“Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing… Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates1,2,3,4,5

…Several robust patterns emerge from these data. Killing was most common in eastern chimpanzees and least common among bonobos. Among chimpanzees, killings increased with more males and higher population density, whereas none of the three human impact variables had an obvious effect. Male chimpanzees killed more often than females, and killed mainly male victims; attackers most frequently killed unweaned infants; victims were mainly members of other communities (and thus unlikely to be close kin); and intercommunity killings typically occurred when attackers had an overwhelming numerical advantage. The most important predictors of violence were thus variables related to adaptive strategies: species; age–sex class of attackers and victims; community membership; numerical asymmetries; and demography. We conclude that patterns of lethal aggression in Pan show little correlation with human impacts, but are instead better explained by the adaptive hypothesis that killing is a means to eliminate rivals when the costs of killing are low.”

 

The Greater The Height, The Harder the Fall: Humanity Towering Above The Abyss

April 18, 2019

Humanity is basking blissfully on the vast beach of possibilities now uncovered by the tide of progress. Comfort rules: the classic pitfall. It was famously observed, even at the imperial Roman court, in the Second Century, that everything was great, but a sentiment of doom and gloom nevertheless was present. And rightly so: the empire would start unravelling under Marcus Aurelius, a few years later. Now we don’t have that luxury: clearly, the biosphere as civilization always knew it, is coming to an end, in front of our very eyes. But still, most are in denial, and clinging to their creatures’ comfort… and the going is still good, better than it ever was.

Those tourists enjoyed the low tide, but may have known enough to realize this was a tidal wave coming, but faster than they thought possible. So it is now for humanity at large. For the great wave to come, the great beach needs to be uncovered. Finally panic will come… too late for many. That wave, when it reached the shore (in the back of the cameraman), was 30 meters in places, hundreds were killed, in this spot alone.

So it always was: the worst of all possible worlds is introduced by the best of all possible worlds, which gives it all the impact it needs. As we confront the Sixth, and First Man-Made Extinction, a possible shutdown of the food and oxygen supply looms:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/global-hypoxia/

Agreed, that’s the worst possible case. So precisely we have to prepare for it, instead of waiting for all to burn… we have to confront how people think.

That was not supposed to happen, because it didn’t happen before. But so it always is, with the greatest catastrophes.

So how do people think? Well, first humans think as scientists. Humans are naturally born scientists. Thus, to understand how humans think, a detailed case is provided by the case of science, or, more exactly, diverse aspects of science, and how they evolved.   

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a book by Thomas Kuhn, asserted that the deepest science advanced by shattering the preceding systems of thought. By opposition to gradualism. Kuhn listed a number of reasons for this… But forgot the most important ones. And these same reasons preside over the thinking of most people (including our dreadful leaders-into-oblivion).

Some famous academics, such as Steven Pinker and the Plutos financing him (Gates) believe we are living in an excellent world, better than any before. That’s entirely correct. But, since 2014, 17,000 illegal immigrants have been known to have drowned in the Mediterranean. This is very telling: it means the post colonial order is worse than the colonial order. Meanwhile some obsess with Trump wanting to complete the wall that the Democrats erected.

A red herring, one more: illegal immigrants arrests are the highest in a decade.

Per capita, Germany and Japan emits more than twice the CO2 of France. And the USA, nearly four times. The UK is closer to France than to Germany-Japan. Those who focus on the morality of completing “the Wall” should focus on CO2 instead.

It’s the CO2 that will bring Armageddon. Therein the abyss, the countdown to ecological unsustainability. And yes, the collapse of the Roman state was preceded by a similar effect. Not CO2, but exhaustion of natural resources… And mental resources (for the exhaustion of these metal resources, contemplate Notre Dame burning: French leaders now are not up to Middle Ages expertise!) On a much smaller scale, obviously, but still enough to kill the golden goose.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: Lamarck and Cuvier were both research professors at Museum of Natural History, circa 1800. They both believed in biological evolution, and taught it. However, they were great enemies. Lamarck believed in gradualism: biological evolution was caused by a number of forces which acted day in, day out. Cuvier, instead believed in catastrophism… for example all dinosaurs go extinct in a catastrophe and mammals then appeared. They were both right.

The same sort of think happens in scientific, and, more generally, mental revolutions. Gradualism everyday, but great lurches forward, sometimes. A major stabilization force is what I call the ANTI-IDEA. On this, more soon, barring some new catastrophe not seen in 856 years…

Notre Dame Burning, Symbol Of A Degenerating Civilization, Where Expertise Has Collapsed

April 15, 2019

Completely incompetent leaders, and only them, decide what our world is. They take their little decisions in secret, among experts, unchallenged by the common sense of debate. They jet set around the planet and splurge.

Notre Dame catches fire. Where are the helicopters dumping water? Can’t have them say the experts, cathedral too fragile: a fire hotter than lava is more of a problem. Obviously an idiotic opinion (whereas planes have killed with the tons of water they suddenly dump, helicopters can be as gentle as needed: the water comes from a pail, and the pail could have filled up 100 meters away in the Seine).

The burning of Notre Dame tells us that the world’s “experts” are not what they claim to be. They are experts of routine, self-glorification, career building. Think about it: a roof with timber older than a millennium has burned. The “charpente” of Notre Dame was made of 1,300 oaks, each more than 1,000 years old. It was called “the forest”. Middle Ages engineers and firefighters took care of the cathedral, and its roof, for centuries, but their Twenty-First century alter-egos couldn’t.

Our civilization could go up in smoke even faster than that

Notre-Dame resisted 856 years, the Middle Ages, eight religious wars, the French Revolution, the Cossacks, the Franco-Prussian war, the Commune, WWI and the Kaiser’s shells, Hitler, V2s. But not Twenty-First Century arrogant incompetence! A warning for all!

***

Reactions on the spot:

Fire is out of control in the North Tower of Notre Dame (“Beffroy Nord”). Nobody told me this, I saw the flames on TV. The incompetence of “experts” is astronomical. The entire cathedral may well collapse.

Water dropping helicopters should have been used. No ifs and buts. Even Trump in his White House figured that one out right away. Trump was first to react, within half an hour:  

Donald J. Trump

Verified account

So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!

“Experts” begged to differ, and replied to Trump:

Sécurité Civile Fr‏  Hundreds of firemen of the Paris Fire Brigade are doing everything they can to bring the terrible #NotreDame fire under control. All means are being used, except for water-bombing aircrafts which, if used, could lead to the collapse of the entire structure of the cathedral.

My personal answer: That’s hogwash, you are incompetent. Helicopter dropping water from the Seine would have made a huge difference, OBVIOUSLY. You were NOT ready for the worst possible case. There is a principle for all of humanity rising with these flames: one has to be ready for the worst.

Looking at the fire progressing on the roof, it is completely obvious that water dropping copters would have mitigated the fire. It may even have helped collapsing part of the metallic cover below which the flames crawled…  

Fleche collapsing

Of course, a sprinkler system would have stopped the fire right away. What do the French authorities say to this? We don’t do sprinklers in France, or something to this effect.

What has happened since Notre Dame was built, 856 years ago? Not much of planetary significance for centuries, until around 1850 CE, when the CO2 built-up stopped the Little Ice Age.

Now the entire biosphere is crumbling under various industrial assaults of humanity. We need expertise as never before. And what do we observe? Our “experts” are not up to Middle Ages standards.

Remedy? Always the same idea: publicly, transparently, thoroughly, debate, with peculiar attention to idiosyncratic ideas.

A public debate on fire security for Notre Dame (and similar buildings throughout the world) would have brought the question: why not a sprinkler system?

Sprinkler systems can release prodigious quantities of water. NASA uses water suppression to cut down rocket engine sound from 285 decibels (which would destroy everything when reverberating) to half that (142 decibels). To do this the NASA sprinkler system releases 60 tons of water… per second.

