Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Making North Korea An Offer It Can’t Refuse

March 9, 2018

What is the context? A complete failure of non-proliferation would guarantee a nuclear world war. We already have three countries with nukes not allowed to have them legally: Israel, Pakistan, India. Neither India nor Israel will go on the attack: they are representative democracies, India understands nuclear war would kill lots of Indians. Israel is a very special case, its nukes are obviously defensive. Pakistan, though, is a terrible cade: an Islamist Republic, masquerading as a representative democracy, truly a military regime where rogue fanatics, one could imagine, could seize nukes at any moment.

Kim and His Sister are Swiss educated, very smart, cosmopolitan, and, as fine connoisseurs of happenstances, utterly ruthless. They have no choice, the way they see it. We have to deal with cornered animals, thus the time is ripe for an alliance reversal…

So North Korea has to be stopped from doing what it is doing: nuclear blackmail, for the rest of the planet to contemplate. Instead, North Korea has to convene that nuclear NON-proliferation is an excellent socialist idea whose time has come. In exchange, one should make North Korea an offer, even an alliance, which it cannot refuse.

Some may sneer, as Mr Krystoff seems inclined to do. However, like Israel, North Korea is a very special case. Like Israel, it’s a rather small country, all too isolated.

Korea, on and off, had 18 centuries of war with China. Obviously North Korea needs a friend. In the grander scheme of things historical, the USA is not going to set-up a colony in Korea, but China seems keen to re-invest countries which it used to invade, control and colonize in the past. This is clearly exhibited with the South China Sea.

The deal Trump can propose is obvious: diplomatic recognition, full commercial relations, etc, in exchange for denuclearization and demilitarization of rocketry. So why are the anti-Trumps unhappy? Because they are tribal anti-Trumps rather than true progressives. Playing the tribal violin is the guaranteed road to war. So the attitude of the New York Times, suddenly arguing one shouldn’t talk to North Korea, shouldn’t be a surprise to those who realize that tribalism is an old instinct.

What’s the alternative? Do nothing, as G.W. Bush and Obama decided to do? Not anymore, and Obama knew it. The problem is that we have arrived at the end of nothing. Doing nothing leads to nuclear war, guaranteed. Not necessarily with North Korea, but with the next regime which will use nuclear blackmail. And it could come from surprising directions.

For example there is the little detail that Japan, for example, used, long ago, to have a back-up plan to fabricate 3,000 thermonuclear bombs in one year (Japan has a plutonium stockpile from old fuel treated in France, and shipped back…) North Korea has, reportedly, already 60 nuclear bombs.  Japan will not wait forever as the madman next door stockpiles enough to destroy all Japanese cities several times over. (Anti-ballistic missiles can only stop a few, on a good day.) One doesn’t want Japan to feel betraye, and it would be, should nothing been done next door.

So power to Trump on that one. A nice outcome won’t solve all the long term security problems of the planet, but there is no alternative, short term.  

Advertisements

“Judges”deprived of wisdom, conspire against civilization

March 4, 2018

French politician and Member of Parliament Marine Le Pen is charged by French “justice” for showing on her Twitter account pictures of tortures & executions of the Islamist State. Yes, you read that right: the French government considers it a crime to show the Islamists in a bad light, and finds Twitter too permissive that way. An equivalence would be to prosecute a Jew for showing pictures of victims of Nazism! Mad PC judges? An indication of the failure of education? Or even of the failure of so-called “representative democracy”, where justice has been professionalized, and thus served by the servants of the established order and its twisted logic which targets logic, common sense, and basic human dignity? All of the preceding!

A French judge has opened a formal criminal investigation into Marine Le Pen’s publication on Twitter of a series of grisly images in 2015.

The three images referred to the so-called Islamic State group, as it is called in the Middle East and were captioned “Daesh is THIS!” One showed the decapitated body of Islamist victim James Foley.

The far-right National Front leader later deleted that image amid the resultant outcry, insisting she was unaware of the victim’s identity. The other images showed a tank running over a man in an orange jumpsuit, while another jumpsuit-clad man was shown in a cage being burned alive.

Ms Le Pen is facing charges of circulating “violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity” and that can be viewed by a minor – punishable by up to three years in prison. 

Another violent message would say French judges? Does that picture incites terrorism, pornography, and harm human dignity, and we should criminally prosecute those who show it? As French judges would want us to believe? Well, go ahead, make my day! [Picture taken in 1945 by GI Pfc. Bertram Sanders, US 103rd infantry division cameraman, at one of the concentration camps in Landsberg shortly after the city’s capture by the 411th regiment.]

http://nuspel.org/holocaust.html

For contemporary French judges, showing mass criminal facts has apparently become itself criminal.  Thus not covering-up the crime is itself criminal. This is exactly more of the sort of insanity which has been blowing across US universities. And it was exactly the main behavior enabling fuel of fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. Earlier on, it made possible the religious terror of the Inquisition in Europe, which lasted nearly 15 centuries (from its instauration by Roman emperor Theodosius I in 380 CE until the last Catholic terror execution in Spain in the 1830s).

Such censorship by so-called “judges” is criminally enables the enemies of civilization, including the Islamists: for years, the Islamist Tariq Ramadan was all over European televisions, supporting the most vicious Islam, such as stoning women for infidelity (meanwhile he was going around, beating and raping). Telling the truth about Ramadan and his organizations was outlawed by the so-called “judges”. European intellectuals who self-defined as “left” were all in love with Ramadan.

On a grander scale, had all of the Germans know what some of the Nazis were doing with innocent women and children, Nazism would not have lasted another day. This is why the Nazi leadership lied heavily to the German population about where the Jews had gone…. So, in a way, those French judges who consider that showing crimes against humanity is itself a criminal infraction, are the best friends the ilk of Adolf Hitler ever had.

So-called “judges” may be unhappy with what I write (they better be, because they have misbehaved on a civilizational scale, harming human prospects themselves). Some in France advised me not to write the present essay: could get me in trouble, they said, the arms of French justice are long and mighty. But I don’t care, I welcome the fight with tyrants, even small black-robed ones: ever since Africa, I loved crushing cockroaches with my bare hands.  Cockroaches are smart, make no mistake, some even hiss, but they are just cockroaches.

French judges have been hounding Marine Le Pen for years. Hopefully, it’s not because she is a woman. Although I believe that’s a factor: what else? One third of the French electorate voted for her last year. By the way, I showed on this site some of the pictures Le Pen is accused of. Will judges arrest me? Differently from Socrates, who chickened out, I fully intend to insult them, should they do so (Socrates’ judges were actually 2,000, as required by Athenian direct democracy). Insults are a form of violence, true, but arresting people for revealing infamy is as great a violence a society can suffer, short of the infamy itself.  

