Asia After Full Glacial Melt

April 24, 2016

The Way Of Life Of Some "Leading" Countries Brings Us Back To The Jurassic

What is that a map of? (Answer at the bottom.)

The positive side of a full glacial melt is that the devastated Aral Sea will be reconstituted to its former glory, and more. Tourists may be able to travel from Missouri to the Aral Sea on electric cruise ships. Let’s notice in passing that shallow seas were characteristic of the Jurassic, and exerted a positive feed-back on the climate, which was remarkably warm and wet then… thanks to these shallow seas. The Earth was ice-free (except on the top of very high mountains).

The Decision Is Now. The Next Two Decades Will Decide If This Is What Will Be

The Decision Is Now. The Next Two Decades Will Decide If This Is What Will Be

Some may sneer, but there is tremendous inertia in the system. Here is a depiction of temperatures in the last half a billion years:

The Projection That We Are On Two Degree Centigrade Rise By 2050 Is Optimistic: It Ignores Positive Feed-Back On Ice Melt

The Projection That We Are On Two Degree Centigrade Rise By 2050 Is Optimistic: It Ignores Positive Feed-Back On Ice Melt

As soon as we launch the shallow sea effect, it will feed-back on itself. That will be another feed-back on top of the ice melt feed-back. Scandalously, a European Union Commissioner just declared that the COP 21 treaty will be ratified in 2018 only. The French government has declared this “scandalous”, and intends to do something about it on Monday (EC Commissioners have been obviously on the take from major fossil fuel company such as Exxon, as stealth recordings recently showed).

Hence the moral quality of the following graph depicting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, per capita, and per country:

GHG Per Capita: The Redder, The Worse. The Way Of Life Of Some "Leading" Countries Brings Us Back To The Jurassic

GHG Per Capita: The Redder, The Worse. The Way Of Life Of Some “Leading” Countries Brings Us Back To The Jurassic

At this point, some always ask: what can we do? Shall we recycle? Recycling is a related question, yet mostly independent of the energy problem. It’s much more efficient than fighting racism by never saying “nigger”, but still, it pales relative to burning fossils. Energy procurement has got to change radically. One has to de-carbonize. Now. Not just in 2050: by then it will be too late.

To de-carbonize, there is just one way: tax carbon so heavily that silly activities such as frantic tourism by plane, disappear altogether. So those who want to do something moral should agitate for an enormous carbon tax (while compensating for the poor with some of the proceeds).

Something similar is to push for local sustainable energy. An example: San Francisco just passed a law requiring plants or solar panels on roofs of all new building less than ten stories tall (to start with). Starting January 1, 2017. The law is identical to a mandate passed in France last year that all new buildings be covered in partial green roofing or solar panels.

In France, buildings producing more energy than they use have been erected. In other French news, Paris organized its first car race since 1951… 65 years ago. It was done with Formula One style cars: monospaces. It was also remarkably silent: the cars were electric. An Audi driven by the Brazilian Di Grassi won this “Formula E” event. There will be another one, next year (a necessary way of fighting terrorism is to act and behave as if there was no terror).

If enormous de-carbonization is not imposed quickly, fabulous wars may ensue… Except if some countries have such a lead in military matters that none of the others will try anything; as is presently the case of the West, mostly the USA, relative to the Rest; a fascinating twist on might makes right.

However, morality means “the mores”, what has proven sustainable to a tribe. And this brings still another moral twist. Some tribes (also known as nations) have profited a lot from war, thus may not be, very secretly, deep down inside, that adverse to adversity of the lethal type. Indeed, if adversity enables them to unleash the Dark Side, their empire may extend. Or, at least, such is the computation. because, in the past, war always proved such an excellent lever. It is especially the case of the USA (although Russia also lives under that illusion; and giant countries such as Canada and Australia are not far behind in that same general mood; even China, considering its recent conquest of gigantic, highly profitable Tibet and Xing Kiang, may feel that way, all too much).

Notice in passing that the US emits close to 20 tons of GreenHouse Gases per year, per capita. That’s around three times more than the French. And France is not three times poorer, per capita. Actually, according to Hillary Clinton, France is richer, per capita, than the USA: she herself says that the USA cannot afford universal health care. Whereas the French can afford a universal health care system. It is even worse than that, as the French health care system (with the Italian and Swedish ones) is leading in quality, whereas the USA trails, in quality of health care, behind all developed countries.

Once again, what Hillary really means is that those who are paying for her propaganda and helping her with various services, cannot afford a country with universal health care, because they are too busy overdosing inside their private jets (allusion to Prince, one of many). One’s morality not better than one’s logic.

The naïve, gullible and thoroughly obsolete, often believe there is just one way to be logical. But logic can be pretty much anything. Anything goes in logic. Differently from cooking ,where a few rules apply. In cooking at the very least, one should not put too much salt, or burn food to such a crisp that it becomes, well, pure carbon.

However logic is much more adaptable. And thus, a fortiori, is morality.

Tomorrow’s morality has often be made from yesterday’s computation. And computations can sometimes go awry.

So what to do? Change the moods ASAP. Solar roofs are an example. Another is the just announced change of the Twenty Dollar Bill. It figures president Jackson. Jackson followed Jefferson’s example, conquering and annexing giant swathes of territory for the USA. Those two, with Washington himself, were the three most important presidents, in the sense that they created, not just the USA as a state, but also its extent and its mood. Jackson was as macho as Washington, if not more. He went on his conquests, as the head of the US Army, without any order, and Congress did not dare contradict him, lest he made a coup. He had no problem harboring a bullet or two from successful duels.

Nowadays, more and more people in the USA feel that Jackson’s mentality is something which should not be viewed as an example anymore. So Obama and his sidekicks want to replace him by an abolitionist ex-slave who happened to be a woman (I had never heard from, I think, demonstrating that the masses need to further their education, indeed.)  Not bad. At the last hour, Obama and Al. minister admirably the details. However, if one removes all the slave masters from US currency, one may be left with the insipid mild and neutral pseudo-bridges found on European currency.

Removing the face of slavery would not be progress, if all one did, was to forget, and thus deny, where one came from, institutionally speaking, and in the genealogy of moods.

Without its demonic males to lead and fabricate appropriately evil systems of thought, the USA would not have become the world’s leading empire it is now. Beyond whether this is right or wrong, it’s important to remember that, first of all, that’s what happened. Yes, the USA was fabricated by slave masters. This politely brings in the natural question: Is the USA still ruled by slave masters?

The first moral duty is always to the truth. When the morality used is the one closest to the essence of the genus Homo. Yet, special circumstances, (such as inheriting a continent which has been grabbed,) have incited special moralities to blossom.

Patrice Ayme’

 

COGNITIVE INEQUALITY

April 23, 2016

Chains work best, when they hold minds in their metallic embrace. Sanders has proposed free education, Clinton has claimed the USA could not afford it. Or is it just US plutocracy which cannot afford it?

Much has been made about Economic Inequality, very recently. Economic inequality is an important part of what ails the world, but not really the primary disease itself. The primary engine of disaster is stupidity, and that is caused by Cognitive Inequality. Cognitive Inequality is itself made of two pieces: formal education (which is deficient in anyone who has not learned enough science and the history thereof), and the inclination to learn qualitatively superior knowledge (which is deficient in anybody who is obsessed by sport scores and other celebritism).

Economic Inequality is, overall, reaching levels not seen since the (French) Ancient Regime (when the top 2%, the aristocracy, was rich in part, because, as now, it did not pay enough tax to become less powerful).

In The US, Guns Are Cheap, Brains Expensive.

In The US, Guns Are Cheap, Brains Expensive.

Economic Inequality is a euphemism for regime change. Indeed, we are supposed to live in “democracy”, that is demos-kratos, people-rule. To rule, one needs power. However the top 1% wealthiest own more than half of the world’s wealth. It gets much worse when one considers money. The top .01% controls most of the world’s money, that is, power.