It’s not really new tech: New York skyscrapers had sprinklers, a century ago. Oh, by the way, 60 tons of water per second would have stopped the World Trade Center fires in… seconds. (So the WTC would not have collapsed; that happened because when steel is brought up to 500 degrees Celsius, it loses half of its strength… The steel in the WTC got progressively brought up to 500 C, after an hour, or so, from the burning of furniture… initiated by burning the kerosene of the planes… was there kerosene at Notre Dame? The French authorities decided, within minutes, that it was an accident, no Jihadist involved, they are like Allah, they know everything…)

Another question would have been: why not helicopters? The question was already asked for the World Trade Center.

Spaceship Earth is in the hand of “experts”, or those elected oligarchs we call politicians. The politicians are experts because they asked “experts”.  

Leibnitz, probably to please his Pluto sponsors, claimed we were in the best of all possible worlds.

Well, the worst possible worlds always follow the best possible worlds. Dinosaurs won’t confirm this, but they would, if they could..

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Notes: 1) In 1902, Rilke came to Paris to become Rodin’s secretary. Rodin was working on the “Gates of Hell”, a monument made for the entrance of the new Orsay Palace… which had been burned during the Commune of 1971. Rilke wrote:

“… because the great cities, Lord, are damned,

and the panic of fire simmers in their breasts.”

I saw Rodin’s “Gates of Hell”. even touched it, at a private Pluto event in Stanford University…

Where material wealth thrives, the art goes…

***

The French state of incompetency couldn’t find money to install a sprinkler system in Notre Dame… Or in another 2,000 historical buildings in France. Another cathedral burned last year or so. In Nantes. See the picture inside:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2018/11/24/moods-rule-thus-california-burns-with-fire-pascal-other-jihadists-with-hatred/

OPEN SOURCE LOBBYING Should Be The Only Legal Lobbying

April 13, 2019

Those afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome hoped that Mueller would describe the object of their hatred as an agent of Putin. This didn’t happen: Trump was explicitly exonerated from being a Russian agent. Instead, Mueller fingered out a number of super lobbyists, working with, or more exactly for, both ironically called “Republicans” and “Democrats” (in contrast to what, “Monarchists”?)… the US super lobbyists also worked for all dictators you can possibly imagine… And their targets were not just the powerful “leaders” in Western states, but public opinion (it’s managing public opinion which caused and enabled the Kaiser attack of 1914, and that was explicitly planned, in writing, as early as 1912; since then we enjoyed more of the same, the molding of public opinion to produce Maoism, Nazism, McCarthyism, Brexit, etc.).

The New York Times wrote an article on this: “Gregory Craig, Ex-Obama Aide, Is Indicted on Charges of Lying to Justice Dept.”

My reactionI claim that ONLY OPEN SOURCE LOBBYING Should Be LAWFUL.

Draining the swamp, one lobbyist at a time. Just to understand how hard it is going to be, going that route: there are 40,000 officially registered lobbyists at the European Parliament.

Why should lobbyists who receive compensation (financial or otherwise) for their work be tolerated, in a democracy? Why not, instead, outlaw lobbying pay to play entirely? It’s easy for lobbyists to implicitly offer plenty of indirect contributions in the future…t

The only lawful lobbying should be Open Source lobbying, where the lobbying effort would be posted on the Internet, and made completely transparent. Moreover, a government agency (related to the Justice Department)  should review the lobbying and explain its plausibility, veracity, impact, etc… Similarly to what is already done in California when propositions come to referendums (the voters’ official pamphlet comes with pros and cons, and a California government official analysis, for each single proposition… that, feeds, in turn, healthy debates in the public, and moves the voting intentions).  

Democracy, People Power, can’t happen when only a few men have all the power. In this case, these few men empowered a quasi-dictator in Ukraine determined to crush, even kill, the ex-PM, a woman. This is not just a question of money, not just a question the law, or politics, but of basic human rights.  

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Notes: 1) The question of Referendum Initiated by Citizens (RIC) is related, as I said in the comment above. In Switzerland, referendums can be contested judicially (and have been: 5 out of 10 last year, 2018!) The US State of Oregon is introducing a system according to which a state commission made of citizens selected by lot would overview the argumentation submitted to referendum. The same could be done for lobbying. Such a system of overviewing by lot was already used in democracies of Ancient Greece. 

2) Many European “leaders” have been in the employ of top plutocratic corporations. Here is a particular case of lobbying. 

Why do Pluto corporation legal “persons” enjoy greater rights than the average citizen? They exert special access of VIPs in secret (see Europe, below). We’ve clear indications of malfeasance, the “revolving door” between government & business… Just over two years! This is the official (real was probably much higher) intensity of a few US Obama-favored technological monopolies. Legally those are viewed as “persons” (the idea, and law originated in France, became US law recently).  Revolving door became blatant in 1920, when German assets were offered to US plutocrats by the US government (the building with the transactions conveniently burned in 1922, or so…)

3) The corrupting nature of lobbying is beyond understanding. Schroeder, once Chancellor of Germany, became the head of the Russian-German gas project, which insures the good fortune of Putin, Schroder, and the CO2 catastrophe. Ultimately pipes were built-in the Baltic Sea sea floor to bring Siberian gas to Germany.  Schroeder made millions… More are built. Merkel claimed she saved the world from big bad nuclear, while enriching the Russian petrostate dictatorship. No doubt she will be rewarded when she resigned the Chancellorship… Just as her corrupt predecessor.

4) Context from NYT: In an indictment that seized the attention of the capital’s K Street lobbying corridor, Gregory B. Craig, a White House counsel in the Obama administration, was charged on Thursday with lying to the Justice Department and concealing information about work he did in 2012 for the government of Ukraine.

The indictment of Mr. Craig, 74, stemmed from an investigation initiated by the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

The charges represented a continuation — and an expansion — of a new focus on a long-neglected law governing foreign influence operations in the United States, which the Justice Department has begun prioritizing in part because of scrutiny related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation…

By Thursday afternoon, the indictment and its implications were a hot topic for Washington’s lucrative lobbying and communications consulting industry.

The charges will prompt even more diligent review of possible compliance obligations by consultants who represent foreign clients, said Thomas J. Spulak, a partner at the King & Spalding law firm who advises on lobbying compliance.

“It’s pretty significant,” he said. “It’s not just trying to influence the government; it’s trying to influence the American public.” He added, of Mr. Craig’s case, “If they can establish the facts, then I think it’s a pretty serious violation.”

Mr. Craig’s indictment also attracted notice because he is the first person who made his name in Democratic Party politics to be charged in a case linked to the special counsel’s investigation. An Ivy League-educated lawyer, Mr. Craig held prominent positions in the administrations of President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama.

The indictment said Mr. Craig “did not want to register as an agent for the government of Ukraine” partly because he believed doing so would make it less likely that he and others at his firm at the time, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, would be appointed to federal government posts. Mr. Obama had put rules in place restricting the work that former lobbyists could do in his administration.

The indictment said Mr. Craig also wanted to hide the identity of the Ukrainian oligarch who paid $4 million to fund the overwhelming majority of the fees received by Skadden Arps for the Ukraine work.

Mr. Craig identified the oligarch as Viktor Pinchuk, a steel magnate who has portrayed himself as pro-Western, and who has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation…

The work was done on behalf of the government of Viktor F. Yanukovych, then the president of Ukraine, and consisted primarily of producing a report on the prosecution and jailing by Mr. Yanukovych’s government of one of his rivals, the former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko. The Skadden Arps team also agreed to train Ukrainian prosecutors handling matters related to the case.

The work was steered to Mr. Craig and his firm by Paul Manafort, who at the time was a political consultant earning tens of millions of dollars for his representation of Mr. Yanukovych. Mr. Manafort intended to use the report to quell Western criticism of Mr. Yanukovych.

***

When a concept is born, the concept should have a name, that’s how neurobiology works. The concept becomes a philosophical person, so to speak. I am proud to have originated “Trump Derangement Syndrome“, let’s hope “Open Source Lobbying” will be similarly graced… I have talked in the past of the “Absolute Wealth Limit”… A concept actually invented and practiced in the Roman Republic. However, the Roman didn’t give it a name as such. Notice that the “Absolute Wealth Limit” was a particular case of another Roman Republican practice which deserves a name, the “Absolute Power Limit“. According to which persons (even Consuls in the case of Rome, or presidents in contemporary states) shouldn’t have more than a given power limit. Open Source Lobbying is a particular case.