Direct democracy should overrule professional judges. This is a case in point. Everybody of culture in Europe knows of the atrocities of Christianism. Those of Islamism today should be exposed: they are just as dangerous, and closely related. That judges would behaved as if they were above civilization, let alone We The People should be viewed as a good reason to abrogate “justice” as we know it.

Today’s government is viewed as made of three elements : the executive, the legislative , and justice. The distinction is as old as Saint Louis who, although a (mass) criminal in more ways than one, invented the modern judicial system: takes one to know one. Actually Saint Louis famously wrote that nothing would please him more than to torture to death miscreants and Jews, but he won’t, because the law forbid it (and applied even to kings)!

Saint Louis’ modern views about the judicial system is why the US justice is full of French jargon (another facet of the US as a glorious French colony with its roots in plain sight). For Saint Louis law was the entanglement of Salic Law (established from 300 CE until 800 CE, date at which the Roman empire was re-established by Charlemagne) and Roman Law (established 500 BCE to 400 CE, refurbished by Justinian government circa 545 CE). Judges interpreted laws and passed new ones in Parliaments (there were 17 in France, one in London).

Democracy is different: it is the rule of We The People. We the People passes the laws and also governs and judges. So no place for professional judges, and black robed cockroaches, to decide what harms human dignity. The precondition to any violation of “human dignity” is disrespecting the truth. Learn that, judges and cockroaches!

No, this is not insolence: even mosquitoes, recent experiments have shown, quickly learn to fear swatting. But then again, not all creatures can learn that fast! Recent inquiries have shown would-be intellectuals are among the worst learners (and I know exactly why this paradox rules…)

Patrice Aymé

 

WHAT IS IT, TO KNOW? Does the Unconscious Know? Yes! What’s the Unconscious Anyway? WE FEEL, THEREFORE WE THINK

February 25, 2018

Being conscious doesn’t mean one is conscious of being conscious. Thinking is, first of all, an emotion! A set of emotions! An avalanche of emotions! Nor does knowing require that one knows one is knowing!

Suppose I am outside, and a terrible black cloud appears, and grows, and grows, towering ever more, and obscurity in the distance extends, ever more. Do I know something bad is about to happen? That’s a good guess! So I do know something, even though it’s nothing precise, or certain. But what are we sure of, in this world, besides death and taxes? We know that there is a probability that, this is all we know for sure… Just like in Quantum Mechanics! Probabilistic knowledge! Determinism was an illusion! When we know, we know, sort of. We were doing Quantum Mechanics all along, like Mr. Jourdain was doing prose, all along, and we didn’t know it!

Indeed, what is it, to know?

As I contemplate doom and gloom in the distance, this ominous cloud blossoming, occulting everything, I certainly start to feel, in my heart of hearts, that something terrible may happen. My emotional system knows something dreadful seems to be coming my way, but does that mean I “know” it? Some will say that sort of knowledge is not really knowledge. It amounts to nothing. However, emotions, e-motions are what makes people move, they move not just bodies, but reason itself. Yet, I sure know enough to be overwhelmed by a feeling of doom and gloom. That, in turn, will motivate me to look for a house, a cave, or barring those, some thick trees, a burrow, a trench…

Or look at the same sort of situation on a shorter timescale: suppose an avalanche or a predator, or a snake suddenly becomes apparent. My emotions know, and my brain will react, before I can describe the situation in words. The delay can be considerable, as all brain resources can be mobilized in desperate avoidance maneuvers, depriving the rest of this noble organ from any capability.

 

No time to think one is thinking! Too busy thinking! When does the adventurer know that he is in deep trouble? When he starts skiing funny? Of course. His brain got flooded by one emotion: AVALANCHE! At that point his consciousness became a slave to survival, as directed by a brain in full survival mode. Notice that he tries to stay on his feet, as long as he can, and gain speed over the avalanche itself, by heading straight down with a leftward angle, probably as his brain perceived, or established that the maximum development of the avalanche was maximum centrally, and to the right. Navarro (that’s his name) knew there was a cameraman to the left, and, although he had an anti-avalanche airbag, it made sense to get out of most of thick of the thousands of tons of snow roaring down.

***

Don’t smirk. Nowadays there are devices called avalanche bags. They are carried in special backpacks. When a backcountry skier is caught in an avalanche, the skier is supposed to pull on a cord. That activates the filling of a huge bag which then makes the skier ride down the avalanche like a bobbing cork, as the ensemble of skier plus airbag is lighter than the raging snow rushing down. It works very well… except that many skiers don’t deploy the bag! Why? My theory: their brains are too busy doing other things, to think about deploying the airbag. They just forget about it, too busy their brains being at saving their lives! Another name for it, some will say, is: panic. This is why armies drill troops as much as they do: they hardwire the behavior.

I have direct experiences of this sort of situations, as I love the outdoors a little bit too much. That includes two avalanches, both in Chamonix, and actually only a few miles apart. There was total absence of panic. When what looked as much of the spectacular peak of the Drus, the second most famous mountain in Chamonix, was falling towards me, in an ice funnel a mile high, I was certain that I was going to die, what did my brain do? Howl to heavens about the unfairness of it all? It was too busy to be panicked.

So the situation is a bit like this, in the case of ultimate peril: OK, this is death, incoming. However, panicking is not the subject at hand. The only reasonable thing to do, the only possibility, is to run across that ice couloir, towards that smooth and vertical, granite wall, 15 meters away. No alternative.

The brain is conditioned to do what needs to be done, even if completely hopeless. Because what is hopeless and fruitless for the individual is an investment and fruitful for the species. Indeed:

***

What is the evolutionary root of this?

Insuring the survival of the species is why and how it evolved. Suppose you are prehistoric man, confronting ten famished saber tooth lions, one hundred meters from your cave, and you have no weapon. What to do? There is no hope, you are saber tooth lion dinner, so put the hope of survival aside. Your survival doesn’t matter, but that doesn’t mean your life’s mission is finished. You can still fight ferociously, for goodness. Prehistoric man’s brain will then try to gouge a lion’s eye. Thus exacting a heavy price on the saber tooth lion species. Your vengeful sacrifice will help those in the cave, your family, tribe and friends, to survive. Actually, the lions know this, all clever predators know this, and they are leery to attack you: clever predators know enough rudiments of human psychology, they know enough of the human spirit, to know that, even cornered and weapon-less, a prehistoric man will fight to death, and exact a heavy price. So they may even leave you alone, and go for simpler prey.

(By the way, during World War Two, many populations, especially the Norwegian, the Poles, the French, the Yugoslavs, and Soviet resistance, exhibited this behavior, of suicidal, vengeful killing of Nazis, no matter what. The Nazis had not expected this, maybe because they were, as fully trained fascists, too much into obedience. This had decisive strategic consequences, fully in evidence during terminally ferocious battles in the Fall of 1941, including the Battle of Moscow, Bir Hakeim (when 3,000 French prevented the Afrika Korps to encircle the British Army), Stalingrad, and the exploits of various resistance: more than 7,000 Nazi trains were attacked, crossing Poland,  and the French resistance made the difference between success and defeat after D Day… As crack Nazi divisions, such as SS Das Reich, took three weeks to crawl to Normandy, instead of the expected three days.)