Sometimes the supremacy world turns outright bizarre: the pop musician known as “Prince” was rushed from his private jet, doctors gave him a “save shot” to counteract an opiate overdose. However, Prince was a prince, the first of them all (this is what “princeps means) so much above the rest is a prince, that he should not mix with low lives. Told there was no private room in the hospital, the superior creature was bundled back by his bodyguards to his private jet, although “he was not doing well”.

There is a meta question here: how did we get here, in a state of such stupidity? Calling “democracy” a regime where a few have most of the power? One aspect is that the few rule using demonic means: like John Locke, the philosopher, one can talk one way (condemning slavery), and stealthy act in the exact opposite way, using one’s loud advocacy to hide (making oneself invisible, as the god Pluto used to). Then, in turn, Locke is preached, and hypocrisy becomes a mood one imposes on the people to be ruled by.

This is one of the reasons of Trump’s attractiveness: the blue collar masses confusedly perceive that they were massively lied to, and feel that Trump tries to say what he thinks, making him a straight shooter, rather than a puppet reading on a teleprompter the packs of dissemblance which his minders have carefully concocted, Obama style.

Thus, when talking about American education, we hear about its superlative universities, a model for the world, we are told. American universities are elogious about their own mental performance, but mental performance can only be judged as part of the legend of the centuries.

Objectively, American universities are characterized by their connections to money. First, by superlative wealth barriers, and wealth facilitation, to educational access: blocking the poor, allowing the very wealthy in. In the prime universities, the total cost of attending is quickly converging towards twice the median US family income.

Then the sponsors of the universities are among the powers to be of our world. After I went through Stanford, Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s Secretary of State, of Iraq invasion fame, made a meteoric career there. She was barely thirty something and oriented towards the highest powers in the US, Stanford, the White House. Chevron, a sponsor of Stanford University, named a supertanker after Condoleeza. What does this mean? It means that, should you say something against the established order, you will be “banned” (say pointing out that empiricists such as David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, were just using their empiricism to cover-up the most demonic practices… And that greed is a characteristic of “empiricism”) What does it also mean? In the plutocratic university system, once you have been identified as a super-puppet, the world is your oyster.

The combination of both attitudes should encourage intellectual mediocrity at the highest level. Europe has been trying to keep education free.

The More Access To The Highest Knowledge, the More Wisdom Grows

The More Access To The Highest Knowledge, the More Wisdom Grows

Some will sneer that Europe is not at the forefront of brains. Or, at least, expensive science. When I was in Stanford, the biggest project of the physics department was to test the Equivalence Principle of the theory of gravitation. Stanford was the leader on that for decades. The money could never be found. (Although NSF funded the research on another of Poincare’ ideas, gravitational waves, to the tune one billion dollars, over decades… successfully.)

In the last few days, France has been trying to launch Microscope from Kuru, Guyana. The 200 million dollar Microscope will test the Equivalence Principle… Should the bad weather above Kuru cooperates.

To find what really the contributors and creators of the highest new thinking should be itself a science. It will become one someday, when computers and artificial intelligence will take care of more mundane matters. Methinks believes that the colossal repute of the American Plutocratic University system will then deflate spectacularly.

There will be many surprises; some laws will be named correctly. Some women will outshine, even in science, the likes of Einstein, even Newton…

Patrice Ayme’

Earth Day or Earth Doom?

April 22, 2016

Earth Day is an old United States invention. But talking the talk is all too often a vaccination against walking the walk. A few countries are leading the charge towards doom and gloom. And foremost that great leader of all, the USA.

As I have explained, disaster have been most profitable to Anglo-Saxon America’s expansion, traditions, and institutions… But for the Civil War. Thus there is an US tradition of benign neglect towards the worst, until it becomes juicy enough to bear fruit.

PPP A Few Countries Are The Main CO2 Culprits, And It Does Not Have To Do With Development.

Hillary Clinton feels the USA cannot afford health care. And it’s just one more step to inform us that the USA cannot inform us to cut down on CO2 emissions. Actually super young, super cool, super hip, super elected Justin Trudeau just informed us of that about Canada. It reminds me of people who say: ‘I am not a racist, BUT…’

So Trudeau agrees the Earth is scorched by carbon, but does not want to tax carbon, lest carbon would lead an unhappy life…

Pic Vignemale, With One Of the last Dying Glaciers of Pyrénées At the Foot of the Granite Pillar.

Pic Vignemale, With One Of the last Dying Glaciers of Pyrénées At the Foot of the Granite Pillar.

In the Middle Ages, it was claimed that the lioness gave birth, with her mouth. 14 centuries earlier, there were European lions in Greece. Facts get easily replace by ridiculous myths. The very large European lion had no mane. It is now extinct. Officially due to its obvious similarity with the Devil (Pluto, Hades): tall, hairy, with claws and large teeth, the European Brown Bear (ancestor to the American Grizzly) was ordered more or less exterminated by Charlemagne’s government. It nearly disappeared too.

I was talking with an American friend. She and her two children are going to the Alps this summer. Curiously she plans then to train to another mountain range, and visit it. I observed that said range, lower than the Alps, and less sharp, yet full of lakes, and granite reminded me of the Sierra Nevada, so I would never need to go there, as I frequent the Sierra all too much. She suspiciously wondered how I could know the Pyrénées, as I had never been there and gloated I never will.

Well, I use advanced morality, and various methods of tele-vision. It’s not just as good, it’s better. Knowing that the Pyrenees is a formidable, mostly impassable (very few passes) rampart between Spain and France, explains a lot. But that’s better explored through books, as, doing it by foot would take much of a lifetime.

Travelling is good. But having a human reason for it, better. If it’s just for marking territory, one stoops to the level of dogs, considering what is going on with our planet-wide mismanagement.

171 countries signed the Paris COP 21 accord in New York at the United Nations. It’s going to take one or two more years to ratify this Paris COP 21. Unfortunately, it’s supposed to be implemented in 2020… when every month now counts! There were eleven (11) straight months of worldwide temperature records.

Things need to change faster. French justice seized the belongings of the Bongo family. Bongo is one of the many African presidential families which has milked Africa. A relative of dictator Assad of Syria owns hundreds of millions of dollars of property in France alone. If one stripped all the world plutocrats of the properties they own in the leading cities and places of the West, real estate would not doubt significantly go down in value.

Meanwhile a drugged out “Jehovah Witness” musician died at 57. A few days ago, a plane had to make an emergency landing because said drugged out anti-role model had overdosed. Well I am witness that Jehovah had a very Dark Side we arguably would have done better without. And I don’t like Purple Rain very much.

Those who drug themselves out are basically saying that reality is better left alone, thus, if not most satisfying, at least, satisfying enough.

In 20 years, if one persisted at the present rate of CO2 emissions, Earth’s overall temperature would not stay below a two degree Centigrade increase. That would mean the poles would melt. Empirically the rise of temperatures of the poles has been at least five times that of the rest of the planet. That rate will itself augment considerably. Ice will run out of planet (so will many species).

The public does not seem to appreciate that a 40 a 70% reduction in CO2 before 2050 enormous effort. An example is my friend above, who has travelled over much of the world. Air travel contributes significantly to CO2 emissions. Yes, Airbus works on large electric planes. Slap a carbon tax, to accelerate its work.

COP21 says: no more net emissions CO2 in second half century. This will be very difficult to achieve without thermonuclear plants (which are still the energy of the future).

The world Public does not understand magnitude of change. One has to change not just development mode, to get rid of Carbon burning, but the very nature of everyday morality. The CO2 gets in the atmosphere, and the ocean, and the warming and acidity occur decades later. Skepticism is natural in scientists. One can only be skeptical when one sees the entire Coral Reef Barrier blanching under our eyes.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, within existing technology, the only fix is to stop burning carbon. Thermonuclear Terraforming plants will have to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, to prevent a runaway Jurassic, but those admirable devices are not yet here.Giant solar plants in the most favorable places may be able to extract CO2 too, with existing technology, including imitating plants to make useful materials from CO2.

But the fact remains: the “Energetic Transition”, away from carbon burning, is also a moral transition.