***

Disclosure: Skadden is one of the premium law firms in the world. Fundamental to the plutocratic order. My spouse worked at Skadden for a few years… And I have socialized with Skadden partners… Thus I am no virgin to the subject…

 

 

Black Hole For Dummies: An Old Illuminating Story

April 11, 2019

Black Hole Seen At Core Of Galaxy Messier 87 

Black Holes were predicted at the end of the Eighteenth Century. I am not here campaigning for justice or historical precision, by giving Michell and Laplace the honor due to them. I am also defending physics, and promoting understanding. The guy with the bushy hairdo didn’t launch understanding of Black Holes. That means Black Hole theory arose for DEEPER reasons than in Einstein’s theory of gravitation. Deeper reasons is what science is all about.

Black Holes are indeed an effect of the most basic theory of gravity which was elaborated in the 1560-1800 CE period by Tycho, Kepler, Galileo, Bullialdus, Hookes, Newton, and finally Laplace. That basic theory of gravitation is the first order of the present theory of gravitation. The Black Hole effect, per se, has nothing to do with Jules Henri Poincaré’s Theory of Relativity (translated into German by Einstein).

In 1796 marquis Pierre-Simon de Laplace,mathematician, physicist, astronomer and philosopher (of course) rediscovered the idea of John Michell, a cleric and independent scholar. Michell has noticed that a body falling from far away onto something big enough, would exceed the speed of light. Thus, supposing that light would be made of particles, those particles would lose as much speed, trying to escape that big body, and thus, would fall back onto that body.  Laplace wrote:

Un astre lumineux, de la même densité que la Terre, et dont le diamètre serait 250 fois plus grand que le Soleil, ne permettrait, en vertu de son attraction, à aucun de ses rayons de parvenir jusqu’à nous. Il est dès lors possible que les plus grands corps lumineux de l’univers puissent, par cette cause, être invisibles.

(...because of this, it’s possible that the greatest luminous bodies of the universe would be invisible.)

Here I will follow Laplace’s proof.

Laplace on top. Don’t pay much attention to the text (not from me) which is a bit confusing

The Black Hole effect comes from the fact that the gravitational attraction is proportional upon the mass of an object, but also inversely proportional to the distance of said object, while the energy of an object necessary to escape the gravitation, is simply proportional to its mass. So, if too close, the gravitation will overwhelm any escape energy.  

Here is a bit more detailed reasoning  Supposing a particle of light has mass m, 1/2 mvv is its kinetic energy. If situated at x from the gravitational center, the energy to bring it to infinity is Gm/x. (G is aM, where a is some constant and M the central mass.)

Equating, we get 1/2 mvv = Gm/x

Thus, cancelling m, changing the constant: v^2= bM/x

But now, as early as the late 17C, the speed of light became known, by observing carefully Jupiter’s satellites.  It’s c, a constant. So we get: x= bM/cc.

Hence, if x is smaller than bM/cc, the potential gravitational energy Gm/x is TOO BIG to become 1/2 mcc.

Let’s put it in words only. Suppose light is a particle of mass m.  

OK, let me wait for the laughter of professional physicists to die off… Indeed, those simple souls will object that I neglected Relativity and its guru, Einstein. Well, my reply is that I know very well what I am doing, and they don’t. Meanwhile, here is the Black Hole:

Matter Falling into the Black Hole or running crazy orbits around it at relativistic speeds generate lots of heat, by collision and sheer acceleration (like a super enormously incredibly humongously giant circular particle accelerator, CERN on unimaginable steroids…). With 6.5 BILLION Solar Masses, this is one the largest Black Holes known.

OK, this reasoning was in Laplace. The incredibly famous Laplace, after whom Laplacians are named, made gravitation into a field theory, predicting thus gravitational waves (said waves were relativized by Jules Henri Poincaré… Modern Quantum Field Theory is all about manipulating Laplacians…

So is light a particle? Einstein said so (following Newton) [I have my doubts: SQPR changes the game!] Does light have mass? Definitely yes, according to E = mcc, a relation first demonstrated and taught by Jules Henri Poincaré in 1899 at the Sorbonne (the Einstein cult omits this little detail). There is a simple reasoning for that… simple once one knows Maxwell equations, or observe light momentum…

Here is the simplest proof of E = mcc. Light pushes, it has momentum. So light acts as if it had what’s called “inertial mass”. Now the “Equivalence Principle”  says that inertial mass = gravitational mass. Thus, light behaves as if it were endowed with a gravitational mass m, as used above.  

(The EP is truly an experimental observations, last checked excruciatingly a year ago, in a French satellite launched for that purpose)

So what’s the next problem in my hare brain derivation of Black Hole? None, really. The modern gravitation theory (aka General Relativity) integrates the LOCAL TIME theory of Lorentz-Jules Henri Poincaré into the gravitation theory of Newton. Local time runs slow in a gravitational field, and the deeper the gravitational well, the slower the time. Thus, if I wanted to ameliorate the hare brain Black Hole theory, I would have to add that….

The full Einstein gravitation theory simply says that: Ricci Tensor = Mass-Energy Tensor.

The Italian Ricci, starting in 1890, simplified the full Riemann Curvature tensor. It’s applied to the spacetime metric g. We see immediately that, the more mass-energy, the more curvature. In the limiti of small masses, this is Newton’s equation…

The preceding is very simple, thus ironclad.  

So here it is: physics is not that complicated.

***

Many scientists present science as more complicated than it is, so they appear to be great sorcerers or shamans. An example is the claim made by Darwin that man arose in East Africa (then a UK dominion). There was evidence for this, as the Brits digged in East Africa. When the Chinese digged in China, they begged to differ. Humans had originated in China too, they insisted.

Now another human species was just discovered, in the Philippines… ‘Homo luzonensis’ boasted an eclectic mix of features comparable to, but distinct from, different species of hominins. So this is another human species which lived 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. We now have five. It’s clearly a different species as they have three root teeth where we have just two.

Contemporary humans have genetic material from three human species: ancestral Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans…

Science is both simple, and complex. Often the lack of simplicity, and the grandiloquent style in exposition, is just an attempt to hide ignorance, and leveraging said ignorance in awe for the perpetrators of pseudo-scientific obscurantism.  

Physicists are particularly culprit of this in recent decades. Consider titles such as: “The First Three Minutes”, “The Theory of Everything”, “A Universe Out Of Nothing”, “The God Particle”, etc… The more fatuous physicists became, the less the theory progressed. Now, right, they couldn’t probably have done better. Fortunately, experimental physics, and especially astronomy has kept on advancing, ever more spectacularly… cornering the fatuous ones, even when adorned with Nobel Prizes, into irrelevance…

Decades ago, I caused a scandal at an integrated physics-mathematics seminar at Stanford by exposing the shortcoming of Black Hole Theory… I was coming from the mathematical, hyper-logical side, unearthing all the little problems, which weren’t so little… Namely I claimed it didn’t take into account enough Quantum Theory. (Following my generously provided orientation, has brought a cottage industry of quantized “Black Holes” theory… Some not really black, just frozen…)

Many surprises await… Stay tuned…

Patrice Ayme

 

Brexit: Keep Britain In, Under Lock and Key! Caesar’s and Charlemagne’s Dream, Not Waterloo’s Revenge!

April 10, 2019

The Roman empire succeeded a gigantic unification of Western Europe and North Africa. It was peaceful, and wealthiest, for centuries, before a sudden collapse from an invasion by Vandals (literally!) in 406 CE (after more than two centuries of military pressure from various German tribes). Now, nearly two millennia later, Britannia and Algeria are acting up. Britannia is out of sorts, after decades of anti-European hate mongering by wealthy manipulators. Whereas Algeria is acting up, for the best reasons, out of righteousness, after 57 years of FNL dictatorship engineered by a French general (however strange that may sound, that’s what happened, what I have been saying for decades; a paradox many young Algerians are daring to express at last!)