This inter-specific psychological interactions between beast and human consciousness can still be observed today. When weaponless Maasai confront real lions in Africa nowadays, the lions will typically behave like beaten dogs, respecting the human so much, they will do something else, like take a hike: the Maasai use this knowledge of leonid minds on a regular basis. And reciprocally. A Maasai alone with a stick will keep a lion pride at bay, just from the respect he inspires… I have myself engaged in this behavior, even as a child, and without a stick… 

So what is it, to think? Not necessarily to get discursive about it. The logos is a form of thinking, most accomplished (a particular case of the logos is the traditional concept of reason). However the general case is rather: “I FEEL, THEREFORE I THINK!

This is a vast generalization and a deepening of ancient trains of thought. For example, in “A Treatise of Human Nature” (1738), David Hume observed that: “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

What I add is that much, and sometimes most thinking, even occasionally nearly all of it, is itself removed from discursive consciousness. This is what happens in dreams. It is also what happens, at least partly in accidents. Victims often don’t remember the accident itself. The usual explanation is that the short term memory circuits had their power cut down, as it is directed somewhere else in the brain. But I would go further: the entire machinery of the usual form of consciousness is useless, and shut down!

All this as a preliminary to, and a consequence of a question in Quora:

Quora asked: At what point did German Commanders realize the war (WWII) was lost for Germany?

Predictably someone whined that the question was poorly posed: it lacked precision, and my iconoclast answer, was even worse (shortly after writing it, that someone realized that I used a generalization of the notion of knowledge, thus he deleted his full page of objection! Too bad, it was a good example of much that was wrong in conventional epistemology…)

I gave my own answer (and will reproduce it here soon): on September 3, 1939, the top Nazis got that ominous feeling, that dreadful sensation, that they abominable show was over: the French Republic had declared war, British poodle in tow (the UK’s war declaration preceded the French one by minutes, but 95% of the forces were French, and it was France which was bound to receive the brunt of the fighting).

So, in their hearts of hearts, the Nazis knew they were done: their probability to vanquished the combined might of the French and British empires was close to zero, especially in light of the fact that Nazi survival depended entirely upon the ongoing goodwill of the USA relative to Nazism… keeping in mind that the US was the Franco-British own personal offspring, the world’s mightiest brat.

However just like someone caught in an avalanche, the Nazis couldn’t stop, they couldn’t dare to put it in words. Instead, instead of renegading on what they were, instead of evolving out of their neurological dead-end, instead of making a logos out of it, the Nazis opted for neurological laziness, doing more of what they had built themselves to be, clinging to that old human instinct to deal with ultimate situations: great vengeance! Thus the Nazis subconsciously decided to extract a heavy price for having been so savagely interrupted in their robust, yet semi-peaceful (the way they saw it), takeover of the world, or, at least, Eastern Europe, by the Great German Reich… (Just as the 1935 UK-Hitler “Naval” Treaty had envisioned…)

Thus we have here a spectacular explanation for the thoroughly imbecile, self-defeating, mass criminal behavior of the Nazis in World War Two… It was deliberate. Not because the Nazis were trying to win, but because the Nazis knew that they had lost (to start with!)

Great vengeance is an evolutionary adaptation which has insured the survival of the species, by teaching the rest of the brainy biosphere, that human principles rule.

However, great vengeance can be diverted from its laudable evolutionary reason, and that’s a warning: it means irrationality can have the deepest cause

Be conscious, and worry, that consciousness is conscious of  what can’t even be put in words.

Patrice Aymé

February 24, 2018

Anti-Intellectualism Will Make Our Body Good?

February 18, 2018

Another day, another revelation. After stumbling on this article in Medium explaining why science is wrong. I was struck how much more popular that article was than real, fascinating science articles in the same issue. Then the same prolific author, Zat Rana, comes out with an article slickly claiming that depth gets in the way of clarity, a revelation to “help you”. The title is revealing: “The Philosopher’s Problem: When and Why Thinking Can Be Harmful.

Why science is wrong, why depth is bad, thinking harmful… The (self-described) “engaging” style of that journalist is slick (he is just a journalist, whereas the little read real science articles next to his were written by scientists). Mr. Zana has at least 50,000 “followers”. “Followers” is where it’s at; we are back to tribalism, as I discovered during the last presidential elections when many urged me to declare for Hillary, anything else was “bad form”. “Bad form” included Bernie Sanders… who, I was told “lacked experience” (after 50 years in elected politics including mayor, congressman, senator, and stays in Cuba and the USSR…) Up high in the media, many were on the Obama-Clinton gravy train…

Indictments have been made in the Russian influence machine in the USA. Well, it’s not just the Russians. What one could call the “Davos” machine is much more powerful.

Back to Zana’s “engaging” propaganda against science, and now thinking and “depth”. Clearly there was a machine behind that slippery slope, like there is one behind self-declared Jewish supremacist Steven Pinker or the Guardian newspaper, posing as left, but then financed by plutocrat Bill Gates, then publishing Pinker… and censoring my comment on Pinker, naturally. Sure enough, essayist Zat Rana, is part of the “World Economic Forum”…Davos, the much flaunted worldwide plutocratic conspiracy. He also writes at “Quartz”, another plutocratically financed device. But, well, it seems we have to learn to live with plutocrats in command. Even going to space now depends upon plutocrats (as governments dropped the space ball, in another deep conspiracy organized by their sponsors, namely said worldwide plutocratic conspiracy).

We are increasingly heading towards the same situation of the late Roman Republic when only men connected to extreme wealth could act. This ended when the leader of the “Populares” the extremely wealthy top general Caesar was assassinated by his own class; thereafter it has been dictatorship for 2061 years and counting. Caesar may have been a scumbag in Gaul, but he understood Roma was not militarily secure, and had to be made so (China had the same problem a millennium later, with a near-terminal outcome, when the Mongols considered annihilating it).  

Zat Rana’s essay extolled the “Cogito Ergo Sum” of Descartes, a famous point of view, so dumb, even plutocratic philosopher Wittgenstein used to make fun of it in Cambridge. Wittgenstein would go around the halls, saying:”I think, therefore it rains”. The Cogito is not just dumb, it’s obviously false. When one is in full action, one doesn’t think about thinking to reveal to oneself that one is. Any speed sport will easily remove that notion. Barreling down a mountain on skis, facing a towering wave in the surf, solo climbing 3,000 feet about the maw of a giant bergshrund (they wont even find your body!) are the sort of activities which are all about existence perceived, and not thinking about thinking.