Patrice Ayme’

Internet & Academic Morality Not Yet Here

April 21, 2016

Internet Etiquette Is Not Internet Morality. Academia, Tribes Fighting Like Rats:

Morality is technology dependent. Always has been, always will be. Indeed, morality, the mores, are the behaviors which have proven sustainable. As technology varies, so does sustainability.

Having a rapacious attitude can also be sustained for centuries. Many said that about Rome. It was viewed to be the case of the Assyrian civilization, around 27 centuries ago. The Aztecs similarly had made moral, even divine to cut their enemies in pieces and eat them.

Right, Yet Order Zero Approach, Because, In the Next Step, Righteousness Itself Has to Be Interrogated, Though

Right, Yet Order Zero Approach, Because, In the Next Step, Righteousness Itself Has to Be Interrogated, Though

The USA’s morality is founded not just on “Jesus” and his “Bible”, but also on the most sacred “philosophers” of the so-called (Anglo-Saxon!) Enlightenment. In the USA, to be “enlightened” traditionally means to believe in the established order, racist, enslaving, and the so-called “free market” with its “invisible hand” (Pluto!). One has to be an “empiricist”, following “pragmatism” (and that means having no moral principles, but for those of the Bible).

So, naturally enough, having defied the philosophical foundation of the USA, I was immediately “banned” from a “philosophy” site.

This is not the first time this happens. Once a site where Searle, a “philosopher” famous for his “Chinese Room” thought experiment, banned me. Searle’s site claimed I was culprit of “intellectual property theft”, because the site claimed it owned all and any of my ideas, once they were published there. I was also accused of “fantastic Logic”. Part of the truth, of course is that the Chinese Room is itself a duplication of the so-called “Turing Test” which (idiotically) claims a computer to be intelligent if it can pass for a human in a conversation. Searle, a professor at a university where I taught, use to force his students to buy his fantastically overpriced tiny and worthless books. The same university is now involved into a tidal wave of sexual harassment cases: a professor forcing students to buy his fantastically overpriced books is also a rapist, methinks.

Another of my crime, yesterday was to claim that Kuhn, author of “The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions”, a revered figure of American philosophy of science, never said anything special.

Instead I was told that  philosophy is “Discursive Rational Argumentation”. This is highly redundant: ratio (from which reason comes), comes from “logic”, which itself means discourse, which is not different from “argumentation”.

Instead I hold that philosophy is “Disruptive Rational Art”

Insults themselves can be an art: Obama flew to Saudi Arabia, flying 12,000 kilometers. He was welcomed by the governor of Riyadh. No minister, no king.

Saudi ire is mostly caused by the US rapprochement with Iran, although Obama’s artful inefficiency is also a legitimate cause of irritation. (Not to say Iran is innocent: Iranian psychology is a study in the deepest contradictions imaginable, due to the rape of Iranian civilization by much beloved Arabian engineered Islam; a classical case of the Stockholm syndrome, which should be re-baptized as the Iranian syndrome…)

The alliance between the US presidency and the king of Saudi Arabia dates from 1945. It has proven quite sustainable, although it’s a spiral descending as a co-dependency with hell.  In a way, the USA did with Saudi Arabia what it did with Hitler: encourage the worst, and milk it (the argument that Britain, Germany and France have done the same is entirely valid… but they followed the US lead, and their reward is Wahhabist terror all over Europe).

The Internet is a new technology. It empowers completely new behaviors: potentially all can communicate with all, and talk about anything. Thus it requires, and will evolve, a new morality. But there are many possibilities. Some good, some evil.

The Internet allows intellectual exchanges, gifts we make to each other called ideas. The wisest behavior, among intellectuals, in tentative debate, consist in getting inspired by the best ideas others have to offer, and forget the rest. This is the best first order approach.

However when the most impactful ideas are deleterious, such as a stealth advocacy of slavery or greed, it is another matter entirely. When John Locke teaches hypocrisy as the highest mood (condemning slavery in his writing, while investing in it and fostering it, in his actions), he deserves strident condemnation.

I am banned from many sites, from the Huffington Post, to the Guardian (for the unexpected sin of “blogging the Qur’an!”). I view “banning” and censoring unwise. The New York Times, since before the invasion of Iraq, has literally censored thousands of my comments (I have been a full subscriber for decades). Said comments’ positions were later embraced by the New York Times.

I have never banned anybody from my site (including Jihadists, Fundamentalists, and the occasional Nazi). I put just one crazed maniac in moderation, and he gave up. I systematically contradict offensive material, though, in appropriate, thus scathing, terms (it’s generally enough to make miscreants give up).

I don’t “make things up”. Except for the occasional rare joke. I don’t make things up, to the best of my knowledge, I never do, and never did, because reality, my way, always beats fiction (especially fiction the way others have it, which puts me to sleep).

Mary Beard, a professional Roman historian, in her SPQR, brazenly claims the Common Wisdom that Marcus Aurelius was the first emperor in a long while to have a live official son, but a cursory research reveals that Hadrian (likely), and Antoninus Pius (certainly) had two official sons. I did not make it up.

The devil starts with getting the details wrong… and learning to live with that.

Long ago at Stanford I was scolded by the finest and brightest, for “meditating” on Black Hole theory. My “meditation” became standard lore only recently. I had a somewhat similar experience in pure mathematics. Ultimately, what motivates academics and scientists, and philosophers the most, is their own advancement, and that means the advancement of their tribe. Richard Feynman discovered this, he said, after being elected to the American Academy of Sciences. He decided that was not acceptable, and resigned.

My answer to these academic shenanigans? Do more of what I always did, and damn the torpedoes. I am not writing for a career, but for the issues themselves. My career belongs to the future, after I am gone.

The greatest, oldest, most human, and most noble trading, is that of ideas.

And where do ideas come from? Not just the pulling of oxen, but the spur of the moment. This is why Internet spontaneity is sacred. Academia was a grove Plato liked. With the Internet, the grove is the world.

Patrice Ayme’

Racist Slave Masters: Locke, Hume, Kant, etc.

April 20, 2016

Perverse, Racist, Enslaving Anglo-Saxon Philosophers

Ever wondered what John Locke, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson have in common? Well, they are all highly regarded pillars of philosophy, in the United States. They are drilled in the minds of naïve students, and presented as the very definition of what makes the Anglo-Saxon more “rational”, “empirical”, “pragmatic”, and eminently moral. Left unsaid, but truly the fundamental reason for the admiration directed at them, is that they were theoreticians, partisans and supporters of racism and slavery. Not only that, but they showed how to manage with dexterity the exploitation of most men by a few evil lords.

Thomas Jefferson Learned The Pragmatist Of Lying and Dissembling From Locke And Hume. And He Lied to the Ancient Regime French Police About Slavery Too.

Thomas Jefferson Learned The Pragmatist Of Lying and Dissembling From Locke And Hume. And He Lied to the Ancient Regime French Police About Slavery Too.

As Uber-Racist David Hume put it:”Nothing is more surprising than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few… Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad… The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster.”

I guess, if human beings are oysters, we may as well roast them in an oven… Hume’s statement is superbly idiotic, except if one wants to devour, or, let’s say, enslave people.

Many an American philosophy professor extoll those racist enslavers as paradigms of rational, empirical thinking. It works this way: Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father of the Bill of Rights and the like, lifted directly his texts from John Locke. So Locke, this way, is viewed as a very great thinker, yet, of more significance was the fact that, contrarily to all Western tradition, contrarily to all Western intellectual, constitutional, moral, philosophical and historical tradition, Locke was a master racist.

Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment master thinker John Locke was instrumental in codifying race-based chattel slavery into the United States Constitution. Sir Leslie Stephen charged Locke with personal racism for inserting section CX: “Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.”

Locke formulated the sections on religion. Locke was involved over the years in amending the Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas right up to the time at which he was writing the mellifluous “Two Treatises of Government”. The clause about negro slavery perdured. The Second Treatise account of slavery is intended to justify the institutions and practices of Afro-American slavery.