It’s another paradox that Brexit aims at unifying the continent, excluding Britain, exactly the opposite of British policy under… Napoleon. Was Waterloo, Trafalgar, for nought!… However now Brexit is turning into Brexinfinity, a malady of infinite uncertainty…

A little reminder, from a Remainer: England and Algeria were in the Roman empire for centuries. The empire was the wealthiest, most prosperous part of the world. That prosperity lasted until military decay, and then collapse, first at the hands of the Goths (mostly). In the century after the 406 CE collapse, the Franks started a long conquest of Germania Magna… Following Julius Caesar’s final message: the Republic could be made safe only under final borders. Now, in a way, the UN is the borders… As civilization in its best version so far, conquered the planet…

I am a mortal enemy of Brexit. I think the European Union as it is organized, is a disaster, but it’s less of a disaster than no Union at all. Of course, Britain should be part of the Union. However all too many British are Pluto pawns driven to madness by the deep emotional misinformation in which they bathe.

Indeed, there are lots of the problems of the present European Union, including pig-headed expansion, were caused by British bullying. The EU immigration so decried by the Brexiteers was therefore a British Pluto trick… second only to non-EU immigration to Britain… thus demonstrating in an even deeper way that massive immigration to Britain was organized by the same manipulators who are behind Brexit.

I have argued that ejecting Britain out of the EU could have unforeseen consequences, that alienation is a very bad thing, etc.

The classical case of this, I insisted, was the estrangement of Western Francia from the rest of the Roman empire in the Tenth Century (that Roman empire is often erroneously labeled by unfaithful historian “Carolingian” empire). That brought one millennium of war (all the way to Hitler). Now the Western Franks had a very good reason to split: the Roman empire had not defended them against the Vikings by eradicating the latter. Instead Western Franks had to defend themselves by their own means. So Frexit had an excellent reason.

So happy together. British press always refer to the Union as a “block”, or “club”. That’s how propaganda works, by disparaging those one wants to hate: would you like your union to be called a “bloc”? Macron and Merkel and their common republican home. Neither the Kaiser, nor Hitler would have been happy to see this, they would have been revolted, apoplectic, enraged, uncomprehending. But the Kaiser was the grandson of British queen Victoria. Republic s such as present day Germany and France, don’t need “Royal assent” (as British politicos do) Brexit, or Exit Britannia from its royal mind…

The case of Brexit is completely different from the Frexit of the Tenth Century: half of the British electorate has been rendered stupid, delusional and angry from plutocratic propaganda, and enormous lies. They have to snap out of it, they need psychiatric treatment.

However, the EU is in a maelstrom. The planet is dying, etc. Can we afford a few more years taking care of delusional Brits, at the exclusion of the needed further federalization of the European Union?

No.   

Did I change my mind?

Well, the head of (misleading called) European Research Group Jacob Rees-Mogg, changed my mind. I listened to him for a long time. The gentleman looks very calm and collected, full of certainty for his delirious absurdities, the sort of certainty many promoters of Nazism exhibited, with somewhat similar absurdities.     

Brexiters are determined to keep on sabotaging Europe, so that Europe can become a better poodle for global plutocracy and USA. Should wisdom then activate Waterloo’s revenge, and kick them out all together, or just keep them out of European Parliament?

Verified account @Jacob_Rees_Mogg: “If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible. We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes.” Prominent Brexiteer MP Mark Francois, said that if the U.K. remained in the “bloc“, “then in return we will become a Trojan Horse within the EU.” In return, or will return to? Honesty requires to admitting the second formulation.

What to do? Throwing the UK out may be reasonable, at first sight, considering such a mindset from prominent UK politicos.

E U solidarity with the Republic of Ireland has been total. The EC chief negotiator, Michel Barnier confirmed that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the EU would make solving the Irish Border issue a prerequisite for any re-starting of trade talks with the UK. That’s the so-called “backstop”: the EU will enforce it. As things stand, the UK is due to leave the EU on Friday, April 12th, midnight, Franco-German time. As decided by the last EU summit. The rhetoric is escalating, as the EU is threatening to use some sort of force.

Tough? Yes. But we can’t Brexinfinity forever… So what should Macron do? Without Britain to sabotage in the name of global plutocracy, France has only to deal with Germany. And much can, and should be done.

Meanwhile, a number of EU states want the British government signed up to conditions that would bring “sincere cooperation” from the UK during its extended membership, including restraining from involvement in budget discussions or agreeing to go without a European commissioner (each full member gets one).

It is crucial that an extension of Article 50 and Brexit limbo, would not allow British politicians, and in particular, a Brexiteer prime minister, to damage EU interests. (I proposed that the UK would not sit on the European Parliament.)

If independence from British meddling, while the UK keeps on saying it wants out, but is still in, can’t be insured, Britain should be kicked out.

***

Trump Accuses Airbus To Have Sabotaged the 737 MAX with negative vibes, punishment coming:

Meanwhile, indeed, the most imperial Trump is acting up. As I exposed, Boeing’s 737 MAX is misshapen and shouldn’t be allowed to fly (if they correct the software which makes the plane plunge towards the ground, it will tend to stall…). That’s an immense disaster: more than 5,000 of the type were ordered, worth up to $130 million each.  So what does Trump do to come to the rescue? Accuse and punish Airbus with 11 billion dollars of sanctions on things like… cheese. That’s imperial logics at its best. Already French cheese sold in the US is mangled by the authorities in such a way, that’s it turns disgusting pretty quickly. But that’s not enough, Boeing designed a plane in the 1960s, tries to sell it in 2020s, doesn’t work, it’s the fault of Airbus!

***

Not to take those things lightly, the tit and the tat, the French Republic’s Parliament passed a GAFA law:

The law now goes to the French Senate (which is controlled by the opposition).

I have advocated to pass such a law for a decade. Tax according to revenues, not profits. The French GAFA law taxes 3% of revenues in companies with worldwide revenues above 750 million Euros. The rest of Europe, apparently paralyzed by terror, watches the French with the fascination of prey species seeing forces they can’t comprehend counterattack American predators.

US pawns and minnows, Sweden, Finland, Ireland and Denmark blocked a draft EU-wide GAFA tax proposal over the weekend. In the last World War, when Hitler killed himself as the coward he had become, Ireland sent condolences to his successor, war criminal Doenitz. Ireland had refused to help the Allies in WWII, to the point that it preferred being at Hitler’s (implicit) side rather than accept Churchill offer of Irish reunification! So now Ireland is Apple’s tax evasion agent, worldwide. Always going for the strongest, baddest empire around.

Whereas Ireland was passively pro-Hitler. Sweden was so pro-actively pro-Hitler that, had Sweden not been around, Hitler’s war effort would have been stunted from the start: Sweden provided Hitler with raw materials and weapons necessary to the Nazi war machine. Had not France fallen suddenly after 10 May 1940, the French Foreign Legion would have cut Sweden in two, as it was poised to do (that’s why the Legion was not in France during the battle of France). Finland was outright allied with Hitler (and stayed at war technically with Britain until 1948). And Denmark? Denmark fought six hours in World War Two, before surrendering… (Whereas the French ceasefire of 26 June 1940 turned into the Bir Hakeim battle 23 months later, where the Italian and the Afrika Korps suffered a strategic defeat they didn’t recover from…

See the note on Bir Hakeim at the end of: New Thinking Always A Combat.

In other words, small countries such as Sweden, ireland, Denmark, Finland refuse a EU wide GAFA tax, because they are US agents… And why that? Because they fear the USA more than they fear France, and they fear the European Union, not at all. Britain, of course, aspire to the same level of prostitution, forgetting reality in the process…

Confronted to the French GAFA tax, the American imperialists howled to high heavens, but skeptics pointed out that the French GAFA tax is probably not even a third of what should be the fair amount. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned last week that the tax would hurt both the American firms and the French citizens who use the platforms. Fortunately, the French are sadomasochists, so it should be alright.

The USA is an empire, China is an empire, Russia is an empire, Brazil is an empire, Indonesia, Japan, are clearly empire, India is an empire… And Pakistan (population 200 million) put a fatwa on yours truly.  

What is Europe in all of this? Throwing Britain out, as amply deserved, would make Europe into an empire, something that gives out orders (imperium, even lethal ones). But, at this point, it would not be the smartest thing. Better to let England fully experience the folly of taking one’s orders, hearts, facts and souls from global plutocratic media.