(Descartes probably rolled out the “Cogito” to demolish Christianism, a crucial objective at the time.)

Sure enough, following singing the praises of the dumb Cogito, the Davos essayist pushed the lie that man is the only animal capable of thinking about thinking, something that, we now have known for quite a while experimentally, is not true.

Other animals think about thinking, and even about others thinking. Many birds, if they ascertain that another bird is a known thief, will hide food again, somewhere else, when the observing bird has been removed. That means birds can have a “theory of mind”. As Ludwig Van Beethoven put it in the 9th:”…Even the worm was given desire…”

Ants work hard and cleverly. Army ants build bridges for their army, adapting and modifying circumstances given to them by nature (as pictured above). We also have to work, of course, but thought can replace work, and we ever more think rather than work.! That’s not jut the way, it’s the only way!

Thinkers don’t run around in circle like processional caterpillars (which have been observed circling around, following each other for a week). Far from it. Descartes invented analytic geometry, enabling, among other things, the invention and writing down of calculus by Fermat (and then Leibniz; Newton used an idiosyncratic approach). So asserting Descartes brought nothing imminently practical to our lives is to say the last four centuries of scientific and technological expansion, which rest on analytic geometry, Descartes’ invention, were nothing. That’s not just grossly anti-intellectual, it’s counterfactual.

It’s so much more important to be wise than being a worker, that this is the name of our species: Homo Sapiens (Homo Faber, the fabricating Homo, was proposed by French philosopher Bergson, and rightly rejected; as seen above, even insects make tools). Homo in general and Sapiens in particular, is all about smarts, depth… not work. Smarts, precisely to avoid work. We got to smarts through ever deeper thinking. For dedicated workers genetically, or epigenetically incapable of deeper thinking, consider ants, or… slaves.

To believe we have to be careful about thinking deeply is reasoning like a slave, who does deep only when asked by Master. It is actually the master definition of a slave. But, of course, among slaves, it’s more than useful, it’s the key to self-fulfillment.

In truth, the world is not about “work”, nor do we need to “make it work”. The world works very well without us. First we need to find out what we want to achieve, with this world. Right now we are supposed to heed the advice of our masters, and those who work for them feverishly, like Zat Rana. And this is exactly what happened. Not all are Elon Musk, hell bend to explore the universe. Most plutocrats’ true calling his laziness, endowed by cruelty. Not an indication of nice global outcome.

Patrice Aymé

Note: Here is the conclusion, in extenso of the Davos essayist. Zat Rana:

“The Takeaway

The power of depth has its time and place. And philosophers, like Descartes, who have engaged this depth have given us some striking insights.

That said, if this ability to think deeply isn’t controlled and managed, it spills out beyond the domain in which it finds its strength. We have to be very careful about the degree to which we engage it.

The thing that actually makes the world work is clarity, and this clarity can only be found if we adequately train it to come through.

In the words of the legendary inventor Nikola Tesla, “One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”

Not every tangent we think about is worth exploring. Not every idea that pops up is worth considering. Not every nuance needs to be given its time.

Sometimes, all life demands of us is the ability to see the parts of reality we need to engage with, clearly and simply. It means that rather than adding more to our vision and observation via thought, we have to be disciplined about removing what isn’t useful and relevant.

This takes practice and intention. It requires you to think about thinking and slowly develop the awareness to watch your mental processing occur.

It’s not easy, but if honed, this kind of clarity changes everything.”

And Patrice will abstract this thus: The power of the depth of thinking has its time and place. One instant, one spot. Davos and its plutocracy, will control the rest, people. No probing question, no examined life. Even Socrates would have found this disgusting, and “not worth living“.

 

Colonization Makes Us True: SpaceX Triumphs!

February 9, 2018

[OK, the word “colonization’ is… deliberately provocative (see below). Yet, there is none better, and it’s a major philosophical point! Deliberately provocative means, etymologically: entirely liberating inducement to vocalize…]

SPACEX TRIUMPH OPENS SPACE COLONIZATION: A FACTOR OF TEN LEAP

[NASA, United Launch Alliance, Arianespace, Soyuz, are finished as viable launch businesses… NASA’s SLS should be scraped right away..]

I Colonize, Therefore, I Have To Think:

Philosophy is a mood conducive to wisdom, that is truth. And truth consists in colonizing… space. Geographical, historical, psychological, physical, mathematical, spiritual, moral, cognitive space. “While the core mission of SpaceX is to establish a multi-planetary society”, says SpaceX. So in more sense than one, SpaceX mission longs for truth. (Be it only the truth of what led to an explosion!)

I know that the word and, even worse, the concept of colonization” is hated by the PC crowd, which replaces thinking with bellowing together in great hatred and agreement. Hatred for “colonization” makes the colonization of space sounds immoral, and bound to failure. However, colonization works: at least 99%, of the PC crowd consists in descendants of (the hated) colonizers. Including the descendants of Australian natives, who colonized Australia, 65,000 years ago. Yes, “colonization” means the entire Earth.

We are a colonizing species. That’s how and why, we had to grow ever more wisdom, to outsmart the obstructions to successful colonization. Colonization is not just what we do, but how we evolved, thus what created us: our ancestors left the safety of the trees, and conquered the savanna. That will to space colonization in turn changed their minds into what we call human. Colonizing new space  changed our ancestors into ever bolder, smarter, meaner forms, all made possible by an ever more encompassing love (to educate, compensate, and enable socialization).

Key to SpaceX strategy is re-usability of the hardware, which, itself, rests on reliability, making rocket operations similar to normal planes. Here one sees the two side boosters of Falcon Heavy landing simultaneously at the place they were launched from. Both had ALREADY been used in previous launches. Wow. The center core had to brake from much higher hypersonic speed, and ran out of starter fluid (!), so had only one engine lighted in the final braking and exploded next to its drone ship barge…

Discoveries as recent as 2018 showed that Homo Sapiens was all over the Africo-Eurasiatic supercontinent much earlier than had been pontificated, interbreeding with its northern variant, Neanderthals, for hundreds of thousands of years (in a triumph for my mathematical theory of Neanderthal evanescence, and pseudo-disappearance).

Creative thinking itself is a form of colonization: go somewhere with new insight(s), interbreed with the native ideas, or situation, generate new emotion, new mentalities. Philosophy itself, by definition, is an emotion. But not just that: the etymologically root of wise is knowing from seeing. Now once one has seen with one’s eyes, one sees with one’s mind. To keep on knowing, one will have to see again. Thus philosophy itself, by definition, the love of knowing from seeing, thus anew always, goes always beyond, more. Or as emperor Charles Quint put it (in French, his native language): “Plus Oultre!”. (Thus, yes, Elon Musk is doing what Charles Quint would have financed. Charles V ordered a stop to American colonization, only when it became clear it had brought a holocaust to amazing civilizations; there is no amazing civilization on Mars, yet, astoundingly cool ice cliffs…)

Falcon Heavy is made of three Falcon first stage strapped together. That’s a total of twenty-seven kerosene-oxygen engines, with a total power of 18 jumbo jets at take-off, together.. Sounds simple, but it’s not: the forces involved are enormous, and resonances can occur, especially when the vehicle becomes supersonic, so the strapping together is tricky.