“Slavery is so vile and miserable an Estate of Man, and so directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our Nation; that ’tis hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less a Gentleman, should plead for’t…”

So how come Locke invested in the Royal African Company (= slave trade)? And wrote enslaving constitution? Simple: he taught hypocrisy, and the greedy empire as the highest good. What Locke actually did and some of the documents with which he was involved, show he supported slavery and wanted to promulgate slavery. Locke was actually a pillar, a theoretician, the way to construct the racist, fascist, enslaving empire.

Anglo-Saxon imperial Enlightenment thinker David Hume the “Abolitionist”:

“I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences…. [T]here are NEGROE slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA, indeed, they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.”

Hume, of course, was an ignorant idiot: Black Africa developed its own steel manufacturing, using its own proprietary technology. Why are American universities teaching ignorant idiots? To create another generation of ignorant idiots? (African steel is why the Europeans could not penetrate the Black continent until close to 1900s. Even then, the French used mostly native soldiers, led by a sprinkle of French officers…)

Kant, in Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime, stated: “The Negroes of Africa have received from nature no intelligence that rises above the foolish.”

Thomas Jefferson penmanship is all over the American Declaration of Independence, a document that lauds human equality. The crux, though, is in how “humanity” is defined. In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote: “I advance it, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.”

Jefferson: blacks were “pests in society… as incapable as children of taking care of themselves.” Jefferson wrote that he sold slaves only as punishment. Yet he sold at least 85 humans in a 10-year period to raise cash for wine, art and other luxury goods. Hypocrisy again.

Destroying slave families didn’t bother Jefferson, because blacks came short in basic human emotions. “Their griefs are transient…” their love lacked “a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.”

Jefferson had “never seen an elementary trait of painting or sculpture” or poetry among blacks and argued that blacks’ ability “to reason” was “much inferior” to whites’, while “in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.” Blacks were brave, because of “a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.”

Thinkers like that are ready to sink the world. Thinkers for the few who sink most. Yet, they have led and presided over generations of American leaders, educators, legislators, senators, congressmen, businessmen, presidents… In turn this double faced, forked tongue, exploitative attitude has been institutionalized.

So if one wants to know why Anglo-Saxon “civilization” has deviated from standard civilization, there it is. Part of it. Part of the other part being The Bible, of course.

Patrice Ayme’

Going Meta Here, There & Everywhere

April 19, 2016

Samantha Power is one of the great “leaders” of this world, so, endowed with quasi-supernatural powers, she powerfully zooms around in jets and armored motorcades. Such is our world: some think they can “lead” it, and it means they are above the law. So her motorcade zooms in Cameroon; at one hundred kilometer per hour on a dirt road. And runs over a seven-year old. Power was there to power up about security. A world led by such power monsters is not secure. This is what a powerful meta-conceptual analysis shows. (The rest of the day, the motorcade from hell slowed down to a crawl, momentarily chastised, because of bad PR…)

If one thinks carefully about it, one realizes that all and every progress in understanding were obtained by enlarging the scope of one’s inquiry. Typically factors not considered before get integrated, and they add logical dimensions to the logic. Another way of expressing this is by “going meta” (“meta” meaning beyond).

Just as there is metalogic and metamathematics, there is metaphilosophy (arguably metabiology has also arrived, with changes not just in genes, but in the bases of DNA). Plain mathematicians, or logicians do not like the “meta” version of their disciplines (nor do they like each other… except for those tremendous enough to transcend the differences). Indeed, at least once, metalogic studies invalidated a part of analysis.

Number of Books Mentioning Category Theory. For Decades, Most Mathematicians Have Feared And Despised Category Theory. CT Is Itself An Example Of Going “META”.

Number of Books Mentioning Category Theory. For Decades, Most Mathematicians Have Feared And Despised Category Theory. CT Is Itself An Example Of Going “META”.

Category Theory can be used to formulate “Meta”. Fascinatingly, the power of Category Theory is to go “meta” by forgetting all the details, and chasing (literally!) the big picture. One does not know why this is so, except, philosophically speaking, that the bark in your face tends to block sight of the forest beyond. To go meta, forget the bark, turn your head.

The incompleteness theorems are just one example of meta. earlier examples were equations, analytic geometry, euclidean versus non-simply-euclidean geometries, topology (generalizing metric spaces).

When one is  a baby it’s obvious that mom (= the Virgin Mary) and dad (= Zeus, Deus, Allah, etc.) created the universe. It’s a simple, deeply satisfying explanation, which helps provide all what one needs. However, when the baby goes meta, baby discovers there are other powers out there, other factors to take into account, from gravity, to getting air out of one’s stomach.

The rest of life is a long gathering of wisdom, by broadening and deepening one’s understanding, in a succession of conceptual mutations.

Some mathematicians (such as Alain Connes) have also complained that non-standard numbers were beyond their own understanding. Well, boys, I have bad news for you all: I invalidate all and any recourse to infinity as if it were another number. That still leave open the usage of “potential infinity”. But it demolishes… potentially, a large part of mathematics (what gets invalidated, or not, would, itself become a branch of mathematics).

Philosophy is the ultimate questioning of all the bases. “Metaphilosophy” should be a redundant notion. Part of metamathematics, such as Category Theory, have become workhorses of the mainstream… even in theoretical physics. Category Theory started as the ultimate pragmatism: forget about the foundations of the objects at hand, just worry about the rules the morphisms relating these objects can satisfy.

Thus one can safely say that fundamental differences between philosophy, mathematics, science and logic are all illusory. Category Theory provides with an example: it was started with a philosophical point of view on mathematics, and is now a must in some areas of physics.

So why does philosophy have a Public Relation problem? Because philosophy attacks the established order, always, and the new orders brutes always try to impose.

The other day the German Chancellor decided to prosecute a comic who had made (gentle) fun of Erdogan, the Turkish Sultan (aka “Turkish president”). It sounds like something straight out of more than a century ago (the Kaiser was allied to the Sultan). The healthy reaction from the philosopher Massimo Pigliucci was: Massimo Pigliucci‏@mpigliucci Apr 15

“Really Germany? Fuck you, Erdogan. “Germany Turkey: Merkel allows inquiry into comic’s Erdogan insult”

That’s excellent. It is excellent, because it is very wise. This is at the core of what the best philosophers have always done: scold infamy. In another tweet of Massimo, and it was a surprise to me, Hillary Clinton was revealed to have 27 million in income (in 2014, it was 24 million). Sanders had just $205,000 (less than 1% of Hillary’s income).

Philosophy, well done, brings revolutions, all over, not just consolation. Philosophy also brings consolation, yes. Boethius, president of the Roman Senate, wrote the “Consolation of Philosophy”, while waiting for his execution by bludgeoning from the local Erdogan. In the Sixth Century. (Islam did not yet exist, but, with examples like that, it could learn from the worst.)

The elites, lest they want revolution(s), can only view philosophy as a self-defeating endeavor. Elites are rarely for revolutions (although Louis XVI of France was for the American Revolution, in spite of strident critiques from his brother and members of his cabinet, that he was creating a Republic).

The fear and contempt elites have for revolution is the main source of the Public Relation problem of philosophy.

Meantime, humanity will keep on going meta, going beyond what was established before. That’s the genius of the genus Homo.

Patrice Ayme’

Voting Clinton Is Voting Trump

April 18, 2016

Why choosing Clinton as democratic candidate guarantees the election of Trump? There are two main reasons. The first is that Donald Trump is going to defeat Hillary Clinton. Trump, however, would be defeated by Bernie Sanders (and he knows it, hence the virulence of Trump’s attacks against Sanders).

Why would Trump defeat hillary Clinton? Just look at Hillary Clinton’s tax returns, if nothing else. In 2014, she made more than 24 million dollars, in 2015, more than twenty-seven millions. Who would not love to earn three million dollars more, from a year to the next? How did Hillary make this money? Through influence peddling, and the promise of more to come. By contrast, Bernie Sanders made less than 1% of what Clinton made.