Meanwhile, those who don’t like a European empire as either Putin gas dependent (Germany), aspiring prostitutes (UK), and, in general, lovers of all empires, but for one leading European destinies optimally. This tendency in Europe is fundamentally a laziness, a lethargy, an infantilism. It was vastly behind the so-called decolonization movement… which was, all too often, a plutocratization movement. The best example there is Algeria, which, at last, is understanding that De Gaulle was the head of the FNL…  Hey, I must admit, a slightly harder notion to understand than the fact that PM May is a Remainer, a Remainer of the Machiavellian type, vastly underestimated by the enraged Brexiters she outmaneuvers at every turn and twist…

So let the European Union give a gigantic Article 50 extension to a defanged UK: the rights of the UK as a full EU member will be restored after its third EU referendum, the one when the UK will decide to Remain, in a year or so… Meanwhile there is a lot of empire to build…

Patrice Ayme

 

New Green Deal is Nuclear, Or Is Not! Mass Murder the Alternative!

April 7, 2019

Combining evidence from various sources, it’s obvious that fossil fuels kill directly more than ten million people, a year. So why the negative obsession with nuclear? Have We The Sheeple been programmed to love the tar, breathe it all day long?

Enough with the hypocrisy of Communal Wisdom! Today we celebrate! The New York Times just aligned itself on one of my most ancient positions, so I shall reiterate, and celebrate this sudden Enlightenment of the old gray lady (nickname of the NYT).This is not an original essay: most of what’s below, I have said again and again, even 10 years ago. However here is the refrain again:

90% of humanity’s worldwide energy comes from burning fossils (even more than 90% of energy comes from burning, once one integrates the burning of forests).

We burn, therefore we are. Only one emergency solution to decrease dependency on burning fuels: nuclear energy.

Yet, all too many of the haggard populations, soon to be devoured by the climate catastrophe, hate nuclear energy, that is, they hate the Sun, our nuclear Sun, and they hate the Earth, our nuclear Earth, and don’t even know it.

The world International Energy Agency just revealed that CO2 emissions from burning fossils augmented nearly 2% in 2018, up to 33 gigatons of CO2. (Total emissions of CO2 are much higher from other human activities, like pouring concrete, deforestation, etc.)

Says IEA: “Coal-fired power plants were the single largest contributor to the growth in emissions observed in 2018, with an increase of 2.9%, or 280 Mt, compared with 2017 levels, exceeding 10 Gt for the first time.” I guess pseudo-ecologists like Angela Merkel loves that. Merkel closes nuclear, because she is an ecologist, she says, while opening full up on the world’s dirtiest coal, lignite… First used by Neanderthals 80,000 years.

***

Germany Climate Mass Murder, and Its Wind Illusion:

Wind illusion? In case of massive greenhouse, winds will go down. Renewables provide 40% of German power, and government propaganda emphasizes this with relish, reminding me of “Arbeit Macht Frei” at the entrance of Auschwitz (namely a misleading slogan covering up mass murder). Although Germany has one of the most advanced renewable energy systems in the world thanks to its Energiewende (energy transition) policy, it has not reduced its emissions since Angela Merkel’s decision to phase out nuclear power following an enormously murderous tsunami in Japan from a 9 Richter quake (that’s what is called logic; at least Angela didn’t accuse the Versailles treaty: progress!)

Coal, the most CO2 emissions productive fossil fuel, now provides more than 42% of Germany’s power according to the International Energy Agency – a proportion that has been growing since the nuclear decision. The result is that Germany’s carbon emissions have been growing, since Germany’s horrendously selfish decision… while the neighbors’ CO2 emissions have been declining. France, in particular CO2 pollutes less than half of Germany per capita… due to nuclear.

Not happy with digging grand canyon sized craters in Germany, to extract “brown coal”, Germany is importanting gigantic amounts of gas from the Russian dictatorship next door…. While complaining about Trump’s strong man rule, to cover its own Putin puppet status…

Notice France is just at world average… The less polluting wealthy country in the world. Clearly, except for massive nuclear right away, the world’s total CO2 emissions will climb spectacularly as two-thirds of humanity catch up in energy utilization.

***

I denuclearize, therefore I mass murder:

Renewable energy won’t change make enough energy to do without getting 90% of our energy without burning fossil fuels. Massive nuclear and hydrogen are needed, right away. Who disagrees with this is morally indifferent, ignorant, misinformed, cruel, & will help kill 6 billions.

I could go on like that: fossil fuel burning kills at least ten million a year, probably more than a million a year in Europe (looking at the latest numbers).

How many did nuclear energy kill?

In Fukushima, the unimaginable happened: four nuclear reactors, terribly located, without back-ups, or sea wall, crushed by giant waves. And, yes, there was no back up for the cooling systems. Back-ups were in Florida. Three reactors blew up and melted down. Result? Nobody died, and the beach is reopened for babies, 15 years later.  

In other words, those who oppose nuclear energy are the lowest of the low, the sleepiest of the sheep. Let me buttress these cogent observations, in full metal jacket complement to:

Nuclear Power Can Save the World

Expanding the technology is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize the economy.

[By Joshua S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist and Steven Pinker

Drs. Goldstein and Qvist are the authors of “A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow.” Dr. Pinker is a psychology professor at Harvard. Yes, usually I criticize Pinker for finding everything pink… But here he focuses on the biggest, blackest problem…]

Young people rightly bleat in unison to mitigate the man-made climate catastrophe. However the young sheep should be advised that the question is not what to do — eliminate fossil fuels ASAP, and by 2050 at the latest— but how. It’s impossible to achieve this by ill-informed, however well-meaning, bleating.

Right now 90% of the world primary energy production is by burning fossil fuels. Repeat slowly, and try to understand what it means: we need a humongous source of energy, right away, to replace that.

Renewable energy will not change the 90% of fossil fuel burning except in a few special places such as California (a rare place with water, mountains, wind and sun).  Norway and New Zealand, full of water and mountain, get their electricity for dams. Yemen is also full of mountains, and had the first dam. However Yemen’s electricity will not come from dams. Yemen’s electricity will not come from Solar Photovoltaic, either, except for a few hours a day, because batteries hold at most 4 hours and are immensely expensive.

Ethiopia, on the other side of the Red Sea, is building a giant dam on the Nile. That enraged Egypt so much, at some point, it made military threats (those stopped, simply perhaps war with Ethiopia promises to be counterproductive). The fact is, the planet is dammed out. (One could build artificial lagoons and mountains to store energy as elevated water, but that would be expensive, and best done in places full of water…)

Humanity must provide for the fast-growing energy needs of poorer countries. It also needs to extend the grid to a billion people who now lack electricity. And our energy needs will only grow. One will need to more electricity to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by mid-century, and stabilize the climate (the present CO2 density has launched natural self-feeding warming mechanisms with a life of their own…)

***

Pinker and company now proclaiming the truth about nuclear power, of all places, in the New York Times (those knowing the NYT will appreciate the U-turn!):

Where will this gargantuan amount of carbon-free energy come from? The popular answer is renewables alone, but this is a fantasy. Wind and solar power are becoming cheaper, but they are not available around the clock, rain or shine, and batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks show no sign of materializing any time soon. Today, renewables work only with fossil-fuel backup.

Germany, which went all-in for renewables, has seen little reduction in carbon emissions, and, according to our calculations, at Germany’s rate of adding clean energy relative to gross domestic product, it would take the world more than a century to decarbonize, even if the country wasn’t also retiring nuclear plants early.”

***

One must with renewables is storage. But this massive storage we do not have yet in the present state of technology (but for a few dams where water can be lifted and turbined back down). Batteries are extremely far from being able to provide that mass storage, for months at a time (there are possible possibilities, for the future, but we aren’t there yet)…

There is only one way to store renewable energy which is affordable, and expendable on a huge scale : the hydrogen economy. That hydrogen economy has not been developed massively, yet. Although it’s feasible. It could be used in planes… This is the only way, in the foreseeable future, to get 100% CLEAN planes.