***

SpaceX has succeeded to land first stage cores safely, and re-used six of them already;Re-usability is the way:

Conventional rocketry uses the rocket just once: launch and destroy. That’s expensive. Going to orbit, though, shouldn’t be that expensive. Launching 64 metric tons at eight kilometers per second, as Falcon Heavy does, requires a lot of energy, but not anymore than a jumbo jet going from Los Angeles to Sidney. So it shouldn’t cost more. As an Airbus A380 cost around 400 million dollars. If one destroyed the A380 at each landing, that would make the trip cost 400 millions. This is exactly what is happening now to space travel. (To see this intuitively, assume it takes 30 minutes for an A380 to reach 10 kilometer high, and Mach 1; then, after ten hours, it will have reached 200 kilometers high and Mach 20; orbital speed is actually Mach 25… Using sea level Machs, another approximation; but the rough picture is clear… and correct!)

NASA ill-fated “Space Launch System” is scheduled to cost around a billion dollar per flight. The sort of price the late and ridiculous Space Shuttle cost. The Space Shuttle had to be expensively refurbished, it was way too delicate. Plus it had gigantic, useless wings.  

I have been highly critical of the massive financing of SpaceX by NASA, under Obama. It seemed obvious to me that the US government shouldn’t finance a private space operator. However, it turns out that many great new technologies were financed by government. The French government financed the first (steam powered) cars in the Eighteenth Century. It was actually a military project, and those cars were to be employed like tanks. The first balloons with humans on board were also more or less a government project (LouisVXI had decreed that condemned criminals should be the first fliers, but the inventors forced him to change his mind; the first military usage was in 1794, by the French army, for observation). The first planes were also a French military project (Ader flew 50 meters in 1890, and at least 300 meters in 1897, in front of an entire military committee  at Satory; the flights are not homologated, the Americans say, because of French military secrecy… but the fact they were French is enough to explain why the flights of the Wright Brothers more than six years later, in 1903, are still viewed as the first… which they were not).

The nuclear bomb was also government project: started in France, January 1938, it got exiled to Britain in June 1940, and then moved to the USA and Canada in case the UK would fall to the Nazis (there was also more uranium in the US)

The jet engine, radar, rocketry, electronic computer, were all government projects. So was going to the moon. In a way, all university and education has always been governmental (except for the very rich). That was blatant in China, with the examination system. Emperor Trajan had set-up scholarships (paid by a wealth tax), and the Franks made free universal education mandatory in the Eighth Century (founding the European university system by the same token, although the name itself appeared only in the Twelfth Century). All the big imperial technological projects, in Rome,as under the Achaemenids, or various Chinese dynasties were governmental, but then private industry got free usage (the Grand Canal in China, a government project had more than at least 10,000 large private boats using it every day… for centuries).

So what did I miss? Government support is justified when there is no profit in the endeavor. However, cost of edge tech in space collapsed faster than I realize, greatly thanks to advancing electronics. NASA, United Launch Alliance, Arianespace, Soyuz, made the same mistake, as they all believed rockets couldn’t be re-used. Musk and Bezos, both engineers, saw the truth.

So what is the difference between SpaceX and NASA? SpaceX introduces elements of greed, glory, personal input that a government agency can’t: it’s Nixon, a lawyer by training, who picked the Space Shuttle as the US next space transportation system. Mr. Musk and Blue Origins’ Bezos are college trained engineers.  

In any case, SpaceX reusability bet worked. The French dominated Arianespace, which had a splendid run with Ariane V, a disposable rocket, and many others, including Russians and Chinese, let alone NASA, didn’t believe reusable rockets were feasible. I don’t see them recovering from that erroneous belief. Reusability will make SpaceX dirt cheap, and reliable.

Thus the Trump administration should force NASA should to give up on its ultra expensive and now completely obsolete Space Transportation System (STS): it can’t work, even if it works. And it has no contracts, just three NASA projects to nowhere. By contrast, Falcon Heavy has already contracts.

Moreover Space X is developing at breakneck speed its BFR (Big Fu*king Rocket), which will supersede its prior rockets (it says, although that’s dubious as smaller rockets are useful). The BFR uses methane: methane can be made on Mars, but not only, it is full of hydrogen atoms, without the inconveniences of hydrogen.

***

Rome We Remember, & Won’t Duplicate. Space Colonization, Here We Come, Brains Will Follow:

So what next? Mars is still very far, radiation-wise. The Moon is closer, and has giant lava tubes. Those tubes make natural bases, especially if they can be pressurized.

There are huge ice cliffs on Mars, by 55 degree north. If we scaled up considerably some technologies we already have in baby form, such as electric propulsion, nuclear reactors, robotics and cryogenics, we could probably seed humanity in the Trappist system within 500 years…

Some will whine:’what happened to humanism, what happened to philosophy, wisdom? The argument has been made that we have to spread the risk to humanity by spreading among the planets, or mining resources, or exporting pollution. The argument has also been made that the challenge of space forces us to develop new technology. The later is actually the strongest argument.

Civilization as we know it on Earth, going quickly towards ten billions, but with the capability of sustaining only a fraction of that, is doomed, one way or another. We can exit that situation in two ways: either do like the Maya, who had a dense highly successful civilization, which collided with a long drought combined with an ecological crisis, and soon generalized war, imploding the civilization, bringing back human flesh on the menu. Or we can exit the other way: smarter, higher, more refined, with much more needed technology.

The Romans failed to take that technological turn, although they had the cognitive means to do so. After Greco-Roman civilization collapsed, the Franks rebuilt their way, rejecting slavery, and thus embracing the more advanced technology Rome had refused to develop, precisely because Roman plutocracy wanted to keep the slaves, and the citizens it treated as slaves, occupied. (To some extent, the same happened with China, in a milder form; however, although invaded by the Mongols, and later the rather similar Manchu, Chinese population didn’t collapse, in no small reason because those enemies were half sinicized, and relatively much less numerous.)  

The main reason to develop space technology is that we are all living on a spaceship, Earth. Moreover, industrial technology, and exploding demographics, as they are, have been destroying that spaceship sustainability. So we need to develop new technology, new space technology, being already on a compromised spaceship. Going to other planets may look like a hyper expensive, gratuitous exercise. But it’s not. It’s an exercise in trying to save ourselves.   

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

Young Americans Increasingly Prefer To Die, Rather Than Live Under Obamas, Trumps!