Private (Including Corporate) Investment Versus Corporate Profits. Under Clinton-Obama-Establishment Rule, The Gap Between Monopoly Profits And Lack Of Investment In The Economy, Has Never Been So Wide. Can’t Accuse Bush, Reagan, and The Great bad Wolf Out There. The Wolf Has Been Obama’s Policy

Private (Including Corporate) Investment Versus Corporate Profits. Under Clinton-Obama-Establishment Rule, The Gap Between Monopoly Profits And Lack Of Investment In The Economy, Has Never Been So Wide. Can’t Accuse Bush, Reagan, and The Great bad Wolf Out There. The Wolf Has Been Obama’s Policy

Some will say Trump makes more than Clinton. Yes, but it’s the nature of their jobs, which differ. Donald Trump is going to accuse Clinton of corruption. Because that’s all what her immense fortune is about. When asked why he lived so modestly, ex-President Truman pointed out that, doing otherwise, using influence peddling, “would demean the office of the presidency”. And Truman was no shrinking violet: among other things, he dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (shortening considerably, by a psycho-political shock effect, a war that killed much more than 10,000 persons a day).

Trump also has favored single-payer, and, or, socialized medicine, in many declarations, for decades. He extolled the Canadian (single-payer) or Scottish (socialized) systems in the past, Hillary has declared that the richest country in the world could not afford either (differently from all other rich countries, and many, not so rich).

So Trump is going to run to the LEFT of Hillary. This is all the clearer as Trump declared, also many times that his friends in the financial industry should pay taxes at the same rate as anybody else (in particular Trump accused his friends, the hedge fund managers New York is crawling with, of getting an unfair break with “carried interest”).

Hillary, like Ted Cruz, is financed by the likes of Goldman-Sachs.

At this point, Trump is running fully on the right against the Goldman Sachs puppet who says things won’t be right “until the body of Christ rises agian”. I said in December Cruz was the true candidate of the plutocrats, and, indeed, here we are.

I used to consider, very long ago, Trump as the poster boy of what was wrong with the US banking system (long story). However, in the meantime, the Clintons got to power, and unleash the banks onto the world. The Clintons made finance so domineering that “Shadow Banks” sprouted all over.

And what of Obama, in all this. Paul Krugman himself, a strident Hillary partisan, admits, in his latest editorial, that Obama increased the powers of monopoly (in a similar vein, the New York Times admitted that Obama lowered the tax rates of the 400 richest US taxpayers by 20%, in 2009. Ironically, when I used to notice that, as it happened, I was taxed with racism, and the NYT censored my comments; this mentality of censorship of an inconvenient reality explains why said inconvenience was allowed to grow).

***

Anxious To Please Progressives, Krugman Suddenly Gets It:

In “Robber Baron Recession”, the hard core Hillary supporter opines that:

“ In recent years many economists, including people like Larry Summers and yours truly, have come to the conclusion that growing monopoly power is a big problem for the U.S. economy — and not just because it raises profits at the expense of wages. Verizon-type stories, in which lack of competition reduces the incentive to invest, may contribute to persistent economic weakness.

The argument begins with a seeming paradox about overall corporate behavior. You see, profits are at near-record highs, thanks to a substantial decline in the percentage of G.D.P. going to workers. You might think that these high profits imply high rates of return to investment. But corporations themselves clearly don’t see it that way: their investment in plant, equipment, and technology (as opposed to mergers and acquisitions) hasn’t taken off, even though they can raise money, whether by issuing bonds or by selling stocks, more cheaply than ever before.

How can this paradox be resolved? Well, suppose that those high corporate profits don’t represent returns on investment, but instead mainly reflect growing monopoly power. In that case many corporations would be in the position I just described: able to milk their businesses for cash, but with little reason to spend money on expanding capacity or improving service. The result would be what we see: an economy with high profits but low investment, even in the face of very low interest rates and high stock prices.”

I have, of course been saying this for years. I even saw in the root phenomenon of all this, the plutocratic phenomenon, the cause of the Fall of The Roman Republic, and thus, ultimately, of the Roman Empire.

Basically elites profit from the established order, and thus work against changing it, at all cost. Technology itself is disruptive (and, a fortiori, science), so they are limited as much as possible (while claiming to not being doing so).

So, in 2014, Paul Krugman wrote that growing importance of monopoly rents is producing a disconnect between profits and production. Is that new? No. Actually the word “rentier” was the number one class distinction in Nineteenth Century France. There was the “rentier” class, and the “working class”.

What we have here, though, is rentier monopolies. So the extent of the phenomenon is new.

Krugman:

“And such an economy wouldn’t just be one in which workers don’t share the benefits of rising productivity; it would also tend to have trouble achieving or sustaining full employment.”

What Krugman should have said here was: “quality employment”. There is plenty of employment in the USA, as there are in many a slave society. There USED to be quality employment.

Krugman: “… when investment is weak despite low interest rates, the Federal Reserve will too often find its efforts to fight recessions coming up short. So lack of competition can contribute to “secular stagnation” — that awkwardly-named but serious condition in which an economy tends to be depressed much or even most of the time, feeling prosperous only when spending is boosted by unsustainable asset or credit bubbles. If that sounds to you like the story of the U.S. economy since the 1990s, join the club.”

There are, then, good reasons to believe that reduced competition and increased monopoly power are very bad for the economy. But do we have direct evidence that such a decline in competition has actually happened? Yes, say a number of recent studies, including one just released by the White House. For example, in many industries the combined market share of the top four firms, a traditional measure used in many antitrust studies, has gone up over time.

The obvious next question is why competition has declined. The answer can be summed up in two words: Ronald Reagan.

For Reagan didn’t just cut taxes and deregulate banks; his administration also turned sharply away from the longstanding U.S. tradition of reining in companies that become too dominant in their industries. A new doctrine, emphasizing the supposed efficiency gains from corporate consolidation, led to what those who have studied the issue often describe as the virtual end of antitrust enforcement.”

***

Krugman Then Dropped A Bombshell: Bad Obama

Obama, if anything, made monopoly powers greater than ever. A deer in the headlights is the charitable explanation. Here is Krugman again, suddenly coming over to the side of those who want justice, and wealth for all:

“… the Obama administration — preoccupied with the aftermath of financial crisis and the struggle with bitterly hostile Republicans — has only recently been in a position to grapple with competition policy.

Still, better late than never. On Friday the White House issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use whatever authority they have to “promote competition.” What this means in practice isn’t clear, at least to me. But it may mark a turning point in governing philosophy, which could have large consequences if Democrats hold the presidency.

For we aren’t just living in a second Gilded Age, we’re also living in a second robber baron era.”

So Obama was the Robber Baron-In-Chief, I presume? (I am very sorry… Barry, please, tell us it ain’t so…)

***

Brazil’s Standards Higher Than The US For Corruption?

The president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has been impeached. The charge? Not personal enrichment, but cheating with the numbers of the Brazilian economy when she ran again for office (and was re-elected president). Hillary Clinton is an even bigger cheater, in the category of lying with the numbers of the government. But nobody knows about it, because nobody has called her lies.

Hillary, following Obama, pretends that the banks reimbursed 800 billions of TARP money. That’s technically correct. But a lie nevertheless. The Treasury was reimbursed TARP, modulo a Quantitative Easing program of many trillions which dwarfed TARP.  The Federal Reserve, another branch of government, bought Treasury Bonds, and Mortgage Securities from the banks at inflated prices (that what QE is).

Rousseff did not profit materially personally (whereas many of her accusers, about half of them, are under judicial examination for corruption!) The Clintons did, tremendously profit from the institutions they unleashed on the world.

The preceding reasonings are not too difficult: even New York democrats should be able to follow them, and even discover them, on their own.

Conclusion? All too many well-to-do New York democrats secretly, subconsciously, want to have Trump elected president.