The hydrogen economy is so feasible, that the first thing Obama did, on the first day, arriving in the White House, was to destroy it, so that his friends in the fossil industry could prosper. And prosper they did… And reward him and his family, thereafter. Hey, Obama is a family man. So fracking and bituminous sands prospered , and the ill-informed populace bleated its approval, as Obama made plenty of seductive ecological noises, while hyenas laughed in the night.  

***

So what energy source are we left with, if we want to decarbonize? Nuclear energy.

Fission now, which could be rendered rather innocuous, if Thorium reactors were developed. Fusion soon, which could bring reactors connected to the grid in ten years, if massive spending was engaged. Fusion brings neglectable pollution, and not at all if using Helium 3.  

The pseudo ecologists who refuse nuclear energy refuse the earth and the sky. In the core of the planet, a fission reactor generate plate tectonic and the magnetic shield which made life possible (by controlling CO2 and radiation). In the sky, that thermonuclear reactor known as the sun.

A further complicating factor is that massive ecological disruption always bring war.

Pseudo ecologists refusing nuclear energy condemn the biosphere to the Sixth Mass Extinction. They are the objective accomplices of fossil fuel fanatics. Just their propaganda angle is different. Instead of just being greedy to no end like the fossil fuel fanatics, anti-nuclear “ecologists” are, on top of that, completely irrational.

Anti-nuclear pseudo-ecologists do to reason what Jihadists do to faith in God.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Let me quote Pinker and Al in the Times again: such sweet revenge, I have been saying these things forever, and been called devil incarnated for them… By repeating them, I repeat myself…

Pinker and Al: Nuclear made France and Sweden clean:

…”we actually have proven models for rapid decarbonization with economic and energy growth: France and Sweden. They decarbonized their grids decades ago and now emit less than a tenth of the world average of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. They remain among the world’s most pleasant places to live and enjoy much cheaper electricity than Germany to boot.

They did this with nuclear power. And they did it fast, taking advantage of nuclear power’s intense concentration of energy per pound of fuel. France replaced almost all of its fossil-fueled electricity with nuclear power nationwide in just 15 years; Sweden, in about 20 years. In fact, most of the fastest additions of clean electricity historically are countries rolling out nuclear power.

This is a realistic solution to humanity’s greatest problem. Plants built 30 years ago in America, as in France, produce cheap, clean electricity, and nuclear power is the cheapest source in South Korea. The 98 U.S. reactors today provide nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electricity generation. So why don’t the United States and other countries expand their nuclear capacity? The reasons are economics and fear.

New nuclear power plants are hugely expensive to build in the United States today. This is why so few are being built. But they don’t need to be so costly. The key to recovering our lost ability to build affordable nuclear plants is standardization and repetition…

***

Worldwide CO2 emissions went down as China opened several new giant nuclear reactors(one French designed, but made so much faster than the French in Finland and France, that it is the only such EPR in use!). Pinker and Al.:

France has two types of reactors and hundreds of types of cheese, in the United States it’s the other way around. In recent decades, the United States and some European countries have created ever more complicated reactors, with ever more safety features in response to public fears. New, one-of-a-kind designs, shifting regulations, supply-chain and construction snafus and a lost generation of experts (during the decades when new construction stopped) have driven costs to absurd heights.

These economic problems are solvable. China and South Korea can build reactors at one-sixth the current cost in the United States. With the political will, China could replace coal without sacrificing economic growth, reducing world carbon emissions by more than 10 percent.

***

Nuclear Power is safer, and less polluting, even when one is talking about second generation nuclear fission plants (now fourth generations plants are developed… Thorium would still be something else, much less polluting…). Pinker and Al.:

All this, however, depends on overcoming an irrational dread among the public and many activists. The reality is that nuclear power is the safest form of energy humanity has ever used. Mining accidents, hydroelectric dam failures, natural gas explosions and oil train crashes all kill people, sometimes in large numbers, and smoke from coal-burning kills them in enormous numbers, more than half a million per year.

By contrast, in 60 years of nuclear power, only three accidents have raised public alarm: Three Mile Island in 1979, which killed no one; Fukushima in 2011, which killed no one (many deaths resulted from the tsunami and some from a panicked evacuation near the plant); and Chernobyl in 1986, the result of extraordinary Soviet bungling, which killed 31 in the accident and perhaps several thousand from cancer, around the same number killed by coal emissions every day. (Even if we accepted recent claims that Soviet and international authorities covered up tens of thousands of Chernobyl deaths, the death toll from 60 years of nuclear power would still equal about one month of coal-related deaths.)

Nuclear power plants cannot explode like nuclear bombs, and they have not contributed to weapons proliferation, thanks to robust international controls: 24 countries have nuclear power but not weapons, while Israel and North Korea have nuclear weapons but not power.

Nuclear waste is compact — America’s total from 60 years would fit in a Walmart — and is safely stored in concrete casks and pools, becoming less radioactive over time. After we have solved the more pressing challenge of climate change, we can either burn the waste as fuel in new types of reactors or bury it deep underground. It’s a far easier environmental challenge than the world’s enormous coal waste, routinely dumped near poor communities and often laden with toxic arsenic, mercury and lead that can last forever.

***

Misinformation, intellectual laziness, and Pluto engineered tribal hatred explain the distaste for nuclear energy. People love to hate. When one is not officially a racist and hater of low lives, one has to invent new hatreds, and hatred for nuclear energy ecology comes, ready to wear. Pinker and Al:

Despite its demonstrable safety, nuclear power presses several psychological buttons. First, people estimate risk according to how readily anecdotes like well-publicized nuclear accidents pop into mind. Second, the thought of radiation activates the mind-set of disgust, in which any trace of contaminant fouls whatever it contacts, despite the reality that we all live in a soup of natural radiation. Third, people feel better about eliminating a single tiny risk entirely than minimizing risk from all hazards combined. For all these reasons, nuclear power is dreaded while fossil fuels are tolerated, just as flying is scary even though driving is more dangerous.

Opinions are also driven by our cultural and political tribes. Since the late 1970s, when No Nukes became a signature cause of the Green movement, sympathy to nuclear power became, among many environmentalists, a sign of disloyalty if not treason.

The hilarious, and very telling, part, personally, is that I was an early anti-nuclear activist… on some specific type of reactors (Plutonium surgenerators… I am FOR Thorium surgenerators, though…)

***

And Pinker and Al. to conclude:

Protecting the environment and lifting the developing world out of poverty are progressive causes. And the millennials and Gen Z’s might rethink the sacred values their boomer parents have left unexamined since the Doobie Brothers sang at the 1979 No Nukes concert.

If the American public and politicians can face real threats and overcome unfounded fears, we can solve humanity’s most pressing challenge and leave our grandchildren a bright future of climate stability and abundant energy. We can dispatch, once and for all, the self-fulfilling prophesy that we’re cooked.

There are lots of things which could have been done, since Sparta, financed by Persia attacked Athens in the Peloponnesian war, nearly 25 centuries ago. Hence many catastrophes, the worst of them all the collapse of Greco-Roman civilization which started with the condemnable Aristotle, and ended with a flood of barbarian tribes going through the Frankish military curtain at the Winter Solstice of 406 CE (nearly three-quarters of a millennium later).  Yes, bad philosophy was in the driver’s seat:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/aristotle-destroyed-democracy/

This time, though, collapse will be faster, fiercer… and nuclear bombs will be used. Thus it would be wiser to use nuclear energy in a civil manner….

 

Brexit Criminals Manipulate Minds With Fake Grassroot Campaigns Propelled By Plutocratic Money

April 4, 2019

Brexit is an instrument of global plutocracy to weaken progress, democracy, and the fight against the world oligarchy. So far it has functioned really well, causing a massive mess. The proofs of this keeps on piling up. Here is the latest, a week before the expiration of the ill-advised ultimatum of the EU to the UK.

It’s already known that the Official Leave/Brexit campaign broke electoral laws. Now they aren’t done yet…

The British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will use its legal powers to obtain information from Facebook about the involvement of creative plutocratic henchman Sir Lynton Crosby in running a secretive network of advertising campaigns on the social network to push for a no-deal Brexit.

The ICO will look at how any data is being handled, potentially including email addresses collected while encouraging people to email their MP.