January 7, 2018

The only reasonable solution for the USA is to extent Medicare For All those willing to join it. As Medicare is not operated for profit, health insurance proposed by Medicare To All would cost less. After a transition period, most PRIVATE insurance, for profit health “insurance”, would be driven out. (This is precisely what those like Warren Buffett, major “Democratic” supporters who made billions from for profit health care, didn’t want to see happen, when Obama could do something about it… Although now Buffett, thanks Pluto, has changed his mind and supports the nebulously denominated “single payer”! Senator Bernie Sanders, of course, does!)

Right now, Medicare covers around half of US health care spending. If Medicare could insure all those willing, within ten years, it would cover 100%.

I have proposed this for decades. Obama proposed it to his cabinet when he became US President. However, he was all too young, naive, and impressionable. His entire cabinet, in which major multi-billionaires have sat, was against it, and blocked him. The ambitious young man could see the direction indicated by the money. Head of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, who made 300 million dollars magically, being just a politician from a politician family, was against Medicare For All. Senior Senator Feinstein whose husband made more than a billion by having his wife being a $160.000 a year Senator, was against it. And so on throughout the “Democratic” party. 

So, instead, Obama proposed Romneycare to the insurance companies: in exchange for the payment of Federal subsidies, private insurance would cover more people, augmenting its profits. (Romney was a Mormon vulture capitalist who became very wealthy, and thus, Governor of Massachusetts (he ran against Obama in 2012, and will be back). That all what Obama could come up with was Romney care, for his self-declared “signature” presidential achievement, speaks volumes about the so-called “Obama” presidency. After many years of Obama, the part of GDP given to health “care”, which had long stagnated, went up to 17.9% of GDP in 2016 (after being at 14% for the first four years of Obama).

Obamacare reinforced greed, diminished care.

Superior Greed, Superior Plutocracy, Inferior Lives, Collective Suicide Better!

My brother-in-law died from all that pervading greed, and attendant lack of care. He was not covered, so after putting stents in him, he was left untreated and promptly died, after been kicked out of the hospital against the surgeon’s advice, and suffering three weeks of increasing pain (from inflammation due to lack of treatment).

He was 45 years old. Poor people can’t use Obamacare, because of the high “deductibles” and other impediments. My brother-in-law couldn’t, and didn’t get proper care, although he was from a rich, more egalitarian  state (Alaska). Notice that, since the advent of Reaganomics, Greed First, Trickle Down, US life expectancy has lost no less than six (6) years on French life expectancy. This is beyond an anecdote, we are talking major abyss, here!

Also notice that Japan didn’t suffer a decrease of life expectancy, consecutive to the banking-plutocracy crisis. Why? Japan, a more egalitarian society, was little hit by the crisis. All the more as Japan has refused to engage in “austerity” (rob the poor, treat the rich!) policies. Instead Japan has run debt. Japan government debt is more than 200% of GDP; not a problem, as debt can be turned into tax, or monetarized…  When the greedy economists and their politico servants come and say debt is a problem, point at life expectancy: reducing government debt in Euro-America has been paid with lives, the comparison with Japan shows this very clearly.

Health greed doesn’t care about health care.

***

Here is the CDC data: 

Life expectancy in America has declined for two years in a row, and is expected to decline again next year.

That’s not really meant to happen in developed countries, however one can see that it happened in many developed countries, after the 2008 “banking” crisis, and its resulting austerity when all banded together to make the wealthiest even wealthier, as they carry the world on their shoulders:

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its annual report on mortality—which was not conducive to a festive mood. According to the report, published on 21 December 2017, life expectancy in America fell in 2016, for the second year in a row. An American baby born in 2016 can expect to live on average 78.6 years, down from 78.9 in 2014. The last time life expectancy was lower than in the preceding year was in 1993. The last time it fell for two consecutive years was in 1962-63.

The epidemic of addiction to opioids is becoming ever deadlier. Drug overdoses claimed more than 63,000 lives in 2016 (much more than death from guns and cars). Two-thirds of these deaths were caused by opioids, including potent synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and tramadol, which are easier to overdose by accident and are becoming ever more popular, as the US population tries to flee reality ever more.

The CDC says that the leading causes of death in 2016 remained heart disease and cancer. But a category called “unintentional injuries”, which includes drug overdoses, climbed to third place—from fourth place in 2015 and fifth place in 2012. Unintentional injuries caused just 6% of deaths in 2016, yet claim mostly people in the prime of their lives. A young person’s death cuts the average life expectancy by much more than the death of an older person.

The steepest rise in mortality was among the 25- to 34-year-olds. In that age group deaths per 100,000 people from any cause increased by 11% from 2015 to 2016. Mortality from drug overdoses in the same age group shot up by 50% from 2014 to 2016. Apparently, there is something in the Obama teleprompter, Big Silicon Brother society which the youth doesn’t appreciate enough to just stick around.

To make matters worse, the decrease in mortality from heart disease and cancer—which the chief driver of the steady increase in life expectancy— is not improving as it used to. Thus, further increases in overdose deaths would probably push life expectancy down again. A decline of life expectancy for three straight years was last seen in America a century ago, when the “Spanish” flu pandemic ravaged the world.

The CDC data for the first half of 2017 show that overdose deaths continued to rise. Trump has been doing little, if anything. The national Public Health Emergency Fund has just $57,000 on hand, because it has not been replenished for years.

A continued decline in life expectancy would leave America trailing even farther behind other rich countries, thus showing the way down the abyss: die for health care plutocrats, it will enrich your lives, best than they can be! The American way of life is already two years shorter than the average in the OECD group of 35 rich and soon-to-be-rich countries: US life expectancy is closer to Costa Rica’s and Turkey’s than to that of Britain, France and Germany. As The Economist concludes:

If the administration cannot reverse this then—at least when it comes to longevity in the Western world—its policy might be described as America Last.” Yes, but greed first, and a greed worthy enough to die for it!

Land of free, free to be sick, and free to die prematurely…

Patrice Aymé

Stupid, Or Unreal Environment, Makes For Stupid Children

December 23, 2017

Two Convenient Ways To Make Stupid Children:

Kittens brought up in an optically mutilated environment, say an environment full of straps are themselves incapable of full vision. Forever. There are indications that nearsightedness in human children arises in part from said children never having the occasion to look at things far away. Aborigines brought up in a forest far from the sea have been incapable of understanding the concept of ship. Mathematicians know very well that those who have not been painstakingly exposed to a new concept can’t grab it (it happens to them too).

Why?

The neurology doesn’t just learn from the environment: it is modeled by the environment.

The environment itself stores data which complements, feed, interacts, and is entangled with the genotype (genotype = what’s inherited; in particular DNA and epigenetic mechanisms).