And what is the “candidacy” most supported financially so far in these elections? Arguably the anti-Trump campaign paid by nominal Republican “PACs”’. Indeed, the Obama administration gave oodles of public money to plutocrats (in direct gifts, or taxes not perceived, or monopolies powers encouraged). Those plutocrats at the government teat want to keep it that way: that’s why their candidate is Clinton, not Trump (Cruz would be even better, because he is only a multimillionaire; not at the head of a 200 million dollar fortune as the Clintons are).

Trump has a long track record of suing the government, thus a rather adverse relationship with said government. And, whereas the likes of Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Bill Gates, etc. can buy simple multimillionaires, they cannot buy a multibillionaire financed by real estate such as Trump. So they detest him, and this is why the anti-Trump movement is the most financed.

I worked for Obama two years before his first election. I recognize (now!) it would have been smarter to have Clinton as president, first, before Obama (Obama was promising, but proved too naïve). I recommended Clinton for Secretary of State. I recognize it is high time to have a woman president. I even appreciate many of Hillary’s smarts, and of her neocon ways.

However, it’s disturbing to see so many democrats have embraced obsessively sheer plutocratic propaganda, against Trump, or against Sanders. Indeed, crafty propaganda accusing Trump to be a “demagogue” or “populist” has been used to smear Sanders, in the guise of smearing Trump.

So here we are: New York democrats have a real choice. If they vote Sanders, they vote for the needed revolution (at least, the revolution in perception which has to precede the revolution in legislation). If New York democrats vote for Clinton, they vote for New Pork.

Patrice Ayme’

Leader Corruption Corrupts Society

April 17, 2016

And Ever More Corruption Corrupts All Too Much.

Plutocracy is the new world order: vote for Clinton, and join the winners, the leaders, the ones “who love man”… (Them and Big Brother.) New Yorkers are winners. Instead, we need whiners.

New Yorkers have a choice: they can vote, once again, for one of the most corrupt politicians in the world, or for somebody else. Right now they are led by people who kiss some of the world’s greatest plutocrats (I wanted to write a stronger word than “plutocrat”: show me a plutocrat, I will show you a crime).

American Presidency Kissing One Of Its Puppet Masters. Vote Clinton To See More Of That, And Make More Tax Fraud Treaties, Like The One They Engineered With Panama

American Presidency Kissing One Of Its Puppet Masters. Vote Clinton To See More Of That, And Make More Tax Fraud Treaties, Like The One They Engineered With Panama

So it’s not really a choice: did you see all the big towers rising in New York, with apartments worth a thousand times the yearly median family income? The stratospheric rents? Corruption corrupts, and it corrupts stratospherically.

Clinton extolls Obama’s record at every turn. Do people know who Obama kisses? Do people know Obama’s sugar mamas?

However, since she invaded Iraq and helped kill a million people or so there, New Yorkers voted twice for the greatest financial deregulator of all times, Hillary. (Don’t forget her husband organized a medical drug embargo, “without inhaling”, against Iraq, when he was in power, to punish the children.)

Obama just said that “bad laws” enabled the sort of tax fraud blatant in the Panama Papers. However on October 12, 2011, the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement was passed in the House by a vote of 300-129 (H.R. 3079) and in the Senate by a vote of 77-22 (S. 1643).[10] President Obama signed the pact, but further regulatory formalities were needed before the agreement entered into force October 31, 2012.

On October 12, 2011, Senator Bernie Sanders (IVT) criticized the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, arguing that Panama is a world leader in tax evasion, tax optimization, and avoidance.”[11]        

But tax fraud is only the less corrupt of Panama’s activity. There is much worse.

Notorious plutocrat Penny Pritzker, from the famous Pritzker family, having vast holding in Columbia, of all places, was appointed by President Barack Obama on June 26, 2013, in charge of passing such agreements, which claim to be fighting what they promote: global corruption. (For those who don’t see the connection: the border between Panama and Columbia is fully open, and Panama launder drug money from Columbia, on an industrial scale.)

So New Yorkers will vote for Clinton again: after all, corruption and global plutocracy headquartered there, has been pretty good for the “Big Apple”. Similarly, Augustus’ corruption was good for Rome (he made himself the richest man, but killed civil war). Western Europe and American plutocracy profited from the slave trade, for centuries, and that’s why it lasted, centuries. Now they cry crocodile tears about slavery… to divert attention from today’s problems, which are arguably, and potentially, much greater.

We need discernment. We need to increasingly discern the subtleties between evil and proclaimed good intentions. As our hands become those of gods, we need a really holy spirit to inhabit us. Watch the cult of Xi in China, and the crazed maniac next door, with his Swiss education, and his uncle, whom he fed, alive, to dogs. Xi and the maniac have thermonuclear bombs, and the intercontinental missiles to throw them about.

Morality is a world problem. A world security problem.

Corruption is what brought the Roman Republic down, by 146 BCE, when it turned into a rabid plutocracy, destroying Carthage and Corinth. Plutocracy is the ultimate stage of corruption, when evil does not bother to hide, but rules in plain sight.

From Nature, “Corruption Corrupts

A cross-cultural experiment involving thousands of people worldwide shows that the prevalence of rule violations in a society, such as tax evasion and fraudulent politics, is detrimental to individuals’ intrinsic honesty. See Letter p.496                           

Does society affect intrinsic moral values? In this issue, Gächter and Schulz1 (page 496) address this question with an experiment involving 2,568 participants in 23 countries. The authors show that a country’s prevalence of rule violations, which for this study included tax evasion, corruption and political fraud, is positively associated with the tendency for residents of that country to lie for a small amount of extra cash. The finding rejects the idea that intrinsic honesty levels are similar in countries around the globe, and suggests that corruption corrupts.

Simon Gächter and Jonathan Schulz from the University of Nottingham asked volunteers from 23 countries to play the same simple game. The researchers found that participants were more likely to bend the game’s rules for personal gain if they lived in more corrupt societies. “Corruption and fraud are things going on in the social environment all the time, and it’s plausible that it shapes people’s psychology, what they can get away with,” says Gächter. “It’s okay! Everybody does it around here.”

In other words, corruption corrupts, just as gangrene does. Or starts with the head, as when a fish rots (something I personally observed in Africa).

Gächter and Schulz asked volunteers to roll a die twice, and report the first roll. They got a dollar if they reported a one, two if they reported two, and so on; a six, however, earned them nothing. The experimenters couldn’t see the results; they dished out money based entirely on what the volunteers said.

“The task contains a lot of psychological truth, exactly because it’s so simple,” says Gächter. If everyone were honest, the average claim would be 2.5 dollars. If everyone were maximally dishonest, it would be 5 dollars. But there are many shades of gray between these black and white extremes. For example, volunteers could report the higher of the two rolls, rather than the first one. They’re still cheating, but it’s more like bending the rules rather than flagrantly ignoring them. It’s “justified dishonesty.” If they do that, the average payoff is 3.47 dollars.

Over five years, Schulz played this game with students from 23 countries, from the Great Britain to Indonesia to Guatemala to Morocco. They chose these nations to represent a wide range on the “prevalence of rule violations” (PRV) index—a score that Gächter and Schulz created using 2003 indices of political fraud, tax evasion, and corruption.

The researchers found that individuals from high PRV countries, like Georgia, Tanzania, and Guatemala, behaved less honestly in the die-rolling game than those from low PRV countries like Austria, Sweden, and the Netherlands. The former claimed an average of 3.17 dollars; the latter claimed 3.53.

Corrupt environments corrupts the individual. But, of course, it goes well beyond that. Corrupt environments corrupt not just the moral system, but the COGNITIVE system.

I have argued in “Plutocracy Causes Cancer”, that the USA is the world’s most corrupt country. Americans will never believe this, because they don’t see what is in plain sight (like Clinton’s corruption). After all, the US cancer rate is 15 times that of Congo: clearly American bodies are more corrupt (this takes age into account). So, that American bodies are more corrupt is a fact, and the cause of that fact is that American let plutocratic corporations feed them poison.

What Nature is saying is that American souls are also corrupt. In any case, the simple fact that Americans do not realize they are fed poisons is an indication of their mental dysfunctionality. So is voting Clinton.