All lies, all propaganda: the populace is getting its orders, and even its minds and hearts from plutocracy. There are countless ads like these… Many with black and other colored begging for Brexit… BBC is full of them…

The Guardian revealed on Tuesday how a series of apparently grassroots advertising campaigns for a no-deal Brexit are secretly overseen by employees of the Australian Tory election guru’s lobbying company. Just as Murdoch, the Australian Lynton Crosby conspired to become a British citizen. Heavily influence British right-wing politics with dirty tactics, and even to be ennobled.

Crosby helped Boris Johnson, ex-mayor of London, co-chair of the Leave campaign, with what Johnson called “dead cats”. Mr. Johnson explained: when losing an argument because the facts are against you, you do the equivalent of “throwing a dead cat on the table“: bring up an issue you want to talk about that draws widespread attention from the stupid populace, forcing opponents to also talk about the dead cat issue instead of the previous issue.

Crosby used his new dirty tactics serving fossil fuels and tobacco (Philip Morris).

Said the ICO: “We are aware of these, and other similar concerns, and have included them as part of our ongoing investigation into the use of personal data for political purposes. We have used our statutory powers to require the social media platforms and campaign groups involved to provide information to our investigators. This will allow us to identify if there has been any misuse of personal data. Our work is ongoing. As we have set out before, the use of personal information for political campaigning purposes must comply with data protection law and, as we have shown, we will take all necessary action to protect UK citizens and uphold the law.

Global Plutocratic Pyramid… Maybe Not Exactly This, But Something Like That

Damian Collins, the Conservative MP who this week confirmed the launch of a permanent House of Commons sub-committee on disinformation, said he would be discussing the Crosby-linked Facebook advertising campaigns with the UK information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, at a hearing later this month. “We want to understand who is paying for these campaigns, what data they are using to target people on social media, where that data came from and also what they plan to do with the data they are collecting,” he said.

Labour has called for Crosby to appear in front of parliament. “Third-party campaign networks are operating together in the shadows to influence our democracy,” said the shadow culture secretary, Tom Watson. “The citizens targeted by their advertising campaigns have no way of knowing who these groups really are and who is funding them. It’s not right.

I Black, So I truth. More of the Brexit Pluto Propaganda…

In further exploration of the Australian lobbyists’ malfeasance, Facebook is also investigating whether the activities of Crosby’s employees meet the definition of “coordinated inauthentic behaviour”, a term that has been used by the social networking company to justify the removal of Russian and Iranian disinformation campaigns from their site.

Facebook defines coordinated inauthentic behaviour as when “groups of pages or people work together to mislead others about who they are or what they’re doing”, a definition that appears to apply to the activities of Mainstream Network and Britain’s Future, which are pro-Brexit groups having spent millions of dollars in their pro-Brexit campaign.

Coordinated inauthentic behaviour also occur with philosophical authorities who want only one type of thinking, the Pluto-Plato type, and its ancient platitudes, and lies, to rule over men, sheeple, and beasts.(One such lies being who really generated the big ideas, here women, Aspasia, Diotima…)  

“When we take down one of these networks it’s because of their deceptive behaviour, it’s not because of the content they’re sharing,” said Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, in a video posted last year.

Mastering people is mastering their minds. No need for whips with sheep, showing the way is enough. All the way to the slaughterhouse. In the Later Roman Empire, Neo-Platonism came to dominate, as it was fully compatible with increasing fascism. When that was found to still be too rational, and plutocrats still had to pay some taxes, Roman Catholicism was rolled out by Constantine, reinforced by his sons, and made maximally lethal by emperors Gratian and Theodosius I (all this in 60 years; the Occidental empire collapsed). 

Immediately after Theodosius and his goons invented the concept of “heresy” (not believing in Jesus as described by the emperor), and making it punishable by death after atrocious suffering (like very slow burning), “Men In Black” went all over, destroying all books promoting rationality.

Those who manipulate minds with the grossest disinformation, and their paymasters, influencing votes, should be imprisoned for a very long time…

Establishing truth is the core of the democratic process, both its fruit and its engine.

Macron, president of France, has declared Brexit to be a pack of lies, which it is. The conclusion is to re-establish the truth, and thus to absolutely avoid Brexit. The European Union should bend over backwards to make it so. But,drugged on outrageous lies, factual, emotional, logical lies, the British need more time to change their minds. The EU has to provide it.

Patrice Ayme

 

Philosophy Censorship; About Socrates The Basic Truth Shall Not Be Told, Pluto Enforced By “Aeon”, A Magazine Promoting Philosophical Fascism

April 3, 2019

Owners of the pseudo-philosophical magazine “Aeon” enforce a particularly strict vision of Socrates. Straying out of it “violates their community guidelines”. This is pure censorship in the domain of the most esoteric ideas (demonstrating those are crucial to the Pluto. order!)

The gist of my comment was that the trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are pro-plutocratic philosophers, and that’s why their thoughts were so well preserved. This is intolerable to… plutocrats. And guess who is financing “Aeon”? Same as all over the world media: plutocrats!

For Aeon’s abuse, see the note. Here is my censored comment, with a picture added.

***

***

Socrates should not be considered to be the founding figure of Western philosophy:

that Socrates is the greatest philosopher is a widely held opinion that is indeed deeply flawed, considering the gigantic heritage of thought and thus philosophy, which preceded the Athenian Age of Pericles.

General on the left, great philosopher, his spouse, on the right. Aspasia (right) invented the so-called “Socrates” method (“inductio”) and the Open Society, and all great things Pericles said. All the bad policies of Pericles were his own, he admitted, begging forgiveness.

Actually, let’s hammer it again, Pericles’ second wife, Aspasia of Miletus, was arguably a better thinker than Socrates: she invented the concept of the Open Society, which K. Popper parroted recently; the Open Society is more important a notion than anything Socrates allegedly did. 

Consider the many pharaohs who were women, and discoveries such as “Pythagoras” theorem, one of many discoveries which the Greeks themselves said came from Egypt (with steam power).  Truth was revered in Ancient Egypt, and the ideal feminine, when not actual women, propelled it.

Suspicion wants to ask why, among all great thinkers of Greece only the trio of Socrates Plato and Aristotle was viewed as worth preserving so extensively? Was it because their thinking was so compatible with, and useful to, the 2,000 years of dictatorship and plutocracy which followed them? And which Aristotle personally contributed so much to install? Indeed! It’s no coincidence that Roman Catholicism was made compatible with the “Neo-Platonism” which dominated the empire (and not reciprocally).

Contemplate the many colossal thinkers of Classical Greece, such as the inventors of NON Euclidean geometry (Yes, non-Euclidean), and the engineers of mechanical computers, algebra, and of the all important atomic theory, complete with vacuum and perpetual (“Brownian”) motion. Presocratic philosopher Democritus, his teacher Leucippus, and Epicurus, over two centuries, wrote more than 100 books, mostly on the atomic theory, science, and a rational approach to the entire universe. Why were all their work deliberately destroyed?

Because Roman Catholic fascism was not compatible with rational explanations.

Whereas, of course, Socrates, with his voices in his head, Joan of Arc style, Plato, in love with tyrants of Syracuse, and Aristotle being all things to the Macedonian gangsters, were compatible with Catholicism, to the point they promoted many of its themes, five centuries before Roman emperors adopted them, that is, adopted the intellectual fascism Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were oozing with.

Athenian democracy knew so much about its incompatibility with Socrates and Aristotle, it wanted to execute both (Aristotle fled).

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were deeply entangled, in the most intimate ways, with some of the most famous and bloodiest dictators in history. It is telling that most philosophers have not noticed that horrendous, yet very loquacious, fact. So no wonder the dictators, tyrants and so-called monarchs of the next two millennia esteemed that philosophical trio from thinking hell, so much. But should we? Socrates hated real democracy, and Aristotle was, literally, the father of “Hellenistic” dictatorships which  buried free thinking and inspired Roman plutocracy to take over the Republic, and then the world.

Socrates had means, a stock inheritance from his father, which he admitted to have dilapidated, and a busy wife. In any case, he could afford the expensive equipment of a upper class hoplite, and he kept the most intimate company with Athens’ topmost golden youth. That made him tight with the dictators who ruled Athens, when they did.    