A spectacular demonstration of this is the similarities between canids and thylacines: although their last common ancestors lived 180 million years, they look just the same in all sorts of ways. The similarity is not at the level of protein coding DNA, which is completely different, but at some other genetic level as yet unidentified.  

Same environment made them the same. Similarly an intelligent environment will make an intelligent child. a) Thylacine. b) Australian Dingo, a canid which became wild

This, by the way, shows the weakness of the myth of the “Selfish Gene”: genes are actually environment driven. If one wanted to talk like Dawkins and his followers, one should say it’s the environment which is “selfish”’

So it matter which environment surrounds a child. It could come from the society, the religion, the family, all the way down to the mom.

In Islam, women are kept at home and poorly educated: thus they can’t show to their children what full intelligence, or culture is. This is true with all obscurantist religions. Hence when a society is submitted through an obscurantist religion, the plutocracy imposing it is happy: it’s easier to rule incurious imbeciles than inquiring minds full of critiques.

Stupid moms are the best way to create a stupid population.

A much more subtle effect occurs when parents favor a child who is perceived as weaker. The child may learn to dissemble, misrepresenting reality, and, or, a sibling, as something which oppresses him or her. If that becomes a habit, the child loses the sense of reality that is crucial to constructing  a better brain. Then this mental weakness brings further weakness, and a vicious circle may get established: the more whining, the more stupid.

Patrice Ayme’

Creative Thought Is All Over The Place, And Out Of This World, Or Is Not

October 28, 2017

Real breakthroughs in thinking have always come, and will always come, from getting ideas from galaxies of knowledge, far away.

Why? Breakthroughs are, by definition, a change in logic. Logic can change in only two ways: by changing, or adding, one or more axioms, or by changing the “universe” the logic bathe in. Either change is metalogical in nature. Thus, out of the box.

When one speaks of nothing new, one can solve nothing new.

Science didn’t just learn, but it learned to learn. That should be, itself, learned, and one should use how science learned to learn how to learn. And the same holds for thinking. Hence the postmodernist critique of science, which amounted, correctly, to suspect that much science activity was just tribalism in disguise. Thus the “academic specialization” is often exactly that:   tribalism in disguise. Getting a PhD, for example, is often little more than a tribal accession rite enabling one to become a soldier in a larger organization.

Breakthroughs break. If one looks at the Seventeenth Century, most breakthroughs were made by polymaths who were outside of Academia (Kepler, Descartes, Bullialdus, Fermat, Pascal, Huygens, Hooke, Boyle, Leibnitz, etc.).

The pattern goes on: Émilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, Marquise Du Châtelet towered in many ways, including the philosophy of science, and as a polymath, she discovered and demonstrated the concept of energy, ½ mv^2 (which Isaac Newton had confused with momentum, mv). And she discovered not just kinematic energy, but infrared energy… (Not bad for someone who died from childbirth in her early forties…)

Lamarck Meditating With Recycled Aluminum Dragon Statue Behind, Jardin des Plantes, Paris

Lamarck, a research professor in zoology who demonstrated, among other things, biological evolution around 1800, was also a polymath: he started, like Descartes as an officer with a military career. After an injury and illness put an end to that, he became an MD, and, while posted in Monaco, developed an interest for botany, when he observed how much the plants varied with the environment there, among rocky crags, roasting mountainsides, sheltered oases,  and fertile canyons. He became the world expert of malacology, which he uses to demonstrate speciation, over millions of years (something the Catholic and Anglican churches hated him for). Darwin, a student of Lamarck of some renown, was also a polymath, like Wallace, outside of academia (Lamarck and evolution couldn’t be taught in England, by law; Darwin and Lyell had to go to Edinburg to be taught evolution).

Historians now believe that Lamarck’s military career and battlefield prowess is the reason Lamarck defended and continued the study, and publication, of his theory of evolution despite its unpopularity in the scientific society of the times (the same applies for Descartes who had to flee the god crazed French superpower).

Lamarck was mostly opposed by the bloody, self-aggrandizing dictator Napoleon and the Catholic and Anglican churches. Napoleon insulted Lamarck, while telling him a number of idiocies witnessed by mathematician and physicist Arago. Essentially, Lamarck viewed life as having arise gradually from inert materials, thanks to physics. Not nice for the self-described god derived Napoleon, a dinosaur in more ways than one (whom all too many French still adulate, while they reject Maréchal Pétain, who was not as bad).

It is curious that Lamarck didn’t insist on natural selection. But clearly the giraffes with longer neck would reproduce better. Not only Anaximander, Empedocles and others mentioned it (they were opposed by the deists Plato and Aristotle), but a mix of natural and artificial selection was well-known to produce superlative Greek cattle sold all over. It’s possible that Lamarck viewed the selection of the fittest as self-obvious. What was less obvious is what impelled animals to become fitter. Even the modern contemporary theory, which views DNA as more durable than stone (except for allele variations) is weak that way.

Lamarck’s observation, the complexifying force is a fact. There again, contemporary biology and physics have no final answer. An obvious hope is Quantum theory, because the Quantum is nonlocal, which makes it all-knowing in some ways. DNA is essentially a Quantum structure, so the connection is obvious. As the deepest polymaths, Lamarck dared to make observations which require explanations whose time has not come yet.

***
There is no reason to believe this superiority of polymath will stop:

As I said, the reason for polymath superiority in the advancement of thinking are intrinsic to the nature of logic, however crazy said logic is.

Jules Henri Poincaré (creator of Relativity, including, local spacetime, E = mc2, gravitational waves, and the most general theories of gravitation of which Einstein’s weirdly called “General Relativity” is a special case) became revered after 1905; however Poincaré’s early career in France was difficult, precisely because the tribes didn’t appreciate his encroachments over their territories… Although Poincaré made it so that Lorentz got the Physics Nobel for Relativity, he didn’t get it himself, although even most deserving of it (later all too conscious of the controversies about Relativity involving Einstein, especially with Bergson, the Nobel committee specifically did NOT give the Nobel to Albert for Relativity).

Many of the top thinkers of the Twentieth Century were polymaths. De Broglie started as a prince studying medieval history. Then the prince wrote a physics thesis, getting the Physics Nobel 4 years later, after his waves were observed by Americans. Cartan, Bergson, Weyl, Feynman, Von Neumann… Nearly all the top research mathematicians or physicists I got to know some of them recipients of the greatest prizes are, to some extent polymaths, or have a very strong desire to be so (Chern, Thom, Yau, Attiyah, Donaldson, Singer, Penrose, Connes, Witten, Susskind,  etc.). When one knows the research in detail, one can see that the pattern is always the same: ideas from way out of the box are brought into a field, and revolutionize it (even Planck, a sedate career physicist, if there ever was one, brought ideas of statistical mechanics to optics to derive the Quantum, another case of polymath…)

Thinking anew requires at least wanting to jump out of the box. It’s intrinsically multi-learning (the translation of polymath). Indeed, “mathema” comes from the Greek manthanein “to learn”. Would-be philosophers can’t invent new wisdom if they couldn’t learn anything new, first.