Free trade agreements are a trick to get more of the world to eat the same poison, to make American plutocrats even richer and more powerful: the Trans Pacific Pact is an attempt to have plutocratic corporations sue governments. Obama is super anxious to pass it, because it makes him earn brownie point in his plutocratic mission to please his masters, down to the bitter end.

Corruption everywhere, and the headquarters are in New York and London: let the little people vote. After all, they need always more, and bigger crumbs, to justify to themselves, their own debasement.

Many New York democrats will vote Clinton, because all they know and love, has to do with corruption. The fate of the biosphere is in balance.

Why? Because the principle of plutocracy is the rule of cruelty, and lies (Pluto was known to make itself invisible).

Obama and Clinton have talked one way, and acted, decisively, the exact other way: just look at their Panama Papers accord with Panama, a large criminal organization claiming to be a state, where anybody with dirty money can find a lawyer to become a “bearer” of such assets, and thus hide from the world, sink below the murky waters like a crocodile, ready to come out, and swallow you all…  New Yorkers, or new porkers? One or the other will be swallowed by what lurks below. Meanwhile, let’s listen to our lying leaders.

All those leaders just met, including the IMF, World Bank, etc… Claiming they just discovered what I was writing about more than a decade ago, in excruciating detail; under Obama, the spectacle of the American president taking his presidential plane to go beg plutocrats for billions was in plain sight, for all to see. But to see that, one needs visual systems which have not been corrupted. Too many towers in New York to see very far.

The Panama Papers, which Clinton and Obama engineered, fed the highest international criminality, including selling children. No less.

Patrice Ayme’

Military Industrial Complex: A Necessary Danger To Civilization

April 16, 2016

Military Industrial Complexes are necessary, and have existed since cities came to be, 10,000 years ago. President Eisenhower warned against the danger the US Military Industrial Complex presented to the USA, and the world, in all sorts of ways. Now we can say we are right in the midst of what Ike was afraid of. However, there is another face to that coin.

Great Military Industrial Complexes (“MIC”) are characteristic of great civilizations. One can argue, that’s what civilizations are all about. Rome, the Franks and the Chinese had MICs. So did Japan. The Japanese Military Industrial Complex was able to confine behind walls the invading Mongols (who already had captured China). The Samurai, and their excellent steel, destroyed the Mongol beachheads, and Japan stayed Japan.

In The USA, The Military Industrial Complex, With The Exception Of WWI and WWII, Has long Been At The Service Of Plutocracy, and Its Corporations

In The USA, The Military Industrial Complex, With The Exception Of WWI and WWII, Has long Been At The Service Of Plutocracy, and Its Corporations

Interesting cases of Military Industrial Complexes were entangled with Greek civilization: Greece would not have existed without MICs.

The importance of war during the rise of Western Civilization was colossal. It could never have risen without it.

For example Sparta intervened and threw out Athens’ tyranny, establishing the great age of Athens’ direct democracy. The first thing the newly liberated Athenians did, was to establish a powerful MIC. Themistocles ran for office on a massive MIC program, to establish a powerful war fleet (after the first Persian invasion this grew to a 200 warships fleet). In the process the Athenian state ran a massive debt, and devastated the forests of Attica (to build the triremes). Themistocles’ argument was that Persia was going to attack. It did attack, twice, and was defeated, twice, in a number of battles, including the one at Marathon.

If anything, not enough violence was applied against plutocrats, early enough. Especially against the enemies of the Athenian and Roman empires. This is something peaceniks understand not at all, making them dedicated enemies of what they pretend to defend.

Twelve (12) centuries later, the Muslim invaders, having suffered grievous defeats from the Roman fleet and its Grecian fire, decided to use their military superiority on land: take Constantinople from behind, by invading Europe from West to East. The Islamists invaded Spain, and then attacked Francia (thrice). The Franks replied by boosting the size of their already considerable MIC. Propelled by a nationalization of the church, the Franks established the greatest army since the heydays of the Roman Republic, and mobilized all of Francia.

Ever since, France has been at war with Literal Islam. It was, it is, hard work: just in the second week of April 2016, three French soldiers died in combat in the middle of the Sahara. Frankish armies delivered Rome in 846 CE. The Islamists landed by surprise several armies in several places, and converged on Rome. The outskirts of the imperial capital were sacked, including the Vatican, but the formidable, 16 metres tall, 19 kilometer long Aurelian Wall held the invaders out of the city’s most sacred core. The Aurelian Wall is a beautiful example of MIC: it was used as a military asset, and involved in combat, for 17 centuries. The Aurelian Wall gave enough time for the Frankish Dux, Guy, grandson of Charlemagne, to arrive, and throw the Islamists out of the Latium.

When Genghis Khan and his Mongols invaded Northern China, some of his generals suggested to kill all the Chinese, and also kill the Chinese ecology (by destroying forests, etc.), and make Northern China like Mongolia. Genghis Khan refused to do so. However, notice that China came very close to extermination. Exterminated civilizations have existed before: Genghis Khan exterminated two, including the largest Buddhist empire, ever. The Hittites, and others, were exterminated during the invasion of the “People of the Sea”.

So civilization needs MICs. No MIC, no civilization.

However, a mighty MIC implies a deep militarization of society. The fundamental principle of militarization is the Fascist Principle: obey your superior as if s/he were god.

The fascist principle has long been an instinct with primates. Or at least those who invaded the savannah: baboons are intrinsically military, they move in armies, and the alpha males, the baboons are zoological equivalents to Roman generals. Complete with the right of death inflicted, whenever contradicted severely.

The fascist principle allows a social animal to behave as if it were a super-organism, with just one coordinated mind.

That principle is explicitly stated in the Qur’an. It was also the fundamental principle of organization of the Roman army, and, later, under the empire, of all of Roman society: the superior Roman officer had right of life and death on its subordinates, and would inflict it to encourage the others.

O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and Obey Those Of You Who Are In Power.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Sura 4; verse 59).

The principal drawback of a fascist society is that intellectual progress comes only from contradicting what was known before, hence, from contradicting one’s superiors. Thus, a society organized around the fascist principle will stagnate intellectually. And, in particular scientifically and, thus, technologically. Hence, being ruled by a MIC brings lethal stupidity (and a very inegalitarian society).

Thus the Barbarians will catch up in technological military prowess. This is exactly what happened to the Romans: under the Republic, buying the best military metallurgy from the (highly divided) Gauls, the Romans dominated in the quality of their weapons (Hannibal defeated the Romans many times, but, arguably, his best troops were Gallic). Under the empire, the savages, such as the Franks, had better weapons than the standard Roman army (so they were co-opted into it!)

However, by the time of Marcus Aurelius, that wind bag, a certified intellectual fascist with a sugar-coating still mesmerizing the naive, the barbarians caught up with Roman military technology… In no small measure because Roman emperors, those professional fascists, paid inventors not to invent.

Nowadays we can observe similar phenomena: US corruption has brought the reign of the F35, an obsolete, but extremely expensive weapon. Meanwhile, the Barbarians, including Kim of Korea, are catching up technologically, at a torrid space.

Civilization has to keep a balance between MIC and innovation in all ways, lest imagination collapses, bringing a weaker MIC.

Reciprocally, though, a MIC is a friend of fascist rule, and thus of oligarchy. But oligarchy is sustainable only in a satanic form, known as the rule of Satan (an older name of which being Pluto). So uncontrolled MICs bring plutocracy: Rome was the paradigm there.

We are in the process of creating another such example, because we did not heed general-president Eisenhower’s warning, that the Military Industrial Complex:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.”

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Eisenhower stays modern to this day. He saw the rise of plutocratic universities coming, with their fake thinkers, all dedicated to the power of money:

Eisenhower: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

A few days before democrats are going to surrender democracy to the power of money, once again, let me remind them, that this can happen only so many times.

Democracy needs to be defended, but, first, some will say that it needs to be worthy of a defense. Right.