That Socrates was married early in his life with an aristocrat called Myrto explains readily why he was hanging around the uppermost echelon of Athenian society, insisted to attack democracy, and why the democratic authorities viewed him with such hostility. That Plato hid that from view is explained by Plato’s general adoration of dictators, and those who love them.

Diotima of Mantinea is presented in Plato’s Symposium as a philosopher of love, teacher of a youthful Socrates, who defer to her expertise, and she is the inventor of the concept of Platonic love.  

Thus one can see that some of the most prominent durable notions of the infernal Socrates-Plato-Aristotle trio were actually elaborated by women… So why all the reverence to the guys? Is that another case of delirious sexism?

Some British philosopher claimed that Western philosophy, the way he knew it, was just “footnotes to Plato”. Indeed: sitting in the middle of his glorious British empire, he only knew Western fascist philosophy of the plutocratic type.

To get out of this inequality trance, one needs to realize the truth: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were just theoreticians and advocates of the exploitation of We The People by the principle of oligarchy. Socrates hated democracy, Plato lauded tyrants, and Aristotle put in place Antipater, the bloody tyrant, executor of Aristotle’s will, who made Athens, after defeating her twice in naval battles, into an official plutocracy.

No philosophical education should be complete without realizing that this infernal trio are fathers to plutocratic philosophy. And, in particular, Roman Catholicism.

***

Conclusion (not part of my comment, which was above): Is Aeon is a magazine promoting philosophical fascism? You judge!

The sort of censorship I was subjected to reminds me of The Inquisition. Actually, it is exactly this sort of censorship which brought plutocratic rule, when the non-Roman Catholic literature was systematically destroyed by the “Men In Black” (monks).

This sort of censorship prevents people to realize that Socratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophies have been the backbone of plutocracy, for 24 centuries… and that so-called Christianism (and thus then its child, Islamism).

Interesting too, the no-good Socrates stole women. And who are women except nobody? The Socratic method is Aspasia’s. Aspasia understood what made civilization strong, the Open Society, exactly what Socrates detested (in the guise of detesting Direct Democracy). Socrates (Plato admits) got his (“Platonic”) philosophy of love from another woman philosopher:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diotima_of_Mantinea    

This is another indication that sexism and plutocracy are deeply entangled. I am honored to be censored for this insight.

But this is a warning: the techno fascist who rule the world now are, in some ways worse than the Inquisition. Facebook censors for obscenity works of art ordered by popes during the Middle Ages. We have sunk low, and are sinking lower.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: Plato or Pluto? Is there a difference? My comment was using not one word of foul language, or slang, and couldn’t be considered abusive to anyone alive since the dictator Antipater became the executor of the will of Aristotle. My comment was polite, and highly informed at a much higher level than the author of the article (who I didn’t criticize, neither directly, nor implicitly; I actually went further in his general direction, bringing new elements).

Aeon send me this message:

Aeon Magazine

https://aeon.co

Dear Patrice Ayme,

Your comment to the article ‘Was the real Socrates more worldly and amorous than we knew?’ has been deleted because it contravened our community guidelines.

Users who repeatedly violate our community guidelines will have their membership deleted.

Unfortunately we cannot give individual feedback on moderation. Please consult our community guidelines.

Aeon calls itself a “world of ideas…Aeon is a magazine of ideas and culture. We publish in-depth essays, incisive articles…” The article I commented up was by a Oxford professor (who, let it be said in passing didn’t know much about Socrates; apparently he didn’t know how Socrates learned of the theory of love… although it’s extensively described in Plato…)

***

***

UK philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica with B. Russell,  wrote in his Process and Reality (Free Press, 1979, p. 39): “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.

A Lying “Left” Is No Left: the Case of Venezuela, In Historical Context

April 1, 2019

Maybe alerted by the grave Trump Derangement Syndrome about the collusion-delusion claiming that Trump was an agent of Putin, the New York Times is suddenly sensitive to the “Hands Off” campaign about Venezuela from the likes of Chomsky. In “What My Fellow Liberals Don’t Get About Venezuela, Stop sanitizing a tyrannical dictator. My country deserves change,”

in the New York Times, April 1, 2019, and not a joke, Joanna Hausmann, a Venezuelan-American writer and comedian observes a few basic truths:.

“From Noam Chomsky to Ilhan Omar, there is a growing movement on the American left known as “Hands Off Venezuela,” protesting America’s backing of the opposition leader Juan Guaido. Some of them even chant, “Maduro, friend, the people are with you.” In this video Op-Ed, a Venezuelan-American comic argues that these people are living on another planet and ignoring a dire humanitarian crisis.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/contributors/venezuela-us-hands-off-joanna-hausmann.html?

My comment (published!):

The European Union, allied to most Latin America, also wants to get rid of the Venezuelan dictator Maduro. It’s not just Trump. The EU has long understood that the safest bulwark against war is democracy. Right now more than 10% of Venezuela’s population has fled.

That tyranny helps We The People is a delusion which profits only the oligarchic system that this idea pretends to criticize. And this is what the plutocratic system the pro-dictatorial (pseudo-)left pretends to criticize promotes

The “left’ has long been adorned with clowns who pretend to defend We the People by pushing tyranny (as a way for We the People to impose itself). The notion dates back to Aristotle who thought monarchy was the best political system. Marx, furious that his wealthy family’s Rhine vineyards had been made less valuable by price competition with more productive vineyards from southern Germany, elaborated a theory that dictatorship was best, as long as it was made by individuals like him. After an alliance with the Kaiser, Lenin, a century later, did just that, ruining Russia and Ukraine in the process, and killing dozens of millions in the Gulag (according to Stalin himself).

Enormous Anti-Maduro Crowd, one of many….

Many self-declared intellectuals in Europe, when they didn’t follow Hitler, embraced Adolf’s ally, Stalin (until June 23, 1941). Later Mao, Castro and their ilk enabled said pseudo-intellectuals to express their resentment to the full.

This sort of “leftism” only help the wealthiest capitalists. As I said, that’s why it keeps on being promoted by the likes of the Kaiser.

Progress doesn’t come that way, but by compromising with capitalism, and indicating better ways. French MP Proudhon and Lasalle did just this, and Marx hated them (while stealing their ideas). In long conversations, Lasalle persuaded Bismarck to institute universal health care in Germany.

***

For an Australian perspective (spiced at the end with ill-informed TDS, but never mind…):

I invented, and named, the notion of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome (even Trump uses it). It is part of Moral Displacement Syndrome (a vast generalization of Scapegoat Theory, Girard, a French Stanford professor became famous from), itself a particular case of Cognitive Displacement Syndrome.

In other words people think and feel what’s more convenient to them. Once one has determined Trump invented evil, one is led to believe the Venezuelan electric grid fails because of Trump… And thus one can proceed in one’s own bad ways, without any culpability.

Granted, believing what’s convenient does happen to everybody, but one should try to put limits to it. It was pretty clear that Trump was saying, in the 1980s, the exact same things he says now, although, then, it was directed against Reagan… establishment’s democrats best friend (said Obama himself). Trump, a decade older than Putin and world-famous already when Putin was an obscure, low-level KGB agent in Germany, never took any lessons from Russia (it’s rather the exact opposite: Putin is a Russian Trumpist…)

Maduro is clearly a dictator. Allende, not a dictator, was thrown out by US maneuvers and various interventions, including military. Actually, since 1900 CE, the USA intervened many times to serve itself in Central and South America. But present day Venezuela is not one of them.

Instead of saying stupid stuff about Venezuela, US progressives should ask the European Union to take the lead: the EU succeeded to resolve many conflicts, through patient diplomacy (as I just suggested it should use with Great Britain, by the way). Trump has enough on his plate with North Korea and Pakistan (both nuclear states), it should let the EU lead.

Real progress is always founded on truth. And posing, or fake progress, doesn’t foster truth.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: As I have explained in the past, if this backing of tyranny by the (pseudo) left advantages the ruling oligarchy, why do they do it? Precisely because it’s their job, in the oligarchic order! Double agents are not a new notion. All the more as, in this case, being deeply delusional, they are sincere… So they don’t even know they serve the oligarchy. Not anymore than busy bees know they are serving the apiculturist….