Let alone the fact that it is hard to invent new ideas from the same exact old basis; “Pascal’s” famous triangle was already known in China, and maybe that’s what Blaise alluded to, when he said “we come too late, since there are men, and they think…“. However, from a new basis, Pascal discovered atmospheric pressure… 

One could say, that learning, mathema, is the opposite of Jihadism, or, more exactly of superstitious religious fundamentalism, which is intrinsically axiom, and universe, reductive, not open and expansionist (as learning is).

The Quantum is out of this world, and all over the place, so is creative thinking. And only those who fester too deep in the box, couldn’t guess why!

Patrice Ayme’

Zen About Gazing Europeans Again

October 21, 2017

Same Old Same Old: Oligarchy Kills, Because That’s What It Is Best At

The Nazis killed a lot of Europeans they had captured. One always talk of “the Jews” and call that “The Holocaust”, because up to 6 million “Jews” were assassinated by the Nazis. However, the six million number is itself a cover-up, as are the half-dozen “death camps” one always talks about. In truth, there were thousands of camps, up to 42,000, and the number of assassinated civilians and unarmed prisoners of war may have been as much as twenty millions.

Why is not the real truth out? Because statistics were deliberately destroyed (and not just by the Nazis). Also governments (even the Soviet one) were not keen to exhibit how badly they protected their populations. Let alone the fact Soviets and Americans collaborated with “ex” Nazi officials after their defeat (preparing the next war and, or, exploitation scheme).

So the Nazis killed around 4 million citizens a year (they set-up an extermination policy as soon as they, and their Soviet allies, invaded Poland).

How many Europeans are killed right now by plutocratically supported industrial policy, for all to see? Millions a year, probably.

London in smog. At least 50,000 UK citizens killed by pollution in 2014. When 5,000 were killed in London in 1953, drastic measures were taken, then.

There are up to 180,000 chemical products in common use. Very few have been tested enough to be reasonably certain that they don’t cause cancer, aging, inflammation and other diseases in a significant way. Cancer statistics show the opposite: some cancers’ incidence has quadrupled in a century (independently of other known factors, like age of the victims).

Poisonous air killed half a million people in Europe prematurely in 2014, according to a report on air quality from the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Air pollution is the single largest environmental health risk in Europe,” says the EEA.

By far the biggest killer was PM2.5, the soup of tiny particles measuring 2.5 micrometres across or less. They brought 428,000 premature deaths across the 41 European countries tracked in 2014. The main source, contributing 57% of PM2.5 emissions in 2015, was domestic wood burning, especially in eastern Europe.

Reality check: many “ecologists” have pushed to burn wood. So much for wood burning, the so-called “biomass”, being ecological. (On top of the fact that burning wood asphyxiates, the bigger, older trees absorbs more CO2 than small trees, so cutting them is doubly anti-ecological.)  

Nitrogen dioxide, mostly from vehicle exhausts, cut short an estimated 78,000 lives across the same 41 countries. Ground-level ozone was the other major killer, claiming an estimated 14,400 lives prematurely.

“Heart disease and stroke are the most common reasons for premature death attributable to air pollution, and are responsible for 80 per cent of cases,” the report says. Air pollution also contributes to other respiratory diseases and cancer, and has non-lethal impacts on diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, pregnancy and brain development in children.

France decided diesel was smart, because it emits less CO2 for the same effective work. However limiting micro-particles is a must and it’s expensive

***

Poisonous Air Concentrations:

The two worst hotspots for PM2.5 pollution were Poland and northern Italy, where dozens of cities exceeded the EU’s annual mean limit of 25 micrograms of particles per cubic metre of air. “Poland and the Po valley have very bad pollution,” says Alberto González Ortiz, the report’s lead author. The Po valley is highly industrial, and surrounded by the mighty Alps, in a great circle, with only a small outlet (the Adriatic sea).

The worst offender was the city of Krakow in Poland, where the PM2.5 value was 44 micrograms. Levels also reached 40 micrograms in Macedonia. More than a dozen Polish cities exceeded 30 micrograms, as did cities in northern Italy including Milan, Padua, Cremona, Brescia, Venice and Turin.

In all, 7 to 8 per cent of Europe’s urban population was exposed to PM2.5 concentrations that exceeded the EU limit. But when the World Health Organization’s stricter limit of 10 micrograms was used as a benchmark, between 82 and 85 per cent of urban Europeans were exposed to deadly air.

***

Solution? Electric Cars!

A solution exists: electric cars, photoelectric generations, and new battery technologies (different from Lithium-Ion, and for mass storage, they start to be deployed) . Battery technology has evolved enough (a Tesla Model S coming out of the factory has succeeded to make 1,000 kilometers on one tank of electricity). Laws should be passed to recycle lithium and phase out fossil fuel cars right away.

Killing millions of people, in Europe alone, because of industrial policies supported fundamentally by the few who profit extravagantly from them, is as vicious as it gets. In the case of the Nazi Holocaust, normal people in Germany could argue they didn’t know, because no one talked about it.

Although they all talked about it, and knew about it, starting in summer 1943, after British night bombing of some major German cities made life very difficult. By then the Germans knew they were punished for “what they had done to the Jews”. The satanic government of Germany reacted with a crack-down on public opinion, and the Germans then went the other ways, fighting to the bitter end, as the hardened criminals they were.

So exposing crimes is not enough. One also has to expose that there will be punishment, and it’s close at hand. And one has to persuade the perpetrators that, should one perseveres, the situation will only get worse. In other words, one has to get in the fine details of: “Errare humanum est, perseverare, diabolicum” (Error is human, persevering, diabolical).  

Politicians should systematically be prosecuted for influence trafficking, and the definition of that should be wildly extended.

In the Roman Republic, most offices were held only a year, and then couldn’t be held again for another ten years. When that system broke down, so did the Republic.

Meanwhile in Spain, a party which got 8% of the vote in Catalonia decided to rule there, supported by a direct descendant of the French king who organized the holocaust of two million French protestants (I am not saying Louis XIV killed directly 2 million French protestants: like the Nazis, he didn’t keep statistics. But two millions had to flee France after decades of terror (the “dragonades).

It’s not just Europe. So far this year, I saw one California Monarch butterfly out of my window. In the same locale, I used to see thousands, each day. Why? Modern insecticides. In primary school, children are astounded, when they see a fly. Just one fly. Never saw one before. Pollution damages brains in more ways, than one.

It’s high time to end philosophies, and policies, which makes the death of millions a casual collateral to greater greed and power expression. That was the fundamental modus operandi of the Nazis.

Patrice Ayme’