However, democracy needs a strong enough Military Industrial Complex. The Athenians and other Greek democrats were initially successful at defeating Antipater. But then Krateros, hyper dangerous with his hardened troops arrived from the Orient, and the Athenian fleet, of 170 triremes, the largest since the wars against Persia, was defeated. Twice.

As I explained in “Aristotle Destroyed Democracy” the friendliness of Aristotle to Alexander, Antipater and Krateros, and thus, to the idea of monarchy, goes a long way to explain that the Greek MIC came short of the Macedonian MIC. The philosopher Demosthenes was not heard enough, in his strident, fully justified, prescient warnings against the savage, tyrannical Macedonians.

So here we are: pretty much 23 centuries of trampling of direct democracy, the one and only, by the forces of oligarchy, and, or, when oligarchy is not enough to rule, plutocracy. Ever since official plutocracy was installed in Athens by Antipater.

All this because the direct democratic military industrial complex came short to the one of the Macedonians. So let’s not despise the MIC. It can save the best. But now, we don’t have to worry about foreign enemies first: the plutocrats are already in power.

Patrice Ayme’

QUANTUM LIFE FORCE

April 15, 2016

Biological systems use Quantum Mechanics continually, at the smallest scale. That’s what I think, but I think this, because it’s obvious: molecular biology is all about transporting protons and electrons. Those “elementary particles” are not little balls. They are fully Quantum objects, here, there and everywhere. Quantum Physics describe their behavior. I used to find the Quantum weird, because I was taught that it was weird. But no more: it’s Classical Mechanics which I find weird.

For example, Classical Mechanics has edges: objects terminate with a border. But what is the border made of? Quantum Physics says there are no borders, just fuzzy zones of waning influences.

Quantum Entanglement & Coherence Does Not Just Hold DNA Together. It Enables DNA To Communicate With Its Environment, Both Ways.

Quantum Entanglement & Coherence Does Not Just Hold DNA Together. It Enables DNA To Communicate With Its Environment, Both Ways.

This is from a biological paper from Rutgers in 2014, “Improvement of DNA and RNA sugar pucker profiles from semiempirical quantum methods”

That the Quantum is fundamental for biology is proven for chlorophyll. Basically Quantum Non-Locality inside the chlorophyll molecule enables to find the lowest energy outcome for electrons excited by light in a way which is (classically) magical.

From Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474272a.html:

“On the face of it, quantum effects and living organisms seem to occupy utterly different realms. The former are usually observed only on the nanometre scale, surrounded by hard vacuum, ultra-low temperatures and a tightly controlled laboratory environment. The latter inhabit a macroscopic world that is warm, messy and anything but controlled. A quantum phenomenon such as ‘coherence’, in which the wave patterns of every part of a system stay in step, wouldn’t last a microsecond in the tumultuous realm of the cell.

Or so everyone thought. But discoveries in recent years suggest that nature knows a few tricks that physicists don’t: coherent quantum processes may well be ubiquitous in the natural world. Known or suspected examples range from the ability of birds to navigate using Earth’s magnetic field to the inner workings of photosynthesis — the process by which plants and bacteria turn sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into organic matter, and arguably the most important biochemical reaction on Earth.

Biology has a knack for using what works, says Seth Lloyd, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. And if that means “quantum hanky-panky”, he says, “then quantum hanky-panky it is”. Some researchers have even begun to talk of an emerging discipline called quantum biology… laboratory physicists interested in practical technology are paying close attention. “We hope to be able to learn from the quantum proficiency of these biological systems,” says Lloyd. A better understanding of how quantum effects are maintained in living organisms could help researchers to achieve the elusive goal of quantum computation, he says. “Or perhaps we can make better energy-storage devices or better organic solar cells.”

Massimo Pigliucci, a biology PhD paid as a chaired philosopher, and esteemed enough as a philosopher of science to be invited as a speaker to exclusive conferences for top physicists desperately looking for ideas, somewhere, somehow, anywhere, sort of concurred with me:

Massimo: “There clearly is a logic to evolution, albeit not a Newtonian one.”

Indeed. As I said so many times before. And we can see this ever more precisely. Newton anticipated several things, but not the Quantum. The Quantum is at the core of physics (= nature), and thus biology. It is just a matter of time, probably only a few years, before the formal scientific proofs are rolled out that Quantum processes guide evolution itself (several teams are at work).

Not to say that “natural selection” does not play an important role. But the Quantum provides with much more intelligent design. Intelligent design is what the Quantum does, teleologically, even across light years (Einstein Podolski Rosen Thought Experiment, now a real experiment across more than ten kilometers).

The Quantum can influence, at a distance and globally. The Quantum sounds very much like one of these gods of lore our primitive ancestors believed in.

At the core of DNA are hydrogen bonds which are sensitive to the environment of said DNA. My guess (philosophical moment) is that the Quantum will provide that life force, or complexity driving principle, that Lamarck hoped for, and Darwin was taught when he was a student at Edinburgh around 1821 CE.

Synred objected: “Intelligent design is what the Quantum does, teleologically, even across light years (EPR)?”Frankly, that sounds silly to me. Time will tell.

I lay my traps, and mammoths fall into them. Nothing changed much that way, in 50,000 years. I replied this to Synred:

Changing the chemical environment around the double helix affects the hydrogen “bonds”. The word “bond” is misleading: a hydrogen “bond” is actually delocalized and interacts with what is outside of the DNA (this, interacting outside, beyond classical limits, is what the Quantum does). The (Quantum) tunnel effect had already been demonstrated with some enzymes.

It may sound silly to you, as it did to Einstein, 80 years ago, but it has been demonstrated, ad nauseam. Surely if a Quantum influence can cross light years, it can cross a fraction of a nanometer.

The whole mystery of Quantum Physics, the core of the debate, ever since the 1920s, has been teleology. The Quantum acts teleologically.

Teleologia is a word coined by the German philosopher Christian von Wolff in 1740. Greek teleos “entire, perfect, complete,” genitive of telos “end, goal, result, at a distance” (see tele-), + -logia (logic).

The Public Relation failure of philosophy is partly due to the fact that too few philosophers know real recent science (Goethe and Helmholtz used to, and contributed to the advancement of science).

Thus all too many  Twentieth Century philosophers created their own jargon, not anchored in the study of reality (also known as science). Instead of using scientific semantics, and the notions attached to it. The divorce between philosophy and science is only apparent. Top scientists such as  Poincaré and Gödel were also top philosophers, but most philosophers are blissfully unawares of this.

Once in Princeton University, a (then famous) philosopher came, and gave a talk. His main theme was that logic did not progress since the Greeks. Gödel was in the front row. The speaker was unaware of the Gödel incompleteness theorems.

No wonder Gödel became crazy (he starved himself, being at least in part heartbroken from the death of his wife; but the lack of appreciation of the sort exposed above played a role).

So here we are, getting full circle on the theory of evolution. Around 1800 CE, Lamarck demonstrated, with the careful study of mollusks, that biology (a word he coined) evolved. On top of the well-known artificial and natural selections, Lamarck posited two potential forces: a sort of Elan Vital (which Bergson revitalized later), and, or, a force towards greater complexity.

The young Lyell and Darwin were taught Lamarck’s evolution in Scotland, as English universities were in the grip of the Christian Church. Which, naturally enough, hated Lamarck and his evolving life, millions of years old.

That there is a force towards greater complexity is common sense: four billion years ago, life was immensely simple. Now some of the simplest animals around, such as aplysia, the swimming sea mollusk, famed for its memory and 600 neurons, is immensely complex, much more so than any art ever crafted by human beings.

Quantum Physics operate at a distance, it operates by finding (sometimes), at a distance, the lowest energy solution. It computes, mimicking what looks like the most primitive form intelligence could take.

Being teleological, the Quantum is fully capable, given enough time, of helping chance & necessity evolve a little bit of intelligent design. (Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod wrote, in his famous book, that evolution came from chance and necessity. But, central to necessity is the Quantum.)

And of course evolution was bound to stumble on it, and embrace it, all the more as it is the mother nature who gave birth to her.

Patrice Ayme’  


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 418 other